Alan Keyes, in a recent Fox Business interview,focused attention on whether Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen;" this being easier to determine than his birthplace. However, he incorrectly stated that no one had dealt with the definition yet. This article cites four cases where the term is defined by the US Supreme Court. IN SUMMARY, "... the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
posted on 04/25/2011 1:44:29 AM PDT
by Slings and Arrows
(You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
So, if his (claimed) mother’s husband was his daddy, he isn’t NBC. See how simple that is?
posted on 04/25/2011 1:48:49 AM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
Good posting, V!
The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.
posted on 04/25/2011 1:57:42 AM PDT
posted on 04/25/2011 2:52:29 AM PDT
(Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
can u post the 4 court cases pls.
Perhaps “those in the know” are asking for the b.c. Because “daddy” ain’t daddy. If Frank Davis is listed as “daddy” then he is eligible. Maybe this was the discovery that led Zero to change his mind about his OWN eligibility. It seems in 2004 even HE recognized he wasn’t.
Now this would mean he IS eligible I suppose but then we get to biological vs paternal role and Lolo, etc. Folks would also want to know just who is this Frank Davis and that would open a can of worms Zero really doesn’t want to deal with.
posted on 04/25/2011 3:19:24 AM PDT
(Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
In addition to natural born citizenship, what about a natural born citizen who gave up US citizenship?
posted on 04/25/2011 3:32:05 AM PDT
(2 Chronicles 7:14)
The actual law has changed a bit since the centuries cited.
This still establishes nothing. try again.
posted on 04/25/2011 4:26:51 AM PDT
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
And the sad state is that we have a president whose past is defined by what he wanted to write in two books.
Where else do we get this outright ignorance by the media of doing some real digging to find out if he’s told the truth?
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
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.
Natural Born Citizen = BOTH parents are U. S. Citizens
AND child must be born in the U.S. mainland.
I guess this leaves Obama out, unless he was born before the Adoption of the US Constitution
posted on 04/25/2011 5:28:24 AM PDT
(When it comes to my freedom, there will be no debate. There will be a fight)
So, by this definition, was George Washington a natural born citizen? Presumably his parents were dead before the constitution came into effect, and they would have been English citizens.
If that's really what those words mean, some explanation of its 1st generation complications would be in order. On the other hand, I can't imagine what else it might mean.
posted on 04/25/2011 6:20:52 AM PDT
Obama ... WHO’s YOUR DADDY?!?
posted on 04/26/2011 10:57:06 AM PDT
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
I read the article, and went and to read the 4 cases. I stopped after reading the first one because it does not say what the author claims it says. In re Venus
never once mentioned the phrase "natural born citizen". At all. The case was a dispute the disposition of a seized vessel and cargo, and the question was whether the naturalized
American citizens (who emigrated to the U.S. previously and were then granted citizenship) still were considered British Citizens because that is how they were born.
The case had nothing to do with someone born a citizen of the U.S., and never mentioned the phrase "natural born citizen." So why did the author lie and claim that it did?
Assuming the poorly Adobe'd COLB isn't fake (a leap of faith, no doubt), I don't see how he's ineligible according to Title 8 of the US Code.
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth (i.e. natural-born citizens):
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
posted on 01/19/2012 6:24:34 AM PST
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson