Posted on 11/26/2008 12:08:43 PM PST by doug from upland
Not necessarily true. He could have been naturalized at some point. One need not be "natural born" to be a Senator or Congressman, although there are residency and age requirements.
Unless some elector, or a group of them votes for someone other than Obama. As Congressmen Billy Bob (John Armor) indicates, if he were DQ'd before the electors vote they would *all* be free to vote for someone else.
Of course he also points out that in most states (but not all???) a vote for someone else *before* Obama was DQ'd would not be allowed, and would be an "implied resignation". The states determine the rules for electors, within some very broad Constitutional requirements, so "they can do that".
They can, and one day one likely will. Probably as a Conservative Republican. :) Assuming we continue to have real elections, rather than the sort that Saddam and Stalin had.
They can, and one day one likely will. Probably as a Conservative Republican. :) Assuming we continue to have real elections, rather than the sort that Saddam and Stalin had.
I don’t believe that they are justified in voting for anyone other than McCain when Obama gets disqualified.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
I’m not sure about that. There may be some states that could invalidate that elector’s vote.The Constitution allows electors to vote for whomever they want. No state law can override the Constitution. A state may be able to punish faithless electors after the fact though. That punishment may or may not be Constitutional. It's never been tested as far as I know.
As I cited above, both Michigan and Minnesota will negate the electoral vote of a faithless elector.There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any state the right to void the vote of an elector. Sounds good though.
As of today, the attempt of any Elector to vote differently than as pledged constitutes an automatic resignation (almost all states). In most states, this attempt is also a felony.How would an automatic resignation from a Constitutional office be considered Constitutional? Put another way, how can a state law force someone in a Constitutional office to resign?
Punishment after the fact might work but it has never been tested.
These laws sound impressive but aren't likely to stand up in court.
If it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that Hussein is not a natural born citizen, then we must look to any and all legal and constitutional actions to deny him the presidency. If the constitution of the US is not worth defending against mob rule, then nothing is. If we wish to preserve the republic, than we had best let the chips fall, and then sort them out. By whatever means necessary.
We who value the constitution will not allow the moral emphasis of this argument to be inverted. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.
The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the acquiesence of enough people, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.
Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.
It is my understanding that parentage does count, and to be a “natural born” citizen one must have parents who are citizens.Do you have some sources for this definition of "natural born"?
Please see post #35. As I stated in that post, another Freeper posted his/her understanding of the types of US citizenship as was taught to him/her. I do not have a source, and have read many opinions here on FR as to what is meant by “naural born” citizen.
Isn’t it likely that some of our early nineteenth century Presidents were born in the USA to parents who were British subjects at birth?
Under U.S. law a citizen can not have his citizenship status changed by acts of others. The individual must make a willful change himself, such as renunciation or willfully becoming the citizen of another country.
What’s your point???
Yes, if BOTH parents are U.S. citizen!
Since the Constitution gives the Congress the right to control naturalization, this would seem to be relevant, unless over-ruled by some later statute.
Naturalization and natural born are two different things!!
Of course, the wording of this law doesn’t specifically address the issue of one parent not being a a citizen.
The Framer's grandfather clause does!!!
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
No it is NOT good enough for me, born in Denmark and I cannot run for President!!!
The whole point of America, in my view, is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are or were. My grandparents were born in Ireland and Canada. That doesn’t make my parents any less American. They were born on this soil.
But your both parents were born in the U.S.???
So because of YOUR personally views, it does NOT matter if we have to follow the Constitution, or not???
Who are you referring to???
Please see post #35. As I stated in that post, another Freeper posted his/her understanding of the types of US citizenship as was taught to him/her. I do not have a source, and have read many opinions here on FR as to what is meant by “naural born” citizen.The original message is here.
The problem with these lines of reasoning is that the term "natural born" has never been adequately defined. The Supreme Court usually decides constitutional issues but it probably can't in this case since the Constitution specifically gives power to Congress to manage the presidential election. It's interesting that the framers directed the most political branch of the government to manage the electoral college.
This idea of a class of citizenship that requires birth in the United States and two citizen parents rests on shaky ground. I don't have time right now but I would like to look up the references in the Donofrio case to see where he gets it from.
Take a look at my about page for a list of references on this topic. I used to post on these BC threads but the sheer quantity of them makes it a waste of time.
Of course we will soon see if the Supreme Court takes the hook.
Thanks! It would be great if the constitutional meaning of “natural born” in reference to the President is soon defined by the USSC Justices.
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.