Posted on 11/19/2012 2:11:58 PM PST by KheSanh
A petition asking the Supreme Court to give a clear concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen".
Whitehouse.gov url to obtain the first 150 signatures:
http://wh.gov/9dpd
I predict that Vladimir Putin will be the Democrat’s 2016 nominee.
There’s a very easy answer to that question - you don’t have standing.....
"The SCOTUS answered this question in the late 19th century"What was the answer and could you cite the decision with a link or two?
Thanks.
Democrats will run Chavez if he doesn’t die before that. Has OB made him an honorary citizen yet?
I’ll answer it for you.
The case was Minor v. Happersett (1874), but I’ll provide clear explanation of NBC.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
The U.S.Constitution states that eligibility to serve in Congress, either in the House of Representatives or the Senate, requires an individual to be a “citizen”, as related above.
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment.
This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
Of course, then birthers would just cry about judicial activism.
You DO realize McCain was born in PANAMA, don’t you?
And here is the court case that discussed the meaning in depth:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Unfortunately, most birthers can’t read a paragraph, and usually have troubles with long sentences... :>(
Might as well have.
Obama got "endorsements from Chavez and Raul Castro's daughter Mariela, who both said they would vote for Obama if they could."
Obama's Environmental Protection Agency sent emails for Hispanic Heritage month with Che Guevara's photoYup, that's a fact.
But the EPA said officially that "it was sent in an unofficial capacity."
Oh my LOL, that is quite illegal.
I'm sure Holder will get right on it...
Chavez announced at the beginning of October that if he could vote in the U.S. election it would be for Obama.This all comes from an ad that Romney ran before the election, check out this LINK
Ironically, Barark "Bin Ghazi" Obama's spokesperson accuses Romney of playingHugo Chavez's game, giving attention to Chavez that he doesn't deserve.
LOL, no he deserves POSITIVE attention...
It' s good to see the documentation posted here because it seems most FR members don't understand how it works.
Even though Barark "Bin Ghazi" Obama is illegally serving as President, he does not fit the criteria.
And neither does Rubio.
Many posters here and a bunch of conservatives in general are pushing Rubio to be on the ticket in 2016.
When any hint of opposition to that senerio is posted, all hell breaks loose.
And if he is the nominee in '12, the dems will do all they can to destroy his chances with the "not a Natural Born Citizen" thingie.
Or maybe not because he is for making illegal alien criminal insurgent invaders into citizens.
The dems know they can beat Rubio on that issue alone.
>>> You DO realize McCain was born in PANAMA, don’t you?
You say most birthers cant read a paragraph, and yet
you are not familiar with why they considered his place of birth in panama as US soil?
little hypocritical dont ya think?
Years ago, people were always urging the NRA to push court cases that would get the court to affirm the Second Amendment. The NRA always balked at this because they were afraid that with the current (at the time) makeup of the court, the decision was very likely to go against them. They intentionally bided their time until the makeup of the court indicated that the time was ripe to take them a defining case.
The United States was gifted with such a case in the guise of McDonald v. Chicago. The court ruled that the second amendment meant the right to own and carry a gun WAS an individual right. That's how it's done, people!
Leave the "natural born citizen" case alone until the public can be educated about the correct meaning of "natural citizen." The courts will eventually follow.
Those who are naturalized as U.S. citizens.
Those who are natural born citizens.
And here you come along to throw more confusion into the discussion. So riddle me this. In 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified, were the Slaves naturalized or natural born? How about the Indians? What were they?
Since group A is long dead, there are presently only two categories of US citizens.
Same question to you. In 1868, after the ratification of the 14th amendment, were the slaves naturalized or natural born? What were the Indians?
“and yet you are not familiar with why they considered his place of birth in panama as US soil?”
If you would read the WKA decision, you would find the history behind the Senate resolution. But since that resolution applied to someone born overseas, it would only apply to Obama if it was shown Obama was born overseas - in which case Obama would NOT be a NBC.
I think I know what they’ll say.
A child who is born by passing through the birth canal of the mother is natural-born. One born by C-Section is not./Sarc!
After the ratification of the 14th amendment, the freed slaves were natural born citizens.
(Most) American Indians didn’t become citizens till 1924, after which they were natural born citizens. Though admittedly the status of those born before this was questionable in this regard. Whether such an Indian was eligible to be elected president never came up, and a Supreme Court decision would have been required to definitively settle the issue.
I have said since the beginning of the discussion of this issue that a Supreme Court ruling is required to definitively settle the issue of the definition of NBC. In lieu of such a decision we can only speculate. But IMO the speculation leans toward two categories of citizenship, of which BHO falls into the NBC category.
I think he is and will be a really bad president, but he’s fully eligible. More fools us for electing him (twice).
Indians taxed or not taxed? Slaves were the property of citizens, they were not citizens.
No, also under the Constitution the 14th amendment makes citizens out of persons who are born or naturalized here, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The SCOTUS interpreted this to mean the children born in the country or naturalized of resident aliens who have permanent domicil in the U.S. There would be no reason to have such a Constitutional amendment if these persons were already considered natural-born citizens. The SCOTUS said they are not NBC because the court clearly said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Instead, that distinction falls exclusively to those children born in the country to citizen parents. See U.S. v Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett.
This is simply not true. The children of freed slaves would only be natural-born citizens their parents were already citizens before the birth of the children. The SCOTUS was very clear in two SCOTUS cases in saying that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The Supreme Court already gave a definitive and exclusive definition of NBC in Minor v. Happersett: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It rejected a 14th amendment argument creating a material distinction between 14th amendment birth citizenship and Article II natural-born citizenship.
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.