Posted on 08/17/2009 10:11:54 AM PDT by RobinMasters
It’s specious because regardless of what’s in the sidetalk and backstory as compiled in the founder’s documents, it’s not in the actual constitution itself (that both parents must be citizens to confer natural born citizenship).
Which means it was left up to congress to flesh out the minutia via the US code. Which they did and have.
Never forget that “seperation of church and state” is also in the founder’s documents, but not in the constitution. Look at how that’s been twisted by the losers and poseurs on the left. It’s sad when the right lowers itself to do the same.
SCOTUS can't rewrite the Constitution, but they are supposed to enforce it. In order to do that, they must sometimes determine what it means. If, as you say "everyone knows" that "Natural born = citizen at birth", then they will likely rule that way, if they ever stoop to take a case.
But, I think it more likely that "natural born" at least requires "native born", that is born in the United States, because all the other forms of "citizen at birth" are the result of Congress passing laws, which they even change from time to time, passed under their Constitutional power to define a "uniform rule of Naturalization". If someones citizen at birth status depends on one of those laws, then they must be considered "naturalized at birth", and would thus not be eligible.
As far as the "native born" = "natural born", historical record is not completely clear, but the Courts have not ever ruled on the meaning of "natural born citizen" as it was understood in 1787, and as it applies to the Consitutional criteria for eligibility for the office of President.
That is plainly not true. It's possible for someones mother to be a citizen and they not even be a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen". This can be the case under current law, although it was more likely to occur under the law existing when Barry was born, just due to the more stringent requirements then in existence.
See 8 USC 1401 for those requirements. Pay attention to the changes, available on the Notes link for the 1986 changes.
Umm, the requirement was ten years total, five after becoming 14, when BHO Jr was born. (change was in 1986). Stanley Ann Dunham Obama did not meet the 5 years since age 14 residency requirement, since she was not yet 19.
The point of disagreement with the other poster was not about native birth, but that one muat be native born AND have two US citizen parents to establish natural born status.
The constitution is silent on this issue and congress has clarified it. SCOTUS could no doubt do backflips to usurp congressional authority and legislate from the bench as they have done before on other issues, but it’s not likely in the present circumstance since not usurping authority is to BHO’s benefit.
As for your “naturalized at birth”, there is no such thing. Naturalization is a legal process requiring specific legal actions. If one were to be “naturalized at birth” so that no legal procedures need be undertaken then that is the same as “citizen at birth”. You are either a citizen at birth or you become a naturalized citizen, you cannot be both.
I don't get why it is assumed the law as it was in 1961 is the one that must be applied now. He ran for president in 2008, not in 1961.
The law that would be applied now is the law that is in effect now as is normally done in other situations. Old laws generally do not apply in the present anymore that new laws are allowed to apply to the past (ex post facto).
Mr. Farah, there are some very nice men in white suits who are here to see you. They have a nice comfy padded cell ready for immediate occupancy.
I agree with you 100%,
He was born in Kenya and is an illegal alien that should be arrested and deported!
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.