Posted on 04/29/2011 8:13:19 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Perhaps it's a good thing that the U.S. Senate didn't take up a resolution on Barack Obama's status as a "natural born Citizen" in 2008 – as members did for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain while both were seeking the U.S. presidency.
The Democrat might not have qualified under the requirements the Senate, including Obama, a co-sponsor and then-senator, put in the resolution, including the demand that the candidate have "American citizen" parents.
The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.
Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!
The specific allegations have been placed online by YouTube participate PPSimmons, who previously has analyzed and provided commentary on the issues of eligibility to the presidency:
Questions over Obama's have arisen because of his almost total concealment of documentation from his life – including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
PDF Report : Obama Eligibility Primer (32 pages)
Download the PDF Report here
Sign the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Petition
The Jerome Corsi's forthcoming book “Where's the Birth Certificate ?" : WheresTheBirthCertificate.com
Video (Oct 10, 2008) : Obama Citizenship - October Surprise
Unintended consequences...
Hussein Obama declares himself INELIGIBLE!!!!!!!! NEWS at 11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HA-HA, you are posting all these threads that pitch to sell that Birther-book, which probably says Obama wasnt born in the USA. But now the argument has changed to his father.
It’s OK with me, good luck.
Apparently the folks at WND do not understand the meaning of a “Non-Binding Resolution.
If someone is born overseas, BOTH of his parents must be citizens. If born in the USA, NEITHER parent must be a citizen.
WorldNutDaily distorting things for sales again...
Now that the long form COLB has been released, verifying his father was an African, from Kenya, finally, we can move forward, proving Obama is ineligible.
In order to be eligible to serve as POTUS, one must be the child of two parent citizens. Obama is not.
For those who think the argument has changed, it has only begun.
Sure, some so called “birthers” remain busy attempting to discredit his COLB document. Either their dogs took to the wrong trail, or their motive should be suspect. It’s the wrong argument. Work with what we know. Obama is an anchor baby. Not eligible to be POTUS. Both parents were not American citizens.
Obama Sr, an African, from Kenya, and a likely communist, spewed his sperm into a college student. He could not legally marry the the college studen whom he impregnated, because he was already married in his own country, Kenya. Polygamy is illegal in America. It was then, it is today.
I know I have given this analogy before, but I would like to give it again, without reprimand. If I may. Imagine a muslim terrorist comes to America on a student visa. While here, he impregnates one of his college mates, an American citizen. She bears his child. He returns to his terrorist homeland. Is his son eligible to be POTUS?
If yes, how?
>If someone is born overseas, BOTH of his parents must be citizens. If born in the USA, NEITHER parent must be a citizen.
What is your source for that statement?<
bet your going to hear the 14th amendment ... which was to make the slaves of old citizens. Not natural born ones.
“What is your source for that statement?”
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established....
...this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,
and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”...
...In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
See post 12.
The 14th amendment was passed just after the Civil War and was intended to guarantee the newly freed slaves were accepted as citizens. Much later a liberal SCOTUS issued an opinion that is the basis for granting citizenship to any baby born on US territory (admittedly ridiculous). That having been said the grant of citizenship does not in any sense make them "Natural Born Citizens". NBC was based upon "Natural Law" and assumed to be universal among the nations. The principal applied to citizenship was that the offspring of a couple was granted the citizenship of his/her father regardless of where the birth took place.
Before the flame wars commence, that is more or less the definition advanced in several of yesterday's threads on the NBC topic. The definition is not given in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights. The impression I got was the term was in common use in the 1700's and really did not need definition.
Regards,
GtG
No, the resolution did not set requirements. It only acknowledge the fact that McCain did have American parents, among other facts. Reciting these facts are not creating requirements.
The Lynch decision from 1844 is long, but well worth reading if you want to know how the term natural born citizen came to be used in the Constitution.
Why was there a need for such a resolution? did the Senate do this back in 2000?
There wasn't a "need". It was a political act to attempt to settle doubts about McCain's status, since he was born outside the 50 states. Some people were making it an issue. It had no force of law, it was a resolution. And the point is, it defined no requirements. It simply stated the facts as they applied to McCain.
“The impression I got was the term was in common use in the 1700’s and really did not need definition.”
The term comes from the English legal term “natural born subject”, and replaced subject with citizen because we no longer had a king. And NBS had a long and established legal meaning - one that included the children of alien parents.
That isn’t the answer birthers want, so they decided to pull it from the 1797 translation of Vattel instead...but the Constitution was written in 1787.
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.