Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen
American Grand Jury ^ | September 28th, 2009

Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D

.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!

Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!

Justice Ginsburg:

My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Justice Ginsburg again:

There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.

Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?

I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.

(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: baderginsburg; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; ginsberg; naturalborn; scotus; stevens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

1 posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D
This whore for satan has said many inaccurate and insane things... this is just one more asinine statement by a flaming commie *unt. Her contract with satan is just about up to its maturity date.

LLS

2 posted on 09/29/2009 4:12:25 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Did she twitter the news to Jane Stone at NBC?


3 posted on 09/29/2009 4:14:46 AM PDT by This_far (Mandatory insurance! I thought it was about health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

nutcase.


4 posted on 09/29/2009 4:15:19 AM PDT by The Wizard (Democrat Party: a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
SCOTUS – Doing the (ex parte) work and wrecking the Constitution
that criminal illegal aliens cannot do alone.


5 posted on 09/29/2009 4:22:07 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg said this during court proceedings 8 years ago in "Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS - Oral Argument"

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

By reading the Tea Leaves in this case, it doesn't look good for the resident Marxist in the White House if his case ever gets to SCOTUS. Stevens and Kennedy voted with Thomas and Scalia on this. NBC status was very much discussed here. Oh yeah, INS won. The dude was deported.

6 posted on 09/29/2009 4:23:13 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

The child of American parents, born abroad, is a US citizen by birth through the operation of statute law, NOT through the operation of Natural Law. As such, the child is not Natural Born, contrary to Ms. Ginsburg’s wishful thinking.

Here’s the thing about “Natural Born” citzienship: it is citizenship NOT granted by the State, and hence cannot be revoked by the State. It is a NATURAL state of citizenship that does not depend on the operation of any enacted law.

It derives from the location of birth and the citizenship of the parents and especially by that of the father.

A child born abroad of American parents would not be a citizen of the United States at all if it were not for the operation of statute law. In fact, the statutes regarding the granting of citizenship to children of US citizens who happen to be born outside the US have changed several times over the years and a child born abroad in 1961 who under certain circumstances would not have qualified for US citizenship, for example Barack H. Obama, might well have had he been born in 1995.

While someone may be a US citizen at birth under the operation of statute (if circumstances are compliant with the law) such a citizen is not a “natural born” citizen, and for those who insist that all forms of citizenship can be divided into two classes, “natural born” and “naturalized”, then these children must be considered as “naturalized” as their citizenship devolves upon them by operation of statute law, as it does with all other forms of naturalized citizenship.

A “naturalization” ceremony is not the sine qua non of this type of citizenship - dependence on the operation of statute law is.


7 posted on 09/29/2009 4:28:59 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Not to dice words here, but the Constitution does not say that one must be born within the geographic boundaries of the United States or any of their possessions in order to be natural born citizens. Until passage of the 14th Amendment, it didn’t even say that persons born within the boundaries are citizens (slaves and Indians weren’t citizens). It is a long estblished principal, going back through the days of the Roman Empire, that a persons is born a citizen if and only if his parents are citizens. The location of birth was irrelevant.

Ginsburg is corrent. Her grandson is a natural born citizen. Deal with it.


8 posted on 09/29/2009 4:40:46 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Ruth Buzzy is correct. Her Grandson IS a "Natural Born Citizen" of the USA.

Ref; US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, section 1401.

Paragraph (g) in the above also 'proves' Barry IS a 'Natural Born Citizen'.

9 posted on 09/29/2009 4:49:18 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Well I have to say that is somewhat strange to me as I have a certificate of naturalization after being born of two american parents in Saigon Vietnam in 1956.

Perhaps the natural born part is only if you have “important” relatives


10 posted on 09/29/2009 4:56:31 AM PDT by Patrsup (To stubborn to change now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Barry was born to a Kenyan and an under age American girl...that does not sound the same to me....


11 posted on 09/29/2009 5:08:19 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is way off base here, typical far leftist. Here's a good analysis of NBC: http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/08/defining-natural-born-citizen.html
12 posted on 09/29/2009 5:14:41 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

US Code, TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 Ruth Buzzy is correct. Her Grandson IS a "Natural Born Citizen" of the USA.

Read it again. Her grandson is not a natural born citizen. Nationalized means naturalized per the title above.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

The statute therefore does not also prove BO is a natural born citizen.
13 posted on 09/29/2009 5:16:17 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

If you’re having to refer to statute, then that’s not natural born citizenship.

Congress was enumerated power over immigration and naturalization, only. Laws on the books must be construed to deal with immigration and naturalization only, as a result. Otherwise, such statute would be unconstitutional.

All citizens have the same rights and duties, excepting as the Constitution makes a distinction, and only the Constitution makes any distinction.

That distinction being eligibility to various national offices, by age, plus length of residency or birth status, increasingly narrow as the level of official capacity increases.

Natural born citizenship only pertains, legally under the Constitution, to the Executive branch, regarding eligibility to the Office of President. Eligibility to succeed the President in turn implies the requirement upon the line of succession.


14 posted on 09/29/2009 5:22:57 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
The point, to me, is that sincere people can have an honest debate on this issue. Each side has legitimate points. Facts, and information, help determine the outcome.

One important piece of information is an original birth certificate, stating the hospital of birth, attending WITNESSES, times, and dates. This information is not only lacking from the Obama debate, but Obama is actively paying lawyers to prevent the disclosure of this important paper. Why?

15 posted on 09/29/2009 5:27:56 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

They file “report of American citizen born abroad” not “paperwork for citizenship”. My mother was born on an Air Force base in Germany to two American citizens; she has such a report next to her German birth certificate in the files and can claim only US and not German citizenship. My father was born in England, at a local hospital, to a US citizen and a British (at the time) citizen. He has the same paper. He could have claimed British citizenship if he’d ever wanted to. I’m pretty sure he’s a natural born citizen too.

Arguments over whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen are much narrower than just “he was born overseas”. They involve laws at that time and his parents’ marital status. It doesn’t follow from that that all Americans born abroad are not natural born citizens.


16 posted on 09/29/2009 5:38:10 AM PDT by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I wasn’t aware that the state can revoke any citizenship once granted. Can you provide a link to support that? Thanks.


17 posted on 09/29/2009 5:42:56 AM PDT by Natufian (The mesolithic wasn't so bad, was it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Two American parents, child born anywhere is still an American. I don’t get the twisted thinking or the name calling below.


18 posted on 09/29/2009 5:44:07 AM PDT by libbylu ( Palin begins from Wasilla not only a campaign, an Iditarod of a crusade ....YEAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I was born in Paris while my Dad was in the military. Both of my parents were born in the USA. It has always been my understanding that I can't run for President, because I wasn't born on US soil. If I would have been born on base or at the US embassy then I might be eligible

I have a French birth certificate with a US state department certificate of being born abroad.

19 posted on 09/29/2009 5:48:08 AM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I have two cousins born in Colombia to my
aunt a Colombian and my Uncle a US citizen that are US citizens. Neither have lived in the states other than to attend college, but both hold US passports. (I doubt they’re looking to become President)
Holding a US passport is still considered a great achievement, at least in Colombia.


20 posted on 09/29/2009 5:49:44 AM PDT by Recon Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Ruthie is the same diseased leftist who stated proudly that she thought the age of sxual consent should be lowered to twelve, also.


21 posted on 09/29/2009 5:52:10 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; thecraw

>>>My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents

She’s correct. American parents was all that was necessary. Children of citizens born outside the continent aren’t second class citizens.

This argument is embarrassingly vapid.

>>>Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is way off base here, typical far leftist. Here’s a good analysis of NBC: http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/08/defining-natural-born-citizen.html

A site telling you it’s the plain truth is a good warning to not take them seriously. It’s like a used car dealer called Honest John.


22 posted on 09/29/2009 5:52:17 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
Deal with it? Bwahahahaha, such a surly little biotch you are.
23 posted on 09/29/2009 5:55:50 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is wrong about a whole lot of things, this being one of them.

Time to put that old mare out to pasture.


24 posted on 09/29/2009 5:57:43 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Justice Ginsberg - is a HUGE part of the problem if she believe this.

25 posted on 09/29/2009 5:58:13 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tlb

The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiah’s birth will get revealed soon and it isn’t Hawaii? Bwahahahaha, I love the smell of obamanoid fear in the morning. [ That’s your cue to claim you’re not an obamanoid with your sudden interest in the issue of NBC conflation with citizen. Perhaps you can get one of your team to make the plea for you so your stealth is not overexposed. ]


26 posted on 09/29/2009 6:03:48 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Black Birch

Being born on a military base doesn’t constitute U.S. soil, either. Unfair as it sounds, children born abroad, even to U.S. citizen parents serving in the military, are not natural born.

There have been numerous bills put forth for Constitutional Amendment to “make” such children born abroad eligible for the Presidency, but none have been ratified. The most recent was in 2004, sponsored by former Senator Nickles (R-OK) and co-sponsored by Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Landrieu (D-LA), known as the “Natural Born Citizen Act.”

There are problems with such a scheme, admirable though the sentiment might be. Persons born abroad may be subject to claims of citizenship at birth by the country in which they were born, under jus soli.

Such claims upon a President could severely complicate international dealings in the capacity of President, and as Commander In Chief of the military. Outside of the United States, such individuals are subject to the laws of countries with which they possess citizenship. This would be untenable for any President, who certainly does not only deal with domestic matters, and does not remain solely in the United States for the duration of his or her term of office.


27 posted on 09/29/2009 6:16:45 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

>>>The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiah’s birth will get revealed soon and it isn’t Hawaii?

Yes it’s all a conspiracy, and only you hold the true wisdom. Aren’t you special. Honestly I don’t see anything that would more buy Obama the sympathy of the country then that sort of deranged dumbass paranoia.

If proof can be found that Obama had other then US citizenship, that’s significant. But that isn’t the issue with Ginsberg’s grandchildren. This parsing is a pretty strong sign that the main argument has and will continue to fail. It’s moving the goalposts and will not be taken seriously outside the fruitloops wing.

Apply extra tinfoil and carry on.


28 posted on 09/29/2009 6:20:32 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Still trying to conflate citizen with natural born citizen ... nice try!

BTW, the only thing I can find that I would agree with your posting history is the assessment of the specious Drake Equation. ... Consummate arrogance to formulate an equation as if relevant/remotely valid while so many variables are ignored to construct the equation.

29 posted on 09/29/2009 6:27:28 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Yes, any statutory citizenship can be revoked. Only Natural Born citizenship is entirely free of risk of revocation since it does not depend on statute law.

I think it would be extraordinarily hard to revoke any form of citizenship short of Natural Born that attached at birth, especially if the birth took place in the Unties States itself, due to the misapplication of the 14th Amendment that has fossilised now. But there used to be some defined ways that birthright citizenship for children born abroad could be lost. Some of them might have been repealed, but what can be repealed can be re-enacted.

Of course, traditional naturalizations can be revoked for any number of causes, including fraudulent acquiring.

I don’t have time to research the legal references. Why don’t you try the link in one of the posts above which leads to some very interesting discussion at the Supreme Court about just these issues. I will tell you that even Supreme Court justices evidence considerable confusion on these issues.


30 posted on 09/29/2009 6:34:27 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; Condor51; RegulatorCountry
Man50D, it doesn't seem you're dealing with the statute logically, if I understand your argument.

For the purpose of my part of the discussion, I really don't care whether Ruth Buzzy's grandson is a NBC, but from RC's discussion, it seems highly likely that dependence upon US law for citizenship is ipso facto not naturally born citizenship, nor would it be Congress' jurisdiction, as such is not enumerated to them.

Contrary to what you said, Barry Soetero's citizenship and potential NBC status would be judged entirely without regard to Buzzy's progeny being any kind of citizen, except perhaps in Buzzy's mind.

Condor51 is saying BHO qualifies as a citizen at birth under US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g, but that would inherently mean not a NBC, as it is dependent on statute, not NBC defintion.

From all the publicly known information in combination with the above citation, BHO seems to have been born a US citizen, even if he was born in Kenya, and so long as Indonesia's adoption procedures can't nullify Zero's access to prior US citizenship, which I'm reasonably confident must be the case, but perhaps only if he availed himself of the proper US paperwork once he became of age.

Though I'd read of the five-year requirement on Stanley Ann, I hadn't seen before that only two years of those needed to be as of the age of fourteen, which she seems to have met.

With this distraction in his hip pocket, I believe the info on his Hawaiian COLB will show Barry to have been lying fraud for many years prior to his presidency, most likely as to his having been born in Kenya, but certainly not to a degree that will get him impeached in this session of Congress. That said, it would be important to note that his having been truthful on that point would certainly have kept him from getting elected president.

HF

31 posted on 09/29/2009 6:50:39 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Children of citizens born outside the continent aren’t second class citizens.

Who said anything about 2nd class citizens? We're talking about American Citizens vs. Natural Born Citizens that are UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to hold the office of the President. Pull the other one...
32 posted on 09/29/2009 6:53:24 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

US Code CANNOT define a Constitutional term, such as “Natural Born Citizen”.

If it could, then we could simply redefine words in the Constitution to mean whatwever we wish and to hell with the Amendment process.

And, NO, her grandson is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and neither is my son, born in Jakarta, Indonesia to US citizen parents. Sorry, but both you and Ruthie are wrong on this - in her case guilty of wishful thinking. In your case, well I just don’t know.


33 posted on 09/29/2009 7:04:02 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

so according to your theory, a foundling of unknown parentage and uncertain place of birth is a Natural Born Citizen..yeah that’s the ticket/s


34 posted on 09/29/2009 7:06:31 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: holden
Though I'd read of the five-year requirement on Stanley Ann, I hadn't seen before that only two years of those needed to be as of the age of fourteen, which she seems to have met.

You are wrong on this, Ann did NOT meet the five year requirement. This two year requirement that you are referring to is (I beleive) a later revision of the statute that was NOT, repeat, not, retroactive. Ann Dunham was legally incapable of transmitting US citizenship to Barry outside the United States in 1961.

35 posted on 09/29/2009 7:08:29 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: holden

Impeached?

You can only impeach an office holder. If the man is Constitutionally disqualified, he isn’t an office holder at all. He is little more than a trespasser.


36 posted on 09/29/2009 7:11:21 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JenB

Sorry, but all Americans born abroad have statute law to thank for their citizenship status, and to that extent they are not and cannot be “natural born citizens” despite being US citizens by birth. This may be a distinction that is hard to grasp, but it is graspable.

Please see my post 7 above for a brief explanation of the law on this subject.


37 posted on 09/29/2009 7:14:34 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Obot trolls hard at work here I see...


38 posted on 09/29/2009 7:17:48 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g

Please cite the revision history to which you make reference.

HF

39 posted on 09/29/2009 7:21:03 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

What a dis-incentive for anyone to sign up for the military! “We’re going to station you overseas and any kids you have there won’t be natural born citizens. Thanks!”

So you believe neither presidential candidate was a natural born citizen?


40 posted on 09/29/2009 7:21:38 AM PDT by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
So you think SCOTUS is going to rule on this before the end of this session of Congress? I suppose that's possible, however unlikely.

HF

41 posted on 09/29/2009 7:23:40 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Think of it this way (if you can): Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by the Law of Nations. Birth outside of US soil would require an act of law to confer citizenship to that child.

The Founding Fathers understood natural law, so why is it so hard for you Obots? Remember his father was a Kenyan national? Even if he was born in Hawaii he would not qualify under natural law.
42 posted on 09/29/2009 7:26:10 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Black Birch
"I was born in Paris while my Dad was in the military. Both of my parents were born in the USA. It has always been my understanding that I can't run for President, because I wasn't born on US soil."

You're understanding is incorrect. Although being born on US soil would be sufficient in itself, regardless of other circumstances, it is not the only way of being a natural born citizen. All "natural born citizen" means is that one is a citizen by birth. Since you were a citizen at birth, because of your parents, you are a natural born citizen.

43 posted on 09/29/2009 7:27:03 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thecraw

Nonsense.


44 posted on 09/29/2009 7:28:10 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Natural Born? I think not. Look at this exchange in the arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS:

Justice Souter: Maybe it would be simpler if I asked the... I think I can ask the question a different way.

Do you think that the... the... the act of recognizing citizenship here for children born abroad is naturalization within the meaning of the naturalization clause?

Mr. Davis: Yes, Your Honor, it is naturalization within the meaning of the constitutional naturalization clause.

Naturalization CANNOT be Natural Born.


45 posted on 09/29/2009 7:30:05 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: holden

I have said nothing on the subject of any Supreme Court action.


46 posted on 09/29/2009 7:30:57 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Nonsense.

It's only nonsense to you because you are in the tank for your hero Barry Soetoro.
47 posted on 09/29/2009 7:34:38 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Even if he was born in Hawaii he would not qualify under natural law.

Over 100 years of legal precedent since the 13th and 14th have effectively conferred citizenship on ANYONE born in our borders (ie birthright citizenship). Why do you think that even the children of illegals born here have citizenship, as they have for several decades?

Whatever you think about "original intent" is irrelevant in the face of existing legal opinion.

48 posted on 09/29/2009 7:35:16 AM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JenB
So you believe neither presidential candidate was a natural born citizen?

In the case of Barack H. Obama, the case is clear cut. His father was not a US citizen and not even a green card holder. He was merely in the United States on a student visa. Barack Obama was born a citizen of Kenya by his own admission, and even if he were also a US citizen by birth, he was NOT a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution to be eligible to the Presidency. I consider his presidency to be invalid and void.

In the case of John McCain, the case could be made for Natural Born Citizenship if he had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US soverign territory. However, that is not the case. He was born in the Republic of Panama, and although he is most certainly a US citizen by birth as a result of the operation of statute, he is also not a Natural Born Citizen as that term is properly understood under the Constitution, even if that seems manifestly unfair and unjust.

49 posted on 09/29/2009 7:38:01 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Birthright citizenship is NOT coextensive with Natural Born Citizenship.


50 posted on 09/29/2009 7:38:59 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson