Posted on 06/03/2011 8:17:52 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
On April 30th of 2008, the United States Senate proclaimed John McCain eligible to become the President of the United States, passing by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 511 which stated that his birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not violate the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution.
One of the co-sponsors of this non-binding resolution was Barack Hussein Obama.
Though the Constitution does not define “natural born”, it is clear that the meaning had been based upon principles included in a work quite popular with many of the Founders, the 1758 “Law of Nations” by Frenchman Emerich de Vattel.
According to the “Law of Nations”, “the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…”
So because of his birth in a Panama hospital, embarrassing questions were being raised about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility to serve.
Nevertheless, rather than adhere to the text and spirit of the Constitution and engage in honest debate, members of the imperial senate rushed to put the issue to rest by ignoring the language of the document to which they had sworn a solemn oath of allegiance.
And the true motive for this betrayal of trust is more disgraceful than the betrayal itself. For it was quietly hoped this cynical, bipartisan resolution proclaiming McCain’s eligibility might insure no question would arise about another candidate, one who was clearly and irretrievably ineligible for the highest office in the land.
In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress; signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”
Regardless of Barack Obama’s birthplace, his father was a British citizen,…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
BTW, I'd love to know if you oppose the two citizen parent concept, and if so, why?
The SCOTUS ruled that Kim Wong Ark was a native-born citizen, not natural born.
He wasn't born at Colon Hospital.
i DO agree with you.
...the Founding Fathers didn’t write 2000 page bills like congress does now. how many pages is the Constitution?
...they didn’t bother defining “natural born”, because they all knew exactly what it meant. and their other writings show this.
...the President is clearly being held to a higher standard. “natural born”. not native.
if the trolls don’t accept Vattel’s definition, then what do they think the Founding Fathers meant by it?
Yes, I oppose that “concept,” a position only advocated by a small fringe of birthers.
Why?
But it it got McCain the Republican nonination and Obama the presidency. Just what all the big multinational companies wanted the american people to do.
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle (emphasis mine)
Have you been reading my posts e.g. precedents and supreme court ruling. I’m not the evasivie one here. Why haven’t YOU answered my questions about Arthur?
The common meaning of natural born is citizen by birth, as opposed to naturalization. The parents need not be on any mission, not divine nor patriotic. They could just be turistas, and their kid would still be eligible (35 years later, having lived in the USA at least 14 years).
Obama had stipulated at book length (and to the tune of copious book royalties) who his daddy was well before the election. It was a major part of his life legend. Anybody unaware of that should have sat out the election, being clearly unqualified to vote. Obviously, no birth certificate was necessary in that regard.
Anybody who thought he was ineligible because of his father needed to have made that case before the election. Which is hilarious, given the earliest FR thread raising the issue is dated 11 December 2008. Anybody got an earlier link?
Why do you oppose the two citizen parent idea? You make it sound personal.
“Have you been reading my posts e.g. precedents and supreme court ruling. I’m not the evasivie one here. “
///
i HAVE been reading your posts. and i DO think you are being evasive. ...more than evasive, i think you are DELIBERATELY misleading and deceptive.
instead of having an HONEST discussion, about these issues.
and i wonder why...
yes, as you say, Arthur admitted his Father was Irish born. and there was plenty of time for him to become a citizen. so everyone ASSUMED he had. just as every ASSUMED Obama’s eligibility was verified. (a case of “it’s not my table...”).
...in the Constitution, the Founders DIDN’T define “Natural born”. so you think it was an accident? instead of that they didn’t feel a need to define what “is is” ?
...i admit you know a LOT i don’t. you’d have to, to be able to dodge, dissemble, and mislead as well as you do, on all these issues. i admit i am very impressed with your knowledge and intelligence.
...instead of addressing this, you come back with an esoteric quotation from Ark, that again ignores the central issue:
To: Captain Kirk
The SCOTUS ruled that Kim Wong Ark was a native-born citizen, not natural born.
23 posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 1:10:08 PM by fastkelly
...is there ANYTHING that would get you to have some honest intellectual curiosity, about the obvious coverup and scrubbing, the fact that ALL his records are hidden, from the “most transparent President ever” ???
...i’d LOVE for you to explain to me, how a teenager in Hawaii, got a CONNECTICUT SSN...
Prove it.
i’ve seen MANY honest discussions on FR. and they don’t twist words, and use deceptive tactics, they let the facts live or die on their own.
yet on this topic, i see people with honest questions, ridiculed, and given deceptive answers. WHY ?
...like the liberal Chicago Law firm, linked to Obama, that wrote how unfair the “natural born” clause is, and it should be changed.
link inside here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2728177/posts?page=14#14
until Obama was elected, i don’t see ANY disagreement, even by LIBERALS, of the definition of “natural born”.
if you can find something written from YOUR position, saying Vattel is wrong, prior to Obama, i’d LOVE to read it.
I think it would be best to start by asking why you think he was born at Colon Hospital.
It was the only near-by hospital open in 1936 and McCain has spent more legal funds to hide his birth and other records than Obama has.
This should give you a hint.
That's a long-debunked Internet rumor. There was a small hospital on the military base in 1936.
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.