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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
World Net Daily ^ | November 23, 2010 | Brian Fitzpatrick

Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; ussc; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-355 next last

1 posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:58 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Errant

Got the popcorn out for this one.


2 posted on 11/23/2010 9:47:22 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Please, Lord.


3 posted on 11/23/2010 9:48:28 PM PST by bannie (Gone to seed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

I’ll believe it when I see it!


4 posted on 11/23/2010 9:51:23 PM PST by magglepuss (Don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

5 posted on 11/23/2010 9:52:22 PM PST by McBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bannie

Highly unlikely that this case will get a hearing. I think the USSC prefers to leave Obama to the voters.


6 posted on 11/23/2010 9:52:31 PM PST by Patrick1 (I'm a soldier of good fortune, I'm guarding the Yucatan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono; bannie
From the article: The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

Watch for Obama to create a huge distraction.

7 posted on 11/23/2010 9:53:31 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Has a court already determined that ‘Plaintiff has standing’? If so, then that is significant. I believe that has been the hurdle all along.


8 posted on 11/23/2010 9:53:53 PM PST by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

bttt


9 posted on 11/23/2010 9:55:50 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Unfortunately WND is involved!

Next try!


10 posted on 11/23/2010 9:55:50 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Watch for Obama to create a huge distraction.

Attacking North Korea?

11 posted on 11/23/2010 9:56:30 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chopperman

Do they need to confer to determine that?


12 posted on 11/23/2010 9:56:42 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Errant

http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

Vattel’s Influence on the term

a Natural Born Citizen

What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.

If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject.

John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “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.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.

To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.

The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.


13 posted on 11/23/2010 9:59:07 PM PST by givemELL (Does Taiwan eet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"? by Richar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

A nice thought, but where does the Constitution give SCOTUS the jurisdiction to rule on presidential eligibility? It would seem that that role would fall to the Congress when they certify the electoral count. If the Congress chooses, as they have, to not investigate and rule on Obama’s eligibility I doubt SCOTUS will take up the cause. The heat they took in 2000 when their jurisdiction was unchallenged, would likely make SCOTUS gunshy to involve itsef when their right to decide is nebulous.


14 posted on 11/23/2010 9:59:07 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chopperman

They’ve conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits according to the article. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall.


15 posted on 11/23/2010 9:59:23 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Ping?

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”


16 posted on 11/23/2010 9:59:23 PM PST by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
So who was the first President to be qualified? Van Buren or Tyler?
17 posted on 11/23/2010 10:00:50 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Placing my Tinfoil Hat Smartly upon my Cranium ...

Is this why the rumor is circulating that Russia and China are dumping the Dollar?

If the Middle East follows suit and North Korea thumbs their nose we better start remembering how to make bacon and bake bread.

(”Soros, Obama and Algore may be doing a Victory Dance”)

Sleep won’t come easy for me tonight

TT


18 posted on 11/23/2010 10:01:38 PM PST by TexasTransplant (I don't mind liberals... I hate liars...there just tends to be a high degree of overlap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono
Attacking North Korea?

Well Clinton attacked some camels in Afghanistan when someone found a "blue dress". :)

19 posted on 11/23/2010 10:02:40 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999
Unfortunately WND is involved! Next try!

You're gonna let the fact that WND is reporting this, run you off from a real case before the Supreme Court?

Good grief...

20 posted on 11/23/2010 10:05:29 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

As much as I would like to see it... Odds are less than zero... Will of the people and turmoil etc.

Maybe just one state will demand proof of natural born status before putting his name on the ballot... Seems like 3 states have bills in the works, but. So far even having one of those states pass it into law seems doubtful.


21 posted on 11/23/2010 10:06:37 PM PST by adamjefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Errant

22 posted on 11/23/2010 10:06:37 PM PST by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

“So who was the first President to be qualified? “

George Washington. Parents Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington were born as was he, in VA.


23 posted on 11/23/2010 10:08:00 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

I think you’re probably right but perhaps something will come of this. It’s not going away and may at the least prevent him from seeking the office again in 2012.


24 posted on 11/23/2010 10:08:40 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: azishot; Errant; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; Fred Nerks; null and void; ..
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”

[Thanks, azishot.]

At # 7, Errant wrote:

Watch for Obama to create a huge distraction.

25 posted on 11/23/2010 10:11:24 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
Is this why the rumor is circulating that Russia and China are dumping the Dollar?

When I saw the above in the news, I thought about what Pastor Lindsey Williams said recently, "Keep your eye on China and Russia. Everything else is just distraction."

26 posted on 11/23/2010 10:12:11 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

.................You’re gonna let the fact that WND is reporting this, run you off from a real case before the Supreme Court?

Good grief...

..............................

Yep! Stay tuned to how well WND proceeds with this case!


27 posted on 11/23/2010 10:13:31 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: McBuff

28 posted on 11/23/2010 10:13:34 PM PST by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: airborne

bookmark


29 posted on 11/23/2010 10:16:07 PM PST by airborne (Why is it we won't allow the Bible in school, but we will in prison? Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Washington was grandfathered. Didn’t matter where his parents were born.


30 posted on 11/23/2010 10:16:10 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999
Stay tuned to how well WND proceeds with this case!

Son, do your parents know that you're on the internet this late at night? [rolls eyes...]

WND isn't going to "proceed" with anything, except reporting. It's a case. Before the Supreme Court. Follow it via some other news outlet if you must, but it's important news that you ought to keep up with.

31 posted on 11/23/2010 10:23:48 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

G. Washington.
There *is* an exception of those being citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption from the NBC requirement and Pr. Washington certainly was at least 35 w/ 14 years residing within the States.


32 posted on 11/23/2010 10:23:53 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono
"Got the popcorn out for this one."


33 posted on 11/23/2010 10:24:28 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

But they were born in VA. Either way, he was qualified, wasn’t he? I believe the question was who was the first qualified President. The answer is Washington.


34 posted on 11/23/2010 10:25:02 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency

The irony is that, while discovery would be fascinating, brocko has already sunk his own presidency without it.

35 posted on 11/23/2010 10:27:15 PM PST by Migraine (Diversity is great... ...until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant; ExTexasRedhead; Sparko; trlambsr; True Republican Patriot; 3IDVET; STARWISE; Lumper20; ...

Ping!


36 posted on 11/23/2010 10:28:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. ~Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono
Seriously though, many in the media (Beck, Limbaugh and others) have suggested Obama would take advantage of some event to help restore his political capital. I'm of the opinion that he may even prod things along if something like this appears to have legs.
37 posted on 11/23/2010 10:35:17 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Yes, he was a qualified president. They mean to ask which president was the first to qualify as being a natural born citizen, rather than qualifying by virtue of being a citizen at the time of the signing of the constitution, the second method of qualification for citizenship. Washington could not have been a natural born citizen of the US because it did not exist at the time of his birth...


38 posted on 11/23/2010 10:38:05 PM PST by andyk (Hi, my name's Andy, and I was a BF 1942 / Desert Combat junkie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
brocko has already sunk his own presidency

And possibly all of us along with his presidency ...

39 posted on 11/23/2010 10:39:11 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

The same could be said about the supremes ruling on Roe v Wade.Anything is possible.


40 posted on 11/23/2010 10:39:47 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: clearcarbon

You dont suppose she has a flat head do you?;)


41 posted on 11/23/2010 10:43:29 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Where are all the naysayers? I havent seen them in sometime.


42 posted on 11/23/2010 10:45:34 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

He certainly makes a good argument:

Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."

43 posted on 11/23/2010 10:46:27 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: andyk

I understand. Kinda funny though, that even then he would have been qualified, even though it was one of those duck walk questions that is obvious to a third grader that since the country didn’t exist...

I was screwing around with it a little. But just a little.


44 posted on 11/23/2010 10:47:58 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Errant
the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

That's the definition the usurper himself agreed upon when he signed Senate Resolution 511.

45 posted on 11/23/2010 10:50:34 PM PST by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
Maybe because now, everyone now smells a rat.
46 posted on 11/23/2010 10:50:47 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Errant

Cert. will be denied without comment.


47 posted on 11/23/2010 10:53:01 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

As Thomas said, they are “evading” the issue. This will never be heard. The US Constistution and We the People will be ignored again.


48 posted on 11/23/2010 10:53:01 PM PST by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Errant
They won't touch it. Disqualifying Obama would start a race war.

We've just got to make sure it never happens again.

49 posted on 11/23/2010 10:54:07 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Van Buren was born before the constitution was ratified, but I think he would still be the first.


50 posted on 11/23/2010 10:55:34 PM PST by smokingfrog (Because you don't live near a bakery doesn't mean you have to go without cheesecake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-355 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