Posted on 09/18/2011 7:57:41 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
It should be clear to anyone who clicks a few links that you are in fact Lawrence Sellin, who authored the blog post above, and that all you post here are your ‘birther’ blog entries. Why can’t you acknowledge who you are and that you are re-posting here at Free Republic?
Hey Rick, be a big boy and demand that Obama’s EO 13489 be recended (Obama Seals Personal Records). This would be a start in th right direction
Whatever the courts may say I am quite certain that the founders did NOT intend that anyone born on American soil, regardless of parentage should be eligible for the presidency. Had they intended that the requirement for natural born citizenship would have been totally pointless and they were not given to expending effort in writing pointless requirements. They did at that time make a distinction between native born and natural born in regards to qualifying for the presidency. It is a pity that it was not clearly defined in the constitution itself. On the other had the constitution has been in effect declared null and void in so many other regards that we should hardly expect that such a minor point (in the view of so-called liberals) as whether the president is a natural born citizen would matter.
Obama himself is well aware that he does not meet the original meaning of natural born citizen, he was called on that point once by an opponent and he replied that it didn’t matter because at the time he was running for senator, not president.
“Had they intended that the requirement for natural born citizenship would have been totally pointless and they were not given to expending effort in writing pointless requirements. They did at that time make a distinction between native born and natural born in regards to qualifying for the presidency. It is a pity that it was not clearly defined in the constitution itself.”
Actually, natural born subject was a term that was in common legal use for over a hundred year prior to the Constitution. Every lawyer knew exactly what the term meant. Changing it to natural born citizen didn’t change the fundamental meaning.
A Senator can be a naturalized citizen, but the President must be born in the USA. So yes, there is a distinction. But someone born in the USA of alien parents would be a NBC, and could become President, while a naturalized citizen could not - unless he fought in the Revolutionary War.
The states largely replaced natural born subject in their laws with natural born citizen. The meaning was known to every state ratifying the Constitution. It was not some obscure phrase with no history.
Who’s left for the birthers to support for the Presidency? Pat Boone?
“A Senator can be a naturalized citizen, but the President must be born in the USA. So yes, there is a distinction. But someone born in the USA of alien parents would be a NBC, and could become President, while a naturalized citizen could not - unless he fought in the Revolutionary War.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The congress ruled that John McCain is qualified as a natural born citizen although he WAS NOT born in the USA. Of course that was not an actual court ruling but their opinion was that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having citizen PARENTS (plural). I have never seen anything to lead me to believe that the term meant that anyone born in the USA of alien parents would have been considered natural born. If that were so I still say there would have been no point in the whole requirement, the whole idea was to prevent the election of a president who had divided loyalty, granting natural born status to anyone born here would have meant that slaves were eligible to be president, a laughable idea. As to fighting in the war the constitution says that anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution could be president because a person cannot be a natural born citizen of a country that did not exist at the time of his birth so there were no natural born citizens who could meet the age requirement until at least thirty five years later. I don’t know what you refer to concerning having fought in the war, this makes no sense at all to me. You seem to be defeating your own argument here. There is certainly NOTHING in the constitution about otherwise unqualified persons being qualified by virtue of having fought in the revolution.
I don’t believe Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier would have been eligible to the presidency in spite of having been of such valuable service to the revolution that his name lives on in place names all over the USA.
1 - McCain would require two citizen parents BECAUSE he was born overseas, Had he been born in the USA, it wouldn’t have mattered.
2 - “the whole idea was to prevent the election of a president who had divided loyalty”
The assumption was someone born and raised in the USA would not HAVE divided loyalties. As we have discovered, that isn’t true. After all, the Rev Wright is undoubtedly born in the USA of citizen parents, and he hates the USA.
3 - “As to fighting in the war”
The Constitution did not require someone to fight in the war. However, those who were “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” probably did. As a historical note, the only person who was in line to be President who was not born in the USA was a man who came to the US prior to the war, and who fought in it.
4 - “the constitution says that anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution could be president because a person cannot be a natural born citizen of a country that did not exist at the time of his birth”
Actually, all those who were born in the colonies and who did not decide to go to England were automatically NBCs. That was made clear in inheritance cases, with natural born subject being replaced in the laws with NBC. George Washington was considered a NBC of the USA, having been a NBS who chose to be an American.
Alexander Hamilton, who was one of 5 men who inserted the phrase NBC into the Constitution, was NOT a NBC, and would not have been eligible to run for President if he didn’t have the grandfather clause. Remember, the first draft of the Constitution did not require the President to be a NBC.
5 - “I don’t believe Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier would have been eligible to the presidency”
No, he wasn’t an American citizen.
“Care to name a candidate who IS attacking Obama as serving illegally?”
Sure: Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, better known as Andy Martin.
http://andymartinforpresident.com/
Andy Martin — The candidate birthers deserve!
I understand your position, and do agree that Obama alone knows the details of it all.
That said, I am intrigued by Obama's behavior regarding the recent Solyndra and LightSquared scandals. One the one hand, Obama is neck-deep in the pay-to-play (quid pro quo) campaign funds for government loans that is evident in Solyndra. On the other hand, Obama is now saying he wasn't involved, Bush did it first, it was a good decision but bad outcome, etc., despite mounting evidence that he was warned against it, repeatedly, from the beginning, and that he marginalized dissenters.
This behavior is making me take another look at how Obama's team handled the Blagojevich scandal over the selling of Obama's Senate seat.
Based on what I've seen with Solyndra and LightSquared, I absolutely believe that Obama was just as neck-deep with Blago, and yet he lied his way out of the that one (again with the MSM's help).
Given the ease that Obama flouts the laws for his own purposes, and then lies about it when he gets caught, I do believe that he is capable of lying about his birth and Constitutional qualifications to be president, too.
Did he? As you say, only he knows. Is he capable of it?
Absolutely! He's convinced me of it.
-PJ
From the article:
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.
-PJ
“Obama himself is well aware that he does not meet the original meaning of natural born citizen, he was called on that point once by an opponent and he replied that it didn’t matter because at the time he was running for senator, not president.”
You’ve fallen for birther lies. Obama’s opponent for the Senate was Alan Keyes who does not recall any such exchange. Nor has anyone been able to find any recording or contemporaneous record of it.
Or maybe I’m wrong and you will be able to cite actual evidence for what you claim. Let’s see.
The only persons who call people stupid are:
barack h. obama
Maureen Dowd
Mr. Rogers
It is a pattern with you.
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.