Posted on 07/21/2010 1:26:08 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
You don't get it. The parents have to be US citizens. The parents can be naturalized (foreign born) US citizens who can then can pass on natural born citizenship to their offspring who were born in the United States.
And the case of Chester A. Arthur demonstrates that even if a parent is NOT an American citizen when the candidate was born, it’s irrelevant.
Not legally. Getting away with it does not set any basis of legal precedent that would be accepted as the law was broken.
LMHO! You guys can’t even get your story straight. Donofrio found evidence that supports what I am saying.
Not as shot as Holders DOJ.
The Black Panthers Billy Clubbed his credibilty.
Geez, Louise. I speak of the Republicans as a bit distant because I'm talking about the Congressional Republicans, a group to which neither you nor I belong. That's a pretty basic grammatical approach.
As for the rest, let's see. I believe I've made my opinion of the Obama Presidency's philosophical bent clear enough. I'm not a big talk radio guy; never have been. Reagan was a great President of whom I likely have more knowledge than you. I have an intense interest in American military history I could probably indulge more here. I don't tend to call anyone swine, particularly whole groups of people, and I've been insulted here multiple times for having the audacity to admit I was wounded in the service of my country. So I tend to avoid that latter subject altogether.
C’est la vie. Good luck with the stalking.
“You just don’t get it, Orly is not a legal mastermind...”
Oh, I get that. Believe me.
“She is a citizen-layer attempting to get the truth out.”
Then she should stick to trying to publicize her version of the truth somewhere other than a court of law, where she does a disservice to herself, the law, the general concept of truth, and any case she may be attempting to pursue.
So you base your answer on mere expediency?
Well, have you considered the appointments he made, etc.?
The wives of the presidents cited were citizens automatically by marriage under the now obsolete law in force at the time.
Chester Arther's father was axiomatically a man so he couldn't benefit from this law.
Its Arthur's father that is the issue: he was not yet a naturalised citizen by the time of Arthur's birth. Barack Obama Snr could never have been made a citizen by marriage, so I have no clue what you meen.
Nothing at all states the bizarre interpretation of “natural born citizen” meaning “...you can be a citizen and your parents can be foreign born, and you qualify as a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but one or both parents was not a citizen at the time you were born...and you still won’t be a natural born citizen, even if you don’t require a nationalization process (as opposed to being natural BORN)? But if your parents are citizens, you and your parents can all be foreign born, and you’ll still qualify as natural born?
Did I get that right?
He might if she hadn't died of cancer years ago.
He IS a shadow man. He is the man with no past.
Odd that you know he has no past, but not that his mother died.
There is nothing "bizarre" about it. That's not just a "citizen" but a 'natural born citizen.' It has been universally accepted over human generations that spans Millenniums. And the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning and intent of the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 of the US Constitution.
“Then she should stick to trying to publicize her version of the truth somewhere other than a court of law, where she does a disservice to herself, the law, the general concept of truth, and any case she may be attempting to pursue.”
In a country where the broadcast TV networks ABC, CBS, NBC etc, are basically in the pocket of the Democratic party, that is virtually impossible without making a legal attack, even if tenuous.
Even Fox news has a non-aggression pact with Obama on the elligibilty issue. You can thank Rupert Murdoch for that little gem.
I’am British, we always have a weakness for the underdog :-)
Actually, its Orly who outright ignores the rules or is attempting to change change them.
No.
If you don't understand why the NBC clause in the constitution applies one thousand fold in the modern era, I can't help you.
I believe she stopped in Israel (isn't she an Israeli citizen?) on the way to Moldova to celebrate her parents anniversary.
Taking a bullet for America like a typical Obot, eh?
Funny, you’re avoiding the point. Quote her questions to the court. I dare you.
Don’t change the subject.
As for "natural born" versus "naturalized," though, it has been around for a while, if not millenia. Those are the two types of citizen, those born into it and those naturalized.
And the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning and intent of the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 of the US Constitution.
Exactly.
LoL...yes, de Vattel did not make up who are the natural born as he only documented them in his book. Vattel's definition of natural born citizens dates back to Roman times.
You seem to think that the 14th Amendment created natural born citizens. No, the 14th Amendment naturalized citizens and naturalized them at birth. You cannot create by law a non-citizen and turn them into an NBC, and neither could Congress through an amendment.
From the flawed opinion in Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana, however, the judges did get the bold and underlined correct:
"For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen AND who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant."
That's 'naturalized citizen under the 14th Amendment' - not natural born citizens.
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.