Posted on 06/01/2011 7:21:28 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Christopher Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections, et al. - Combined Response w Exhibits to Barack Obama / John McCain Motion to Dismiss - Supreme Court of the State of New York Kings County
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Talk is all you got. In the meantime, Obama is the President and will continue to be until at least 2013.
See my post #20. The courts have never ruled on what our Founders intended by “natural born citizen” as it applies to eligibilty for the Presidency under the Constitution. Last time I checked, McCain was on the 2008 ballot along with Obama, who has now been President for almost 30 months.
Natural Born Citizen Crisis - Presidential Usurpation
http://vimeo.com/pixelpatriot/naturalborncitizen-constitutionalcrisis
See my post #20. The courts have never ruled on what our Founders intended by “natural born citizen” as it applies to eligibilty for the Presidency under the Constitution. Last time I checked, McCain was on the 2008 ballot along with Obama, who has now been President for almost 30 months.
Never say never...
Executive Summary Re: NBC Defined in Constitution Plus 4 SCOTUS Cases
Wow! The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it because it isn’t their Constitutional role to do so.
One - the Supreme Court has no say in any of this. All cases, such as Strunks, will go nowhere.
Only Congress can address the issue concerning the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’. Only Congress can remove a President, and not the Supreme Court.
Hell! Congress can’t even pass a budget to run the nation, much less come up with a definition concerning one of the eligibility requirements for President.
By the way, that statute you quote, “Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”
That statute above was rescinded in 1797. It was at odds with the Constitution.
The Founders knew what natural born Citizen meant. I’m quite certain they never intended the spawn of illegal aliens to end up as President of the United State, which is what you’re advocating.
I always said McCain was a colon birth.
not to mention Dukakis.
the only clear issue is “born inside the USA” makes one a natural citizen.
The tinfoil hat part II has never been discussed in the courts as to elected office.
I don't know how many times I have said it, but this issue will not be resolved until it is decided in the courts. Until then, all we are doing is trying to figure out how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
LOL. If everything is so clear, cut, and dried. Then why was McCain put on the ballot and Obama in the WH? Where is Congress or the candidates who have standing to challenge it in the courts? We the People get the government we deserve.
The Founders knew what natural born Citizen meant. I’m quite certain they never intended the spawn of illegal aliens to end up as President of the United State, which is what you’re advocating.<
I am against birthright citizenship, which is currently the law of the land. Some in Congress are trying to change the law. I support Steve King and others who are trying eliminate birthright citizenship. I actually lobby on the Hill to that end as part of a grassroots immigration group.
passing a constitutional amendment does not require SCOTUS input.
\
As for born overseas to two USC parents being natural born it appears you are wrong. in 1790 congrees passed a law stating such then revoked it as it was not an amendment. That gives more ammunition to the fact that born overseas to two usc parents is not natural born. if so why pass a law? Kinda like the resolution.
McCain is a natural born citizen as those children born to service men overseas are ‘deemed’ to be born in Country - according to Vattel.
Now that Vattel has been elevated by many to some pre-founding Founding Father - are you going to absolutely dismiss his argument?
Whose definition are you going by then?
Your own?
What of it? His parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born. He's eligible.
Of course, so is/was Zero, both because he was born in Honolulu and because his mother was American. And so are his neighbors Billy and Bernardine. All it takes is a sheeple stupid enough to elect them. Strunk is a joke. We can't depend on the Constitution to protect us from a stupid sheeple.
Just the opposite.
Many of the Founding Fathers served in the Congress that passed the 1790 law. Thus, it's language is a far better read of their thinking on the issue than idle speculation about the definitions spun up by a non-American political philosopher.
Like Obama, Eerily like Obama, even if the ‘narrative’ story is true and McCain was born ‘inside the zone’ it did not matter at the time. That did not given him right of citizenship. It did make him a US national and entitled to the protection of the US. His parents lineage allowed him to be a NATURALIZED citizen via the 1795 Naturalization act.
The Supreme Court made it clear in in early 1900s ruling that in the case of the Canal Zone - “the Constitution did not follow the flag”.
See Section on “Citizenship” here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone
Via the 1795 act McCain DID acquire citizenship. And he did so at the moment of birth. But he was still not a ‘natural born Citizen’. See here:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html
“the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”
Thus EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE McCain is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN! Since he is CLEARLY a naturalized citizen he is OBVIOUSLY NOT a natural born Citizen.
We argue a lot here in the forums. But everyone seems to understand that being ‘naturalized’ and being ‘natural born’ are mutually exclusive. Birther, faither, obots, etc. Anyone who truly follows this knows this to be the case. McCain was not a nbC - even if he was born in the Zone. Period. Documented. Easy to show (look above).
Some will argue that later laws changed McCain’s situation? But how is that? How can man made law ‘change a natural law’? No, McCain was a naturalized citizen. From the moment of birth he was red, white and blue. But just not ‘natural’ red, white and blue.
So is McCain the first domino to fall in this god awful mess?
Further there were multiple ballot challenges to McCain prior to the 2008 election including New Hampshire and California. Guess what, all the cases were dismissed due to LACK OF STANDING!
You're exactly right.
Setting up the defense for 0b0z0 to protect him from the impending avalanche of lawsuits...LACK OF STANDING!
Hey, Brilliant One, where are the education records? Your over 10.0 GPAs should be shoved down our throats to eternity. Can't your Communists fake some quickies? No, 0h0m0, not those kinds of gym quickies.
no its an admission they wanted to change the law to cover something that was not originally included.
he was born in Honolulu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really? Have you seen certifiable and certified evidence?
The 1790 act is is interesting.
It gives us insight into what was considered important to the founders. Clear insight. And that is this:
“Blood is thicker than dirt”.
But they also seemed to recognize they had altered the Constitution in an invalid way and thus dropped the provision in 1795.
This tells us there was more than just being born of two parents to be a ‘natural born Citizen’ but that the parentage and blood line was the critical factor. So what was it beyond the bloodline? It seems there can only be one answer - jus soli.
So by including this clause - and then removing it 5 years later - Congress gave is the exact definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ and indicated what it considered the most important element of the two.
Obama fails to have what they considered most critical and McCain lacked the other element that is still Constitutionally required.
“That’s the first I’ve read that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. Is this true?”
Yes. It is true.
I was born in Gorgas Hospital, Ancon, Canal Zone, and I still live here in Panama. I have dug crap up about Colon Juan for several years and can state the liar is a fraud.
First and foremost, he is a Panamanian citizen having been born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Rep of Panama. This is stated on his certificate of Live birth (or whatever) issued by the Canal Zone. It states very clearly he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Rep of Panama. He probably didn’t think anybody would notice...which is true. But he didn’t fool me or some of us.
Having been born in Panama, his parents never registered his birth in Panama’s National Public Registry. I discovered this after spending a couple of hours at the Public Registry. The staff and I looked a year before his birth, the year he was born, and the year after.
Since he was now a Panamanian citizen by birth, whether his Panamanian birth was registered or not, he took out his parents’ citizenship as a second nationality since they were Americans and could by US law. This means, his second citizenship is U.S. He is considered dual.
And yes, he could run for president of Panama, but he would be laughed out of the county.
P.S.
All of us Americans born in the Canal Zone are not eligible to run for president….Good. Who wants to.
I can’t state the law, but that is fact. Had Colon Juan been born in the Canal Zone, he still could not have run for president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.