Posted on 10/29/2011 1:02:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Show me where in the constitution the natural born is defined as having two US citizens? I am 100% behind everything in the constitution, but not its interpretations by some others.
This issue has been repeatedly discussed here. And recently someone even found a book owned by John Adams in the Boston Public Library in which that traditional view of natural born citizen is given. Vatel is the best known, but numerous others repeated what he said.
The Supreme Court hasn’t specifically defined it because it was always understood—until now, when it’s convenient for the Democrats to change the rules.
As for Obama as a precedent, you don’t reward felons by making what they do legal.
That is a frightening concept that plays into the hands of our enemies.
Unless you can prove your theory in court, it is irrelevant. Many lower court decisions are overturned, and only the decision of the highest court counts.
I would be thrilled if you can prove in a court of law that Obama is not qualified. But I won’t hold my breath.
Unless you can prove your theory in court, it is irrelevant. Many lower court decisions are overturned, and only the decision of the highest court counts.
I would be thrilled if you can prove in a court of law that Obama is not qualified. But I won’t hold my breath.
You are pivoting my point of view. I never said I am happy Obama is in the WH. I personally believe he is ineligible.
But I am also a realist first. The very fact that he is allowed to serve has now defined what a natural born citizen is. Precedents do matter.
In any case getting back to Rubio, if he is popular with the voters and wins, I am not going to crawl into a corner and bump my head on the wall thinking he is ineligible. He is a good conservative, extremely photogenic, above average public speaker. I am just happy he is on our side.
There are three options that I can think of:
1. You’re a retread, in which case there’s no point in trying to school you.
2. You’re a noob to the topic, which I don’t think is true, but if it was, you can search on FR and learn.
3. You have an agenda known only to yourself and those affiliated with you, which will be made clear in short order.
Thats the problem I have with outfits like WND. They try to make a case on politics, rather than on Constitutionality.
There are a lot of people trying to use native born vs natural born, but the problem with that is they do not appear in the same realms. Natural born is in the Constitution, and the phrase native born appears no where in it. Native born is a classification category, where natural born is not.
And the courts have passed on making an ultimate definition for the term natural born each time an issue relating to citizenship has come up. So there are no rulings that support the citizenship of parents as a requirement.
Please cite the references in the Federalist Papers and the four SCOTUS opinions.
Also remember that the original intent of the bc issue was to show that he was not born in Hawaii. His father’s status was not hidden at that time.
I will give you chops for your defense of a federal court reluctance to rule on “political questions.” It is crucial that separation of powers be maintained.
But I believe that SCOTUS has a legal right to and did in fact define natural born citizen in the Minor v. Happersett case. So far federal courts seem to have ruled that the eligibility of a candidate and even an elected candidate can be challenged by a secretary of state at their option or by another candidate (subject to limitations) before he/she is sworn in, but not after.
You do not touch on one way in which Obama could be vulnerable in federal court and that is if Obama gets indicted for criminal fraud for falsifying identity documents prior to being sworn in...documents on which the “political question” of his eligibility was decided.
Donofrio has raised the possibility that agents of Obama conspired criminally to remove citations to Minor v. Happersett intending to materially obstruct vetting by citizens, candidates and secretaries of state.
Here is a hypothetical. Arpaio’s posse investigation concludes that there is sufficient evidence to indict Obama for forging his LFBC .pdf image. This triggers discovery of Obama’s 1961 HI BC which is found to have been forged and that Obama knew fully well that he was born in Kenya.
Given that set of facts it has been argued that because of the fraud, Obama was never actually POTUS and thus not eligible to be impeached under separation of powers. There is precedent in one state of a governor being removed, not impeached, due to never having been eligible to be governor. Bottom line is that the federal courts might not be violating separation of powers if they ruled to uphold simple removal of Obama without impeachment and only they could ultimately approve their authority to do this, if it came to that.
That is not what the courts said. They said that there is no doubt that born here with citizen parents is definitely natural born, and there have been questions on whether you can be natural born with non citizen parents, but the courts decided that issue was not relevant to the cases, so they did not decide either way. So the actual results of the USSC cases are that they did not completely define the term because it was not relevant to the cases. The issue remains without USSC closure.
Obama isnt any worse than someone like Pelosi or Schumer would have been. So should we just not let anyone born in the northeast run for President either?
The problem is that in Minor and the other cases, they did not define it as much as they said, we know 1/2 is, and we are not sure if the other 1/2 is, but it is not relevant to the case so we are not going to define what the 2nd half is.
The Minor v. Happersett case is a Supreme Court case which has never been overturned.
Donofrio has gathered evidence that US citizens and courts were sucker-punched by Obama operatives who hid the case on Justia.com and dispatched operatives far and wide on the internet to beat citizens over the head with bogus Wong Kim Ark and 14th amendment-based claims that Obama was both a natural born citizen and that no one should be suspicious if Obama obstructed discovery of his actual 1961 LFBC.
Joe Arpaio has intimated that "his guy" on the posse has found a "shock" in their investigation of Obama's eligibility claims. I am hoping that whatever is is will hold up in federal criminal court.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Could Himself be prosecuted for falsification? I suppose so and don't see why not, except I remember the buzz that Bent Willie could only be impeached, convicted, removed and THEN be prosecuted for his crimes. His crimes were admittedly not associated with getting into office in the first place, but no matter the crime, impeachment is the way to go. Screw him to a felonious wall afterward.
As for Scotus, as I explained, their definition of NBC is irrelevant. The Senate decided McCain was NBC and neither Scotus nor anyone else could change that.
Hussein is not POTUS? That argument is reminiscent of ancient Catholic problems with Donatism. Hussein is President even though Judge Roberts had to swear the twit in twice and only resignation, untimely death, impeachment or unelection next year will remove him.
I fear more letting a court determine who our candidates can/cannot be, and the awful precedent that would set.
Citation?
4 SCOTUS cases have already defined Natural Born as born in the US of two US citizen parents.
Again, citations?
Yes, it was. I can make bald assertions, too.
This stuff has been “citationed” to death. Your own fault if you haven’t been keeping up.
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.