Posted on 01/01/2011 7:09:28 AM PST by FS11
Perhaps you got carried away in the heat of the argument, but that statement is patently incorrect.
O is indeed a legitimate President. The Congress and the Supreme Court said as much.
At least until the new Congress realizes the prior Congress dropped the ball and then looks into the issue and takes any warranted corrective action.
The better thinking of the so-called “birthers” that comment on this forum is not based on circumstantial evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, but rather that no one knows with certainty where he was born; and that such knowledge is essential in order for a Congress to properly certify a President elect to the office.
BO is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS regardless of where he was born because by his own admission his dad was a British/Kenyan citizen. SCOTUS has never defined the term “natural born citizen” to any category of citizenship other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens of the United States of America.
There is a clear, concise and definitive statement in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal treatise used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
“The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Venus Case, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212 paragraph from the French edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
Vattel…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Sixteen years later the Supreme Court…does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship contained in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings…
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case the Justice Gray cites the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.
Thank you for the link, Digger. Amazing! and frightening.
You are patently incorrect, frog. See post 302.
YouTube has one video of Frank Marshall Davis that I could find and I couldn't stand to watch it. Frank Marshall Davis Interview
BO mental illness is indeed disturbing. A man that sick should not have the nuclear codes.
http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2010/10/shrink-asks-what-is-wrong-with-barack.html
—Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.
Great post FS. I read somewhere, (think it was Thomas Hauser’s book on Cassius Clay/Ali), that malcolm x was known to use the “chickens come home to roost” line like muslim boy hussein’s ‘preacher’ pal wright in chi-town.
I have seen #302 and many of your earlier posts.
And, I believe contemporaneous writings (14thA), later commentaries and legal decisions all provide a sound basis for including the two-parent requirement in our definition of NBC.
None of the above comes into play, however, until we know the facts of both his birthplace and his parentage. (He and his handlers somehow knew a non-citizen father would not be a problem and they were correct, the USSC swore him into office. Do you want to bet your farm it will now reverse what it did and claim O is ineligible based on his Kenyan father?)
The issue between you and me at the moment, is whether this President is legitimate. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we think not. He is legitimate until the only branch of government with the authority to do so, Congress, says he is not. It is up to us to convince the Congress take action.
There is no political solution to the BO constitutional crisis. The House may impeach BO but the dem controlled Senate will not convict him. In 2011 BO will be indicted by multiple State Grand Juries and if he does not resign he will be convicted and imprisoned after his convictions are upheld by SCOTUS.
Mark Levin: “The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.”
LOL
Get over yourself.
There are practical political matters where any President is concerned.
We will not, ever, put a sitting President in prison for anything short of murder.
It won’t happen.
Done deal!
No, it should not have happened, for any number of reasons, but it did.
You can not unring the bell.
Get real, man!
Yes, laws to demand a long form BC, on a State by State basis, for anyone who wished to be on the ballot for POTUS, such measures can help, in the future. Such measures MIGHT keep Obama off the ballot in a few States.
However, the horse is already out of the barn for the remainder of Obama’s term.
There is NOTHING to be done about it, at this point, other than inflict POLITICAL harm on Obama -— which is certainly OK by me.
However, you diminish your own credibility with your wild predictions and twisted legal logic.
The political solution is the only way to get this guy out before his current term expires which, IMO, should be the goal. Action could commence within days of the new Congress and, if they are able to obtain evidence, impeachment proceedings could commence soon thereafter. Two years ago I argued it could be over with within 60 days.
I have long predicted he will resign if faced with credible evidence. If he does not and a dem-controlled Senate fails to convict on the basis of credible evidence then, and only until then, will we have a "constitutional crisis". All we presently have is a Congress that failed to perform its statutory obligation, and many of us think with disastrous consequences.
You can have the last word.
Happy New Year!
Think FS11 is gone. That was wierd.
On another note we can all look towards 2012 and Sarah. I really feel this wonderful,intelligent, experienced person could very well be our country’s hope. Go Sarah!
fs11 is no more.
Because he pulled a Linda Tripp and talked. Talking (I believe at first it was a YouTube video) saved his hide. The best info about the weekend at Barack's, LOL, is from Larry's own book. It also has the details about the murders of the black gays at Trinity church, very suspicious "hits" right after each other during the early campaign, all gay men who had supposedly been Obama's lovers.
Larry Sinclair is not a wonderful person, and has been a bit of a grifter and had drug issues. But his story is very compelling. He is bluntly honest, especially about his human shortcomings. He is detailed and believable.
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.