Posted on 07/24/2009 2:32:56 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I would be happy to have him forced to show his birth certificate, as should have happened during the campaign.
However, I am not going to lie and claim that his grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador claim that he was born in Kenya. And I am not going to claim that Americans with a foreign father are not natural born citizens. Such idiocy only benefits Obama, as I am sure he knows.
Since when? The 14th Amendment only says 'subject to the jurisdiction of', nothing about sole jurisdiction. Any person residing in the U.S. is subject to our jurisdiction, with the exception of diplomats or foreign leaders and others not subject to our laws.
Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
Which, at worst, would make him a dual citizen. A status rendered moot when his Kenyan citizenship lapsed at age 18. Regardless, nothing in the Constitution or the law says that such people cannot also be natural-born citizens.
Ok, I went back and read it. Nowhere, that I see, in the decision does it say anything about natural born. Maybe you could show me where it does? I could have missed it. But I don’t think so. So, assuming it doesn’t say anything about “natural born”, why are you insisting this decision has anything to do with deciding who is natural born?
Also, believe it or not, many “birthers” believe that Obama was not born in this country. So, if that is proven then this decison has absoloutly nothing to do with Obama
My guess, would be they were used to governors appointed by the King, who were born in England and had no ties or loyalty to this country.
John McCain is not a naturalized citizen—he was a citizen from birth because both parents were US citizens. There were some efforts to question his eligibility last year, but I don’t know if Obama was connected to them (he’s good at covering his tracks anyway).
Everyone here hammers him on issues, the only ones doing so on the national stage are Rush, Mark and other conservative talk show hosts. Our elected RINOs just go along to get along.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential “natural born citizen” requirement?
The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington. The letter said:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)
John Jay believed, and the Founding Fathers agreed, that anyone who is subject to foreign influence should be barred from the presidency. St. George Tucker (1752-1827) explained why:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against... To have added a [foreign] member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box. (St. George Tucker, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)
The Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that natural born citizenship is acquired only at birth. Thus the presidential natural born citizenship provision was limited in scope. It could not protect the presidency from all possible forms of foreign intrusion. It could not exclude, from the presidency, people who had developed foreign sympathies or allegiances after their birth. At most, it could only bar, from the presidency, persons who were subject to foreign influence at birth — specifically, persons who were foreign citizens at birth or were, at birth, subject to the laws of a foreign country.
When the Constitution was written, there were only two ways that a child could acquire foreign citizenship at birth or fall under foreign legal jurisdiction at birth:
by being born in a foreign country; or
by being born of parents who were citizens of a foreign country.
At the time, the United States did not recognize dual citizenship. No one could become a U.S. citizen without completely renouncing all foreign allegiance.
Therefore, in 1787, if you were born in the United States and your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you were, without doubt, completely free of foreign influence at birth — you were, without doubt, not a foreign citizen at birth and not subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth. On the other hand, if you were born outside of the United States or your parents were not U.S. citizens when you were born, you might have been, at birth, subject to foreign legal jurisdiction to some extent.
Thus the Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that, in order for the presidential natural born citizen provision to be effective, the term “natural born citizen” had to mean “U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents”. Otherwise, the provision would not work in all cases. It would occasionally allow, into the Office of President, individuals who were foreign citizens at birth or subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth — the very kind of situation that the Founding Fathers had undoubtedly hoped to prevent, given their abhorrence of foreign influence in general.
8. What is the difference between a “Constitutional” and a “statutory” natural born citizen?
“Constitutional natural born citizen” refers to the term “natural born citizen” when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision. It refers to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides such meaning to be.
“Statutory natural born citizen” refers to someone who is deemed a “natural born citizen” as a result of a Federal or State law.
Currently, there is no Federal law that explicitly defines “natural born citizen” or explicitly conveys “natural born citizenship” to anyone. However, existing laws are sometimes understood or interpreted as conveying natural born citizenship to certain individuals at birth. At this point, we do not pass judgment on these understandings and interpretations. We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a “natural born citizen” pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a “statutory natural born citizen”.
A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts:
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (Top of page 9, in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual — 7 FAM 1130)
If we were to define “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who is a “citizen at birth”, our definition of “natural born citizen” would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines “citizen at birth”. Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are “citizens at birth”. Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S. — including children of illegal immigrants — could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant “citizenship at birth” to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of “citizen at birth”, and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
To summarize:
“Statutory natural born citizen” is the meaning of “natural born citizen” when such meaning depends on a Federal or State law. As Federal and State laws change, the meaning of “statutory natural born citizen” changes accordingly.
“Constitutional natural born citizen” is the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution.
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Can one have dual citizenship and still claim Natural Born status?
No one could become a U.S. citizen without completely renouncing all foreign allegiance.
The same is true today for naturalized citizens. However, U.S. law does not supercede foreign laws any more than foreign laws superced our own. If a person born in the U.S. also qualifies at birth for citizenship in another country then there is nothing U.S. law can do to prevent that. But nothing in the law or the Constitution prevents natural-born citizenship status in this case.
And where does the Constitution define that?
We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a “natural born citizen” pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a “statutory natural born citizen”.
You can refer to them however you like. Nothing supports your definition. Not the law. Not the Constitution. Not Supreme Court decisions.
However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant “citizenship at birth” to children of illegal immigrants.
Except that they haven't passed the law. Nor would such a law strip those already born of their natural-born status. While the Constitution does not define natural-born citizen, it does rule out ex-post facto laws.
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Actually it is.
There may be and probably are fringe and manufactured issues that offer nothing to the argument.
But the fact is that he is hiding personal documents that most of us have to submit to our employers.
If you are born in the US that makes you natural born...because you were born there. I was BORN in the US..I am a natural born citizen however, I hold citizenship in both Honduras and the US..I am not a natural born Honduran citizen because I was not born here. The US has went as far as concidering people born to US citizens outside of the US as natural born citizens. Example, if I have a child here in Honduras...my husband is a naturalized citizen of the US and I am natural born...therefore regardless of where he is born..even if it is China he is a natural born citizen of the US.
While it isn´t spelled out in the constitution it doesn´t take much thought to understand the definition of ´born´
The 14th ammendment says that all person´s born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States..so unless you can go and somehow show me that he was ever naturalized...show me the naturalization document please...or that he was not born in the US...in which you need to come up with that Kenyan birth certificate...he was indeed a natural born citizen. From what I have found and I will have to go back and find it I am sure..the law that you stick to that the mother had to have lived 10 years in the US after the age of 16 had long since been discarded BEFORE his birth.
If there were any merits to the case...you can be assured that the US Supreme Court would have visited it...but there weren´t and they said so.
I'm not aware of any law or any clause in the Constitution or any Supreme Court decsision that says you can't.
......If there were any merits to the case...you can be assured that the US Supreme Court would have visited it...but there weren´t and they said so.....
The case has never been decided on the merits...I suggest you keep reading and learning about US Laws...as a lawyer once told me a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerouse thing...and don’t forget the law is an a$$.
chao
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
Thomas Goldstein, who has argued numerous
cases before the court and covers Supreme Court cases, commented that “The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you’re a natural born citizen. And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother”.
On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S.Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge,
James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court’s time, calling Berg and another lawyer “agents provocateurs” and their local counsel, James Hemenway, “a foot soldier in their crusade.” He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama’s attorney
as a penalty for filing a complaint “for an improper purpose such as to harass.”
There are many things you can complain about on Obama..his birth situation is not one of them.
Um where in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen Defined?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
...If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen...
Actually it is
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine...I believe in the Constitution and that there is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, natural born citizen comes from both jus sanguinis and jus soli, and citizen can come from either one. I also believe the 14th amendment has been misconstrued to allow babies born in the US to illegal alien parents to be citizens, look how poorly that has worked out. That too has never been decided by the Supreme Court and is ripe for a decision. According to your definition the little border jumpers baby could be President even though his parents can't vote here and they vote elswhere. Great! Lets reward more lawbreaking. Why even have the clause in the Constitution then, its worthless.
Oh but see that is where it is disqualified when it comes to Obama..his mother was and always was a US citizen..not an immigrant.
Interesting definition of "responsible."
-PJ
I may not have a good answer for that right now but it is the president who has to prove qualifications and not on us to prove him disqualified.
So far he has not proven himself qualified.
?what? I don't understand what you mean, what (it) is disqualified?
As for your other cases, none have been decided on the merits as I stated, and before you can get to the Supreme Court you have to go through lower courts.
No kidding?
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.
And under English common law, children born within the realm of the King where natural-born subjects of the King regardless of the nationality of the parents. Or so quoted Justice Gray in the Ark decision.
" Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
And Justice Waitie was correct. The Happersett decision was not the place to solve whatever doubts one might have over who is a natural-born citizen and who was not, especially considering it was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case. So at best your 'doubts' persist. But your doubts do not the law make. You can present any definition of natural-born citizen you might care to make up. That doesn't make it settled law.
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?...
Nowhere. Now tell me where the Constitution or the law defines either statuatory natural-born citizen or Constitutional natural-born citizen.
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.