Skip to comments.(vanity)Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement
Posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by urtax$@work
Contemplating about the subjects of Citizen and natural born Citizen , if anything, has shown me that the few words in the Constitution have sooo... many aspects that have been discovered, realized, understood thru discussions here on FR since 2008.
The FReeper postings from individuals across the country with varied backgrounds and educations have shown me all those varied aspects of better understanding of a subject, specifically the qualification aspects to hold federal office in our country.
Sometimes understanding or epiphanies of the NBC issues have come to me when i was not expecting such. The latest instance was yesterday when i was digging thru my college boxes (to show our youngest college bounder) and ran across my US History Survey text and leafed thru it. Flipped back to the appendices to the US Constitution . I was rereading the requirements to hold office and thinking about how to explain to a noob about the issue. ( I would show bar graphs of the stiffer requirements from US Rep to US Sen to President.)
Then it came to me that sometimes its more than just the plain words themselves that describe our laws but it's how the words are ARRANGED. Reread the qualifications of Rep., Sen., and president. There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.
I know NBC has been well discussed here but i dont recall specifically the lack of prescribed years wording in conjunction with NBC and what that implies. If i did miss this little point in any previous discussion sorry to have wasted your time.
The framers of the Constitition most definitely knew what they were articulating, the Congress that is sitting, has little regard to the LAW, and a whole lot of regard to polls and surveys...public opinion of the MSM. Politicians like DOGS are easily trained by giving them repeated whacks with a newspaper.
It is now after three and a half years of the kenyan jackass that I truly appreciate, admire and awe at the brilliance, vision, and leadership that our founding fathers had. I do not think we will have the likes of men like them again since we have become a distracted society that no longer values intellect, critical thinking and tutelage. Today’s Americans cannot retain an attention span to even think about reading John Locke et al.
I learned that a natural born citizen is one in which " no further action was ever required to by a citizen with regard to his place or standing in our civil society" - and that is why Barack Obama and Marco Rubio, while being eligible for US representative status (questionable in Obama's case)are NOT qualified for the office of the presidency.
Rubio is a naturalized citizen and Obama's father was a British subject.
Obama MAY be a naturalized citizen, but there is not a generally accepted argument that he is even that.
I tend to almost believe that the so-called "botched swearing in redo" ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won't touch any "birther" claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.
I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation
I always thought it was because he wanted to be sworn in using the koran and not the Bible. He didn’t want us to know he’s muslim.
As for the issue at hand, I don’t believe Rubio is eligible. If he’s being vetted and they find he is not, I certainly hope they will be honest with us and bypass him.
“I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.”
Any evidence for that?
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen”
-”Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”. Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists.
I hadn't considered THAT! Truly stunning, if true. That would make Roberts complicit in this fraud.
The founders of this nation, were they able to return from the dead for a week to inspect the Capitol, would likely tell us that a Republic can only be held by the willing and that we have surely fallen short in that regard - therefore, we've installed a form of government unrecognizable to them.
I hadn’t thought about that until reading your post, so, thank you!
My feelings on the subject is that it just doesn’t matter anymore. Obama is not a NBC, there is no doubt of that. Does the GOP care? No.
If a GOP candidate didn’t meet the NBC requirement, would the GOP or the Dems care. No, because if you think about it, neither national party gives a flying crap what the Constituion says, or else they would be following it once in awhile. The Constitution limits power, so it’s in their interests to ignore it, and they do, daily.
Another thing that has bothered me about the NBC topic, is how almost every court in the nation says none of the plaintiffs have “standing” to sue. When it comes to our President, we ALL have standing. I have seen an opinion from a court saying that it’s the job of Congress to investigate a candidates qualifications for President. If that is the case, which I believe it isn’t, then what happens if Congress refuses to do it? Like they refuse to protect out borders. If Congress refuses to do its job, then it’s our responsibility as citizens to do it for them. It would be next to impossible to wait for elections to replace enough of Congress to where they would actually do what was required of them. It would be a hopeless situation if not for one thing.....our Constitutions Second Amendment.
I’ll do what I can with my vote, but in reality, nothing in our government will really change until we water the tree.
That’s my two cents....
An excellent point framed in a way not before cited at FR, as far as I can recall.
The link, since you didn't provide one...
@ Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Now, one has to look at the rulings (what was "held") issued in @ Minor v. Happersett (see specifically #2) and also read the following from @ LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) to know that Jack Maskell is...misleading...readers with such a conclusion.
He doesn't know the difference between dicta and a ruling yet he is supposed to be informing Congress?
Sorry, try again.
Very good point!
Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out.
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen
The above is ridiculous - "by birth" and "at birth" (as used here)are two diametrically opposed phrases and cannot exist together regarding the subject.
By the above "opinion" from "legal and "historical" authorities, there would be no difference between a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen and an illegal immigrant. A naturalized citizen has been through a PROCESS to acquire citizenship status e.g. - classes, paperwork, oaths, etc. They have been "IZED" In Rubio's case, his parents went through the process and therefore he has had, apparently, guardianship transferral of legal status. He's apparently safe from being arrested and deported and he's even eligible to be a congressman or a senator - and that's all. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, but more importantly, why it's not enough for the the latest FReeper subgroup, the Rubio at Any Cost assembly. Why the push for Rubio?
I understand the legislative branch of our government and their push to water down and make unrecognizable the citizenship requirements for certain government bureaucrats. We all know that the agenda is an eventual, anything goes, open borders, World Government of Peaceful Coexistence - but some of us resist.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Natural born citizens need no "legal requirements" to be natural born citizens "at birth".
He botched the word order of the first so he performed the second out of an abundance of caution. What that says is that he was very keen to fixate upon the proper recitation of the oath, while remaining blind to the illegitimacy of the one taking the oath.
No wonder he bumbled the word "faithfully." It probably said more about Roberts than the usurper.
I'm just curious, I am a naturalized citizen so I know that I will never be eligible. I understand that and accept it. When I joined the club I swore to go by the club's rules. But since 2008 I've wondered about my children more than once. They both were born in the US, from a US citizen father, but I only had a green card at the time of their birth. Should they want to run one day, are they eligible or not? I don't think their case is unique, so I wish the SCOTUS would give a final definition of natural born citizen. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it!
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.