Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,300 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: DiogenesLamp; Cold Case Posse Supporter

Cruz could be challenged in court. I have already offered a $500 to FreeRepublic bet that they will decide he meets the criteria for NBC, since he was born a citizen. Anyone want to take my bet?


1,201 posted on 03/11/2013 6:30:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Contrary to what some seem to see or would “like” to see in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), the SCOTUS did not make a ruling or confer a binding precedent as to who was a Natural Born Citizen under the Constitution nor on the eligibility for POTUS as this was not the question before the Court in this case.

Rather they were ruling on the claim made by Virginia Minor, a woman who claimed that as a U.S. citizen, she was denied her Constitutional right to vote by the State of Missouri as they had prevented her from exercising what she believed to be her Constitutional Right of citizenship by denying her to register to vote and the question before the Court was whether the Court would uphold as Constitutional, the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordained: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”

So the very first thing the court did was look at the question of whether or not Virginia Minor was a U.S. citizen as defined by the Constitution and then secondly and most importantly whether, if she was, if this citizenship conferred “Suffrage” in the State of Missouri, the second point being the most important and what constituted the binding part of the ruling – the binding part being the Holdings, or ratio decidendi (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts. This binding is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis which provides hierarchical (vertical) and temporal (horizontal) continuity throughout the judicial system.

In considering that question the SCOTUS had to look at the facts at hand and whether Virginia Minor was a citizen and the SCOTUS found that Virginia Minor was indeed a U.S. citizen. The SCOTUS found that this fact was beyond question as she was as not only was she born in the U.S., she was also born of two U.S. citizen parents so her citizenship was beyond question. Whether or not she was a “Natural Born Citizen” or not was beyond the scope of the question at hand although the Court discussed it as a matter of background and as such it was an obiter dictum – “Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument".

It was an “obiter dictum” as the question as to whether she was a “Natural Born Citizen”, a citizen by statute or a naturalized citizen made no difference one way or another in the ruling as it was really not a question of whether or not she was a citizen as that was established, but whether only male citizens ( and there was no question before the Court that Virginia Minor was a woman) could vote under the constitution of Missouri. It was also not a question before the Court as to whether males in the State of Missouri were limited as to their right to vote based on whether they were born here of U.S. citizen parents, or here of non-citizens parents or naturalized or made citizens by statute as all citizen males could vote in the State of Missouri.

What the SCOTUS said:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

So the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett admitted there were doubts about whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were natural-born citizens but went on to say that there were never any doubts as to the children born here of citizen parents such as was the case with Virginia Minor. The SCOTUS was merely reaffirming that Virginia Minor’s citizenship, even that as a female, was beyond doubt.

The rest and the pertinent part of the ruling addressed whether individual states could limit who among citizens could vote.

In fact the SCOTUS even went on to say:

“Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.

In other words the Court said that some states allow even non-citizens (presumably male and in some states, with other restrictions that effectively prevented male black citizens from voting) to vote under some circumstances while not allowing U.S. born female citizens to vote and the Court found no fault in this. So at the end of the day, even Virginia Minor’s citizenship was not really the question at hand, but rather, could individual states determine who was eligible to vote or not. Again the court was not addressing who was eligible to be elected POTUS based on their citizenship or of their parent’s citizenship, whether they were born on U.S. soil or on foreign soil but U.S. citizen parents nor did it make a binding ruling on who was a “natural born citizen”. Quite ironically one could take away from Minor v. Happersett by inference, that while she was ultimately ruled not eligible to vote, she was eligible for the office of POTUS.

“Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If [88 U.S. 162, 178] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.”

Finally the SCOTUS said:

“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”

Of course the SCOTUS ruling in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) was made completely moot by the 19th Amendment that granted women suffrage in all U.S. States. So while perhaps technically true that no future court ruling never overturned Minor v. Happersett, no future court ruling had to as it was completely vacated by the 19th Amendment.

1,202 posted on 03/11/2013 6:30:33 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Cruz could be challenged in court. I have already offered a $500 to FreeRepublic bet that they will decide he meets the criteria for NBC, since he was born a citizen. Anyone want to take my bet?

I will bet that the Supreme Court will never offer an opinion as to whether Cruz meets the criteria for NBC. If forced to say anything at all, they will say that they have no constitutional role in either selecting or removing presidents.

1,203 posted on 03/11/2013 6:35:28 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1201 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
How can you sensibly demand a trial without preparing any evidence to support your cause?

I'm not very trusting, perhaps you are. Either way, many things in life require proof up front, but you say not the president's citizenship? Popularity is proof enough for the president's eligibility is what you seem to be saying.

Yet the world we live in demands more.

I know and can verify the chain of ownership with a notarized document to where the septic tank is buried going back to the beginning and you can't even verify obama's claims to American citizenship beyond whatever is mother could convey to him.

Not only that, obama himself claimed to be Kenyan, so who should we believe?

Remember, this is the guy who commands the military and sends us and our children to fight and die, speaks for us all around the world and signs the treaties and the laws that govern us.

Whether you like or trust him or not, wouldn't it be nice if everyone could see his paperwork?

What's he hiding?

You can't tell me or anyone else with legal certainty who he is or what his actual nationality might really be.

And...you...are okay with that?

1,204 posted on 03/11/2013 6:42:36 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1190 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Has any Tea Party endorsed member of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives ever called for a congressional hearing on the natural born citizen requirement since the Republicans took control in January of 2011?
Yeah, I know, they’re all “globalist excrement.” Anybody who disagrees with you is “globalist excrement.”
Oh well.


1,205 posted on 03/11/2013 6:52:15 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I have no personal knowledge as to where any of our presidents were born. I know only what I read. I assume that each of our presidents told others where they were born and I know that many had no documents at all.

The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.

Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?

Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.

1,206 posted on 03/11/2013 6:56:33 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I have no personal knowledge as to where any of our presidents were born. I know only what I read. I assume that each of our presidents told others where they were born and I know that many had no documents at all.

The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.

Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?

Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.

1,207 posted on 03/11/2013 6:56:33 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I have no personal knowledge as to where any of our presidents were born. I know only what I read. I assume that each of our presidents told others where they were born and I know that many had no documents at all.

The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.

Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?

Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.

1,208 posted on 03/11/2013 6:56:33 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

If Cruz was challenged in court, it might go the the Supreme Court. More likely, it wouldn’t get that far. However, it would be reasonable to ask a court if someone with a US mother, born overseas, could run.


1,209 posted on 03/11/2013 7:05:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Weak. I don't care about any of them other than the one with power over me. You, on the other hand, are completely trusting. Interesting. Are you that way with everything in your life?

Can I sell you some land or a car or a truck. It's mine, I promise, so I can sell it to you. I'll give you a really good deal. You'll love the price. It'll be a steal.

And you're good with that?

You seem cogent enough. I can't help but marvel at you and what we've become. Incredible.

No wonder we were so easy to infiltrate and take down.

1,210 posted on 03/11/2013 7:08:29 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1208 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
However, it would be reasonable to ask a court if someone with a US mother, born overseas, could run.

It might be reasonable to ask, but my bet is that a court will tell you that it does not issue advisory opinions and that it has no role to play in the selection of a president.

Similarly, if the House of Representatives were to impeach Obama and cite as a high crime and misdemeanor his "continuing fraud about his qualifications to be president," and if the Senate then voted for conviction and removal, the Supreme Court would not assist Obama by weighing the evidence for and against him. The Supreme Court has no role in the impeachment process (other than that the Chief Justice preside over the Senate during the trial).

The Supreme Court does not get to decide everything in this country.

1,211 posted on 03/11/2013 7:17:47 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

How could the Arizona Letter of Verification have probative value when it has never been introduced as evidence in a court of law? Both the Arizona and Kansas Letters from Dr. Onaka were in response to requests for information from Kansas’ and Arizona’s Chief Elections Officials.
Only the Mississippi Letter of Verification has been introduced as an exhibit in a response to a plaintiffs’ motion for a Trier of Fact, US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate; with its probative value or lack thereof yet to be ruled on.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
And the certification statement over the Registrar’s signature says: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”


1,212 posted on 03/11/2013 7:31:07 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1171 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I was somewhat of an agnostic on this birther thing because I just assumed that there must be some evidence to prove he was born outside of the Untied States. It really never occurred to me that there was nothing, zilch, other than doubts and questions about the authenticity of documents supporting an Hawaiian birth.

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii. He has his documents and newspaper articles. People (including judges) will be inclined to assume that Obama is correct. It's just not a bizarre claim for someone to claim he was born in Hawaii. If you really want to prove he was born somewhere else, you really need some significant evidence to support the claim. It's not enough to criticize the way Hawaii keeps records or to state that the newspaper articles might have been written even if he had been born in Kenya. You might just as well spend the first day questioning that the judge is really the judge.

This whole birther thing seems to be a train wreck. You better hope no judge grants a trial.

1,213 posted on 03/11/2013 7:33:46 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

You obviously don’t pay any attention to what goes on in congress.

Real honest consevative congressmen have been doing all they can, and it has been a constant battle.

The globalist excrement are in control, and to them evil trumps party every time. They haver to go with the one they love: Satan. (your daddy!)


1,214 posted on 03/11/2013 7:55:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; GBA

Obama’s “documents” and newspaper articles are all recent frauds, but then you knew that and love them all the more.

There is zero evidence of any Hawaiian birth. He never even saw Hawaii until immigrating from Indonesia.


1,215 posted on 03/11/2013 8:00:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Most people that you reference don’t even know that TPM Muckraker left out half of Bennett’s request. They haven’t looked at the law nor the complete request. One of the Republican Presidential primary candidates said nobody will look into it because it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, they know there is treachery that goes far deeper than just Obama’s eligibility - and Obama’s eligibility problem is just the tip of a deadly iceberg.

It wasn’t until Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett that we had an official document from Hawaii which contradicted what the HDOH Directors had previously said - which is why the legal presumption was that the HDOH Directors were acting in good faith. But as I’ve said repeatedly - and to this day nobody in opposition to me has mentioned, addressed, or even acknowledged this fact that I’ve proven - the HDOH deliberately falsified their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes individual names that are from non-valid BC’s. They inserted names that should not have been on that list. That is proof that the HDOH is deliberately deceiving the public, and falsifying official records to do so.

None of that was known before, and even now that the state SOS’s and AG’s have all been informed, the responses all claim that they don’t have to care about it one bit.

My analysis about Onaka’s verification - that he effectively confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid - has been affirmed (through words to me or by actions) by 6 hostile attorneys, including the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s lawyers, who were very careful NOT to ask for any birth facts to be verified or for the validity of the record itself to be confirmed, even though they said those were the 2 critical issues in the lawsuit in question.

The counsel for my own SOS first (immediately) noted that the copy of Klayman’s letter that he received was not specifically addressed to him. Then he wrongly claimed that Bennett had not asked for date of birth, gender, etc to be verified. Finally he settled on Nebraska not having to care what HI said to AZ, and said that since NE law doesn’t require the nominating papers to be LAWFUL (non-fraudulent and non-perjurious) Obama’s name would go on the ballot even if Bob Bauer was sitting in jail convicted of fraud for the fraudulent nominating affidavit.

IOW, the people you refer to are either ignorant or wilfully ignoring the substance of the issue because they say it is not their concern.

And that is pathetic.


1,216 posted on 03/11/2013 8:09:49 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
People (including judges) will be inclined to assume that Obama is correct. It's just not a bizarre claim for someone to claim he was born in Hawaii.

Okay, you've confused me. He originally claimed to be Kenyan and then claimed to born in Hawaii and it's all good with you? He's whatever he says he is?

Sure, of course a judge would agree to that. If s/he didn't think that was okie dokie I'd know there was something wrong.

I was naive once, but not that naive. Onward through the fog, dude.

1,217 posted on 03/11/2013 8:38:19 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

And that’s apparently good enough...any judge will tell you that, doncha know.


1,218 posted on 03/11/2013 8:39:27 PM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1215 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Both the Arizona and Kansas Letters from Dr. Onaka were in response to requests for information from Kansas’ and Arizona’s Chief Elections Officials.

The letter to Kansas wasn't actually used within the legal proceeding.

The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

Good point. Why does it say a "birth certificate" is on file and not a "certificate of live birth"?? Later in that same letter, it switches the terminology.

Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.

Also, why does item No. 1 say "indicating" that Obama was born in Hawaii?? That's not verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii; it's a verification that a birth certificate of no known legal value (not a certificate of live birth) claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's a nice play on words, but it's NOT a legal verification of a birth fact, plus the DOH refused to verify the additional facts requested by Bennnett in their own standard request form.

And, the bottom line is that NONE of this complies with the legal standard in the Federal Rules of Evidence (which is the same as most states' rules of evidence) in certifying that the alleged LFBC is a correct copy of the original record. Having information that "matches" doesn't make it legally correct. p

1,219 posted on 03/11/2013 8:58:04 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1212 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Honestly, I would enjoy “wading in,” but I have other projects, critical in nature (for me), and I cannot divert significant resources at this time. Once you tell people you’re a lawyer, they begin to expect serious, well-reasoned analyses, and if you really can’t give it the time it deserves, you can fall well short of that expectation.

Though I have to say, I have seen some real hilarity on this thread, people trying to sort out dicta from holding, misreading holdings when they do find them, ignoring very basic principles of statutory analysis, etc. It’s why one needs a license to practice law. If there were an actual client whose interests these folks were trying to defend, they couldn’t get away with the slop I am seeing here. It would be actionable malpractice.

If I was young, and needed no sleep, I would join the fray. But alas, not so. I think you and a few of the others are doing a fine job (and yes, my initial, casual, non-rigorous perusal of Bellei finds little significant difference with the Cruz facts). The key is respect, respect for others, and respect for the rigorous challenge of getting the law right.

Peace,

SR


1,220 posted on 03/11/2013 9:38:31 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1176 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Both of the Chief Election Officials (Secretaries of State) in Arizona and Kansas used the letters from the Hawaii Registrar to approve Obama for the ballot in those states. Since Governor Romney won the electors in those states, the issue is moot.
Any further civil action would result in a ruling of failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

We’ll have to continue to wait and see whether the Hawaii Letter of Verification complies with FRE or not when Judge Wingate rules in Mississippi.


1,221 posted on 03/11/2013 9:41:09 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1219 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"I figured out the other day the reason the GOP is promoting all these non-NBCs as presidential material is to (a) hide their complicity in the coup and (b)continue to shut everyone up about the coup."

"The official elite R leadership are traitors to the core."

So to the point little jeremiah that I repeated your statement. They absolutely know. Just read S. 2678 and SR 511, and the amendment bills from Conyers, Menendez, Hatch, and a California Republican whose name I forget. Read the Washington Post, what they haven't scrubbed, for many discussions around the ineligibility of McCain.

1,222 posted on 03/11/2013 9:41:38 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“It might be reasonable to ask, but my bet is that a court will tell you that it does not issue advisory opinions...”

If Cruz runs, his opponents may well file suit arguing he doesn’t meet the required criteria. That gets laughed at when the person was born inside the USA (Obama), but won’t be so easy when it involves someone born outside of the USA. Nor will it be a request for an advisory opinion, but a genuine lawsuit with some doubt about the outcome.

It would not involve a court deciding an election, but a court determining if a person born to a US citizen mother while in Canada is qualified. Alternatively, if the US Senate issued an opinion, it wouldn’t be binding, but it probably would suffice for a court to duck the issue.

Remember, both McCain and Obama HAVE faced genuine court cases. They did not turn out the way birthers wanted, but the lawsuits were justified and ruled on.


1,223 posted on 03/11/2013 9:42:04 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Both of the Chief Election Officials (Secretaries of State) in Arizona and Kansas used the letters from the Hawaii Registrar to approve Obama for the ballot in those states.

Not so. The SOS approved the ballot without reading the letter of verification, and the Kansas ballot already had Obama on it prior to the letter of verification.

Since Governor Romney won the electors in those states, the issue is moot.

There's nothing moot about having a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on any ballot.

We’ll have to continue to wait and see whether the Hawaii Letter of Verification complies with FRE or not when Judge Wingate rules in Mississippi.

What happened to your "moot" argument since Romney won Mississippi?? Whatever ruling finally gets made won't be made on the basis of the letter of verification, especially when there are so many procedural grounds available.

1,224 posted on 03/11/2013 9:47:44 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
"Was he a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?"

4Zoltan, I believe you didn't mean to exclude the 14 year residency requirement? As Dr. Ramsay explained, the 14 years were no accident. They helped to insure that a candidate, greater than or equal to 35 years of age, was resident and 21 years of age three years before the revolution, and thus was one of those who experienced, and very likely to have participated in the revolution.

The grandfather clause and natural born citizenship were to try to insure that a president was a descendant of those who fought for our freedoms.

1,225 posted on 03/11/2013 9:58:42 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1117 | View Replies]

To: edge919

What is moot is the remedy of removing a candidate’s name from a state ballot for being illegal in an election that the allegedly illegal candidate lost anyway.
The Mississippi lawsuit was morphed by Orly Taitz from a primary election ballot challenge into a federal civil RICO action.
You are correct, the federal judge in Mississippi has the Letter of Verification to take under advisement only as an exhibit to accompany a copy of the whitehouse.gov image of the Long Form in a reply to a Motion for Sanctions, nothing more.


1,226 posted on 03/11/2013 10:59:52 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1224 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
"No, they weren’t. And that’s my point. Slaves were retroactively made native citizens of the united states, and not naturalized citizens."

While I suspect, depending upon his time zone, that Mr. Lamp will correct you, and know him to be very well informed, I'll save him the trouble. The 14th Amendment avoids any inference relating to natural born citizens - by design. Its principal author, Congressman and Judge John Bingham, addressed the house, twice, to explain the amendment, the first amendment to address naturalization after Article 1 Section 8 authorized Congress to create an Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Here are Congressman Bingham’s words from Congressional Archives:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

Wong Kim Arc, reasoned upon the 14th Amendment, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Wong Kim, born in San Francisco, was made a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett. His foray into English common law was not relevant to Wong Kim's citizenship status (he visited China and was refused reentry by our State Department) pointless, except the extent to which it provided talking points in case President Chester Arthur's birth as a British Subject was ever discovered.

The term “native born citizen of the US”, one which Obama claimed as his own status on fightthesmears.com, was adopted by the authors of the 14th amendment to refer to residents born on our soil. The 14th made some residents born on our soil, excepting American Indians, whose allegiance was to their tribes, into “native-born CITIZENS of the US”, having nothing to do with natural born citizens of the US. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but hard to avoid. American Indians are “native-born”, but weren't at the time, made “native-born citizens.”

Obama was well “lawyer-ed” on the subject, having Larry Tribe, his Harvard Advisor, and Constitutional Law specialist on his campaign committee. (Larry may have had no choice, having been caught plagiarizing much of a book he published, and bailed out by Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law). It was Larry who wrote the sneaky SR 511 misdirection paper, now in the Senate Archives, claiming that McCain’ birth on land about which sovereignty questions remain, should be overlooked, because the framers would have wanted that interpretation. The Canal Zone was finally incorporated in 1937, the year after McCain was born. Larry may have written the statement in “fightthesmears”, Obama’s campaign website. Obama didn't lie. He didn't claim natural born citizenship. He told us he was born British. Hidden in plain sight was the tactic that depended not upon a low-information citizenry, but upon the careful and precise use of legal terms with which very few were familiar.

1,227 posted on 03/11/2013 11:18:29 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

All I’m saying is that in two plus years with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, not one single minute of congressional committee hearing time has been devoted to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
Also any one congressman or woman can get the impeachment ball rolling by submitting an impeachment resolution. Neither of those things has happened and that doesn’t fit my definition of “doing everything they can.”
An Impeachment Resolution against Obama has been submitted on the issue of Obama exercising war powers without Congresssional authorization by South Carolina Representative Walter Jones but no resolution on Obama not being a natural born citizen.


1,228 posted on 03/11/2013 11:34:23 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Again, once again - the status of those made American citizens under the 14th is of full citizenship. Not naturalization, which is something different. Their citizenship is tied to their place of birth with now American territory, or previously their lack of recognition as full persons. No distinction is drawn between those with parents born in America and between those with parents born outside of America. I can only conclude from this that the purpose of the 14th was not to naturalize all these people, but rather to establish their native citizenship within America.


1,229 posted on 03/11/2013 11:57:56 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1227 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
"So the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett admitted there were doubts about whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were natural-born citizens."

Mr. Expat, you have changed a few important words in your analysis of Minor v. Happersett; Words, with which you have obvious facility, matter. You contradicted the very citation you quoted:

From Chief Justice Waite: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” You claimed “...there were doubts about whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were natural-born citizens.”. Nice try.

I'm sure you knew better, which suggests that you may be a more refined apologist from the former office of misdirection run by Anita Dunn, at least one of whose employees was honest enough to admit to be assigned to sowing confusion at Free Republic. Or perhaps you simply made a mistake?

You also misconstrued the challenge before the Minor court. In the decision, Justice Waite explains, referring to the 14th Amendment: "Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision."

We were formed from semi-sovereign nation states, each of which had its own constitution, and each defined naturalization differently. Our framers considered it improvident to force states to accept "an uniform rule of naturalization" before the Constitution was even ratified, making it an explicit power of Congress to settle the issue later. The only citizen defined in the Constitution was a natural born citizen. Framers knew well that language changes over time and specified, as Justice Waite invoked in Minor v. Happersett: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, ..." Definitions have never been in the Constitution, but explicitly refer to the common law and language at the time of our framers.

To resolve Virginia Minor's challenge, it was essential to confirm her Constitutional citizenship as it existed before the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment never mentions suffrage. Thus Justice Waite said: "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." It sounds tautological, but was carefully constructed logical reasoning. Mrs. Minor was a Constitutionally defined "citizen", because she was a natural born citizen. To complete his construction he needed to confirm the common-law definition, repeated dozens of times as dictum -"it was never doubted" - to prove that Mrs. Minor was not given suffrage by the 14th. There were no dissenting opinions. (this analysis owes much to Leo Donofrio).

Minor v. Happersett thus established precedent, and was anathema to Obama's comrades. This is why acolytes of George Soros' Center for American Progress "mangled" at least twenty five Supreme Court cases, corrupting their citations to Minor v. Happersett to prevent searches from turning up Minor v. Happersett. The CEO of Justia.com, the nation's busiest free, on-line legal archive Tim Stanley, admitted the corruptions, but claimed it was "a programming error." If we needed any other evidence for the importance of Minor v. Happersett, this scrubbing of Supreme Court case law erased all doubt. Leo Donofrio with Diana Cotter of The Portland Examiner first exposed this crime - and it is a crime./p>

There is a Center for American Progress conference at a major law school where an eminent professor challenges Stanley, and his associate, the CIO for Center for American Progress Eric Malamud, by pointing out that all his graduates have been taught to question legal document sources, particularly the free, or in Stanley's case, publically subsidized legal sources like Justia. They are assigned cases to research on line and compare their citations, their accuracy. Malamud managed to get Cornell to scrub the key incriminating paragraph from a Cornell Law version of a Supreme Court decision. Malamud almost became director of the US Printing Office. They are all looking for money, which is fine, but honesty and defense of the Constitution have disappeared. They don't realize that their individual sovereignties will disappear with our bill of rights and Constitution.

1,230 posted on 03/12/2013 1:12:59 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1202 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; SatinDoll; Spaulding; rxsid; Red Steel; LucyT; null and void; BuckeyeTexan; ...

“President Andrew Jackson on this theory could have been impressed for military service in the English army against which he fought at New Orleans, if he had ever happened to visit England; and President Arthur would have been in the same plight.”

Hmmm....

This quote from Teddy Roosevelt show that at least TR had concluded that Pres. Arthur was a UK subject and dual citizen at birth. Was TR basing this on suspicion that Arthur was born in Canada, or knowledge that Arthur’s father did not naturalize as a US citizen until after Arthur was born?

Leo Donofrio made quite a bit deal over how he and his sister “discovered” the naturalization papers of Arthur’s dad.


1,231 posted on 03/12/2013 8:14:36 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies]

To: GBA
Okay, you've confused me. He originally claimed to be Kenyan and then claimed to born in Hawaii and it's all good with you? He's whatever he says he is?

Well, if you have evidence of Obama saying that he was born in Kenya, then you can introduce that statement as evidence that he was born in Kenya. Was Obama's statement taped? Is somebody prepared to testify to hearing him make that statement?

However, if you don't really have admissible evidence of Obama saying that he was born in Kenya, then you're continuing to engage in wishful thinking. I'm asking you to take a realistic view of your case. Imagine yourself standing before a judge, with everyone watching, and the judge asks you to put on your evidence that Obama was not born in the United States. What do you think will be the result if you tell the judge, "Well, judge, we don't really have any evidence that he was born outside the United States. Our case is really based upon our hope that you will disregard Obama's testimony and documents indicating he was born in the United States. We want you to give his testimony no weight, we want you to find that the State of Hawaii's records are utterly worthless and fraudulent, and we want you to give no weight to the fact that there were contemporary news articles in Hawaii announcing his birth. Judge, if you can just give zero weight to all of that so-called evidence, then you can find that Obama's evidence is no stronger than our zero evidence."

All I can say is, good luck. You don't really want a trial.

I think if a pitch is to be made, it should be made to the House of Representatives. If they won't help you, then start preparing for 2016.

If I felt certain about the truth of a proposition, but was unable to produce any affirmative evidence to support it and was unable to convince most other people of its truth, I would simply accept that I believe the proposition as a matter of faith. Then, the fact that others didn't join me in adopting that faith would be less painful.

1,232 posted on 03/12/2013 8:14:45 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Glad to see you on the thread!

Great reply, but a casual reader might fail to note that the first paragraph of your reply is a quote from the person you are replying to, but that you unintentionally omitted the quotation marks...


1,233 posted on 03/12/2013 8:23:10 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I will be very surprised if the Supreme Court ever attempts to insert itself in the presidential selection process to try to make a finding that a candidate is unqualified to be president.

I can see by reading the posts here that many people believe that the Supreme Court can do anything it wants anytime it wants, but judges are very conscious of their limitations. The judiciary has no army. it depends on the executive branch to enforce (give meaning to) its opinions. The judiciary has no independent source of funding. It relies entirely on the Congress and the President for funding. Without the continuing support of these other branches of government, the judiciary has no power at all. Without some basic level of continuing support from the public, the power evaporates.

1,234 posted on 03/12/2013 8:33:53 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1223 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Yep. When a U.S. citizen with dual nationality steps foot into the other country of their citizenship, that country then has a predominant claim to him/her. It’s potential for trouble, period.

7 FAM 081 SUMMARY

(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) a. Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships.

b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.

c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.

d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.

e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country’s laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).

7 FAM 082 DUAL NATIONALITY AND U.S. LAW — GENERALLY

(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).


1,235 posted on 03/12/2013 8:35:43 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1231 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
I am grateful to you over and over again for your posts on these threads.

The arguments and the arguers themselves, noobies and the usual suspects, all have a similar dishonesty and lack of integrity. Without fail, my spidey sense always starts tingling.

I kinda had a sense of what was happening, even with all the missing pieces, but it's obvious to me now. Dealing with people, I tend to question everything anyway and look to motive and for the information and trails that explain it all.

With the information in your posts, those missing pieces to the puzzle, along with the well written civics lessons (for which I am especially grateful), all those trails and motives come together.

Thanks for taking them on and for showing us the truth about what's happening here. Your scholarship and patriotism set a high standard that I and we all would do well to emulate.

1,236 posted on 03/12/2013 8:49:19 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1230 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus; Red Steel; LucyT

Only the most shameless Fogblower or fellow traveler would dare to come on FR and hold up Malihi citing “as discussed in Ankeny” (clear meaningless dicta) as being “a trial on the merits” regarding Barry’s NBC status.

For starters, a “trial on the merits” would have included recognition of a plaintiff with standing to challenge Barry’s NBC status (never happened) and full discovery of Barry’s original HI vital records with cross-examination under oath of the custodian of those records.


1,237 posted on 03/12/2013 8:50:08 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“judges are very conscious of their limitations”

Sorry. The US Supreme Court has no problem at all with creating law out of thin air. Think abortion, or the “right” to homosexuality...kind of hard to find THOSE in the US Constitution!

If Cruz ran, and one state put him on the ballot and another refused, you would have a valid federal case, just as Florida’s recount methods fell under the federal judiciary.


1,238 posted on 03/12/2013 8:52:16 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1234 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I get why you're here, but I'm curious about something else.

Are you freelance or do you work for someone? Your persona seems more like you are an intern? Whose office do you work in?

1,239 posted on 03/12/2013 8:54:58 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1232 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; 4Zoltan

4zoltan, thank you very much for posting the Google link to TR’s book. Thanks, Seizethecarp, for alerting me to it. It is very interesting.

To your point, Seizethecarp, it appears that when TR mentioned Jackson and Arthur, he was referring to the concept of foreign nations granting citizenship to U.S. citizens whose parents were foreign-born. I assume he was aware that Arthur’s father was foreign-born and was not concerned with or even aware of the date of his naturalization.

On a separate note, TR’s feelings about dual citizenship are very interesting. The following is a section prior to his comments about Jackson and Arthur.


I hold that it is the clear duty of the American people immediately to repudiate the doctrine thus laid down by the Wilson Administration. According to this doctrine there are in our country very many citizens—and, as a matter of fact, this ruling would apply to millions of citizens—who are “born with a dual nationality.” Two or three years ago it was announced that Germany had passed a law by which she provided for her citizens, who became naturalized in the United States or elsewhere, the means of also retaining their German citizenship, so that these men would preserve a dual citizenship, what the Department of State in this letter of April 2nd last calls “ a dual nationality.” I hold that it was the business of our Government as soon as this statement was published to investigate the facts, to require would-be citizens to repudiate this law, and to notify the German Government that we protested against and would refuse to recognize its action; that we declined to recognize or acquiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship or a dual nationality; that we would hold naturalized citizens to the full performance of the duties of American citizenship, which were necessarily exclusive of and inconsistent with the profession of citizenship in or allegiance to any other nation, and that in return we would extend the same protection to these citizens that is extended to native-born citizens. Such action was not taken. It is a reproach to us as a nation that it was not taken. We should not for a moment tolerate the assumption by Germany or by any other foreign power that foreign-born citizens of the United States can retain any citizenship in or allegiance to the country from which they came. But the present case is even worse. It seems incredible that the Department of State can promulgate the doctrine of dual nationality promulgated in its letter above quoted. Yet it has been asserted and reasserted, both before and since Mr. Bryan left office. It is dangerously close to treason to the United States to hold that men born here of foreign parentage, men who have served in the militia in this country, who vote and hold office and exercize all the other rights of citizenship, and who in good faith are and always have been Americans, should, nevertheless, be blandly informed by the State Department that if they visit the countries in which their parents were born they can be seized, punished for evasion of military duty, or made to serve in the army.


1,240 posted on 03/12/2013 9:13:38 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1231 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

‘I think Mr. Rogers is actually wavering on this one.”

I believe he is too along with the Jeff Winston fellow.


1,241 posted on 03/12/2013 9:53:31 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

Comment #1,242 Removed by Moderator

To: GBA
Well, evidence really is an important part of litigation. Somebody needed to tell you that, but now I guess I'm kind of sorry for volunteering.

I really didn't mean my post to be taken as any kind of personal attack. Just forget what I said and carry on without me.

Keep the faith! ;-)

1,243 posted on 03/12/2013 10:12:52 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1239 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

A court would not have to define natural born citizen or weigh the factual evidence regarding Cruz’s qualifications to determine that he should be permitted to appear on the ballot so that voters and their electors can determine his eligibility.


1,244 posted on 03/12/2013 10:17:32 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1238 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Suppose someone who was 30 years old ran. You don’t think anyone would challenge his eligibility? Or that the courts would rule he’s eligible if the voters want him?

It is perfectly reasonable to sue to prevent someone ineligible from being listed on a ballot. You will notice that courts HAVE ruled on Obama & McCain...


1,245 posted on 03/12/2013 10:43:12 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1244 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If a 30 year old ran, he would be rejected by the voters and their electors. If you say, "How can we be sure that voters and electors will follow the law regarding the candidate's eligibility?" my response would be, "How can you be sure that some judge or group of judges will follow the law regarding the candidate's eligibility?" Obviously, that candidate to succeed would have to put together some kind of evidence that he was 35 to gain any kind of financial or public support.

A jury can render a verdict of not guilty in a case where the defendant confesses his guilt and both he and his attorney argue that the jury should find him guilty. All of our judges and the Supreme Court cannot change that verdict to guilty. Why? Because under our Constitution, the jury is the empowered to decide the guilt issue, even if they make a mistake.

Our Constitution states that the Senate shall render the verdict in the impeachment of a president. The Supreme Court would not be authorized to set aside the not guilty verdict of the Senate even if the Supreme Court believed that most of the Senators were mistaken in their view of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

If a president vetoes a law and states that he is doing so because he believes it to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court cannot reverse his veto, even if the Supreme Court is convinced that the president was mistaken in his opinion that the law to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is not the only decision-maker in our system. Their job is not to ensure that no one else ever makes a mistake.

I could someday be proven wrong, but i don't think I will live to see the day when the Supreme Court intervenes to prevent a candidate from running for office because the Supreme Court believes the candidate to be unqualified.

We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, but I believe that the Constitution pretty clearly commits to the voters and their electors the job of selecting a president.

1,246 posted on 03/12/2013 11:06:18 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1245 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; Seizethecarp
I don't know if this is why President Roosevelt felt that President Jackson was a dual citizen. But I find it interesting as it reminds me of some of the comments over the past four years.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zO8OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&dq=andrew+jackson+born+at+sea&hl=en&ei=a2a_TdTRGIy5twfx352sBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

“There is an …an old woman …who says she came to America in the same ship with Gen. Jackson’s parents, and that Jackson was born at sea, three days from land.” She said, “I received him in my own hands.”

And

"His father asked this question: “Gen. Jackson, where were you born?” And the answer was, “I was born at sea.”

I think that President Jackson may have received Irish citizenship through his parents. Although I'm not sure why he would not have been covered by the 1783 Treaty of Paris and lost that citizenship.

1,247 posted on 03/12/2013 11:08:09 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1240 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Lurker

The question you ask is one of numerous scenarios. The Framers of the US Constitution would have been hard pressed to account for every single little nuance. So, they set a minimum standard that could reasonably help ensure loyalty.

Your “Person A” scenario is there because, in a nutshell, they didn’t want King George III and his wife, or another couple like him, coming over to the U.S., having a baby on U.S. soil, and then running that child for President later on just so King George, or another like him, could then reclaim the Americas.

Now, on to the “Person B” scenario:

The minimum age for a President is 35. As I have recently come to understand it, because of the minimum age set at 35, the Framers went with the 14 year residency requirement as an absolute minimum to ensure that a President had at least reached the age of accountability (21), free from parental control in choice of locations, when he had decided to stay in the United States.

Now, if you read carefully the only known quote on the Natural Born clause from one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, Charles Pinckney, you’ll see that not only does he talk about loyalty (attachment) to the United States, he also talks about the process of an Electoral College:

“They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible...”

Now, if you think about it, he’s talking about a system of checks and balances. Even though he’s using the Electoral College, combined with a mistrust of Congressmen, as a springboard for why he and the other Framers put in the requirement’s for the President, he is also tacitly admitting that, barring a failure of those Presidential requirements in ensuring loyalty to the U.S., Congress has a hand, via their electoral college votes, in also ensuring the “attachment” of the President to the country should those Presidential Requirements be ineffective in preventing an Anti-American from obtaining the Popular Vote.

Needless to say, Our system of Checks and Balances concerning the loyalty of the President has failed us due to the massive number of Progressives sitting in Congress, today.

Anyway, that’s it in a nutshell. I’m sure others will attempt to eviscerate my understanding, but I’ve got a couple of Aces up my sleeves from some books in my library, of which, the texts aren’t available online... So, be warned.

Cheers!


1,248 posted on 03/12/2013 11:34:01 AM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1242 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Citing to an earlier decision on the same issue is not dicta.

Aren’t you perhaps forgetting that Judge Malihi offered the plaintiffs a default judgment against Obama due to Obama’s attorney failing to show up at trial?
It was the plaintiffs, not the judge who rejected a default order and requested a trial on the merits, which the judge granted. “Trial on the merits” was the plaintiffs’ language.
Judge Mahili’s ruling after trial was sent to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp who accepted it. Kemp’s acceptance was appealed in Georgia Superior Court. They upheld it. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. They too refused to overturn Malihi and Kemp. Plaintiff Farrar asked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to issue a Stay, Justice Thomas denied it. Plaintiff Welden petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear his appeal, the Court denied the petition.


1,249 posted on 03/12/2013 11:34:58 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Keep the faith! ;-)

Thanks, I do my best. And back at ya. But, when it comes to faith, I confess that I'll never get to your level of blind faith and trust...at least for anything in this physical world

Assuming you believe your deflection, I have no idea what personal attack you are referring to, fwiw, so forgive me if I have no idea what to say about that.

Your reasoning is hard enough to follow without you making stuff up.

1,250 posted on 03/12/2013 11:56:09 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,300 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson