Posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:46 AM PDT by GregNH
On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint)
Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertylegalfoundation.net ...
If pointing out your error makes me a jerk, then I'm guilty as charged.
A better person would acknowledge he made a mistake.
I don’t know what to think anymore.
Of course it did. The United States existed with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The ratification of the Constitution was the creation of the form of government that the previously declared United States would follow.
By limiting them to people born citizens, which they did.
By limiting them to the children of citizens, which they did.
-PJ
From Minor v. Happersett
The SCOTUS DID NOT use the 14th amendment to DECIDE that Minor was a US Citizen.
[quote]
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
[/quote]
To determine that Minor was a US Citizen, the court DEFINED the term ‘natural born Citizen’ from the Constitution, and determined Minor to be a NBC.
[quote]
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
[/quote]
There is NO way around the FACT - the SCOTUS has established PRECEDENT that ‘term of art’ - ‘natural Born Citizen’ - IS that as defined by Vattel.
Much of the confusion comes from the perceived ‘gap’ in methods of citizenship. You are naturalized, or you are NBC, and therefore if you meet the 14th Amendment requirements you are NBC.
If you read Vattel’s Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, he goes on to describe naturalization at birth. The simple understanding of a ‘natural born citizen’ is a person who requires no man made laws to be a citizen. Even the Constitution and its 14th Amendment are man made laws, so they can not ‘make’ someone a NBC. What they can do, is make someone ‘naturalized at birth’ - but they are not ‘natural born’. That is where the disticntion lies.
[quote]
If “natural-born citizen” requires two citizen parents, then would a child of a citizen and a non-citizen be a “natural-born citizen” of no country at all?
[/quote]
Yes - that would be correct. The child would be born with multiple allegiances, and therefore would be ‘natural born citizen’ to none.
The reason for the NBC clause is very simple, and is stated clearly by John Jay in the Federalist Papers. Since the president is also the Commander in Chief of the US military, the founders determined it to be wise to restrict the office of President to those who did not have any form of allegiance with another country.
If you were born in another country, or one or both of your parents are not only citizens of another country, but have not become citizens of the US - would all your loyalties lie with the US? The founders were simply trying to put in a small safegaurd that whomever became Commander in Chief of the entire US military had only one loyalty - and that was to the US.
[quote]
What if a child were born to a US citizen single mother and the citizenship (and perhaps even the identity) of the father is unknown?
[/quote]
Those are two different things, if the father is unknown, then there would be no other allegiance, except towards the US - therefore the child would be NBC.
For the second, where the father is known, but his citizenship is unknown - then the child’s NBC status would also be unknown.
An NY Times travel reporter files a story telling of her travel in 1981:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html
There was a travel advisory regarding Pakistan in 1981, not a ban:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
I have seen no evidence at all that Obama worked for the CIA. Low level work in a company that might have been a front in some foreign branches doesn't count in my book. I personally went through the CIA security clearance process (I was not selected, but that is another story...I was given a “secret” clearance subsequently by another agency) and IMO Obama never would have gotten through it, nor did this man who is unqualified for anything useful (prior to law school) fit the profile of a CIA recruit!
“any discussion about the criteria for a natural born citizen prior to the nomination of Obama can’t possibly be relevant to the issue”
It can be relevant to any number of issues, but not the one under discussion in the part of my post you quoted. If you want to expand the discussion, fine, find a better quote or just start talking.
For completeness’ sake, I will remind you that I was doubting that anybody on FR cared about the (fictitious) distinction between native born and natural born citizens before ‘08. I was not doutbing anyone cared about “the criteria for a natural born citizen prior to the nomination of Obama.” That would be stupid.
“You really do have a problem admitting when you made a mistake, don’t you?”
You have a short memory, don’t you? Have you forgotten applauding me for admitting a mistake, just like you forgot what it was I was talking about in the post you quoted?
“You really do have a problem admitting when you made a mistake, don’t you?”
By the way, I know you think you’re right, but so do I. So does everyone, most of the time. Generally we make consessions for others not immediately capitulating just because we tell them they’re wrong. Do unto others, and all that. Maybe I don’t admit to mistakes every post because [gasp!] I don’t think I’m wrong and amn’t automatically stymied by your mighty intellect.
“If pointing out your error makes me a jerk, then I’m guilty as charged”
No, affecting surprise (”wow”) at me admitting a mistake after I’ve posted to you, like, a total of two times, is (unless you remember me from before; maybe, but I don’t remember you). Harping on about me not admitting mistakes after admitting I admitted a mistake is even jerkier.
“A better person would acknowledge he made a mistake”
Like the mistakes you’ve acknowledged to me? Oh, sorry, I forgot: only people other than you are wrong.
“Of course it did. The United States existed with the signing of the Declaration of Independence”
No, there was the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation between the Declaration and the Constitution (which created the U.S.); you may have heard of them.
“The ratification of the Constitution was the creation of the form of government that the previously declared United States would follow.”
Huh? I literally can’t understand this.
I was taught this as well in the 1960’s and 1970’s at three different schools(elementary, middle, and high school).
You said "How could they be, when the U.S. didn’t yet exist?" in your response to my quoting the Preamble.
You were wrong.
-PJ
You are really a moron. I have tried but you obviously cannot comprehend the English language. Don’t bother replying I am done.
Let me make this easier for you.
In Congress, July 4, 1776That's not the Constitution. It's the Declaration that created the US.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events...
The Constitution created the republican form of government within which the states agreed to operate.
-PJ
Thank you FRiend. My point was to the LLF member that I found it troubling to insert language that states there was a travel ban to Pakistan when there wasn’t a “ban”. It does not look good to enter mis-information in a court brief.
I will trust you testimony on the CIA thing, it was not proven to me one way or the other but I wanted to bring it up that context because it is out there, as is the travel ban.
All that aside I think, IMHO, that a judge may just say, to a third party, hey you need to prove your assertions.....placing the burden of truth, or the revelation thereof off their desk and onto someone else’s....
What is left unsaid here is that the Attorney General of of any state has the power to keep Obama the Candidate off that state's ticket on claimed Constitutional grounds.
That would make that Attorney General the DEFENDANT in any action to set aside his ruling. With the candidate as the PLAINTIFF, the issues of standing, and claimed damages would be moot. In other words, that state's Supreme Court would have to hear it, with appeals fast-tracked to the SCOTUS.
Imagine one state's governor or attorney general making this move!
I dunno, apparently he was pretty good at scooping ice cream in Hawaii and even worked without a SS card. CIA does need fall guys on occasion.
obumpa
Nope.
Natural born citizen is not a type of statutory citizenship. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States and ONLY appears in the U.S.Constitution.
A citizen of the United States may serve in Congress, either in the House or the Senate. He/she may be native born (jus solis), or of derived citizenship from parents (jus sanguinis), or naturalized. All these types of statutory citizenships can serve in Congrees.
Article II, Seciont 1, Clause 5 of the U.S.Constitution states unequivocally that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President of the U.S.
Minor v. Hapersett (1874) provides the definition: born in the U.S. (jus solis) of citizen parents (jus sanguinis).
According to your posting, any anchor baby or Muslim terrorist born here accidenatlly could be President.
I don’t thing so!
Welcome to the so-called “fringe”.
“What to do?”
Educate those you come into contact with, whether online or in the real world, at every reasonable opportunity with reason and in reasonable tones what the holding in Minor vs Happersett means regarding Natural Born Citizen status and its bearing on presidential eligibility. I wouldn’t know about the torches and pitchforks angle, but if enough of the citizenry can be made aware of the fraud that has been perpetrated, perhaps a critical mass of public interest could force the issue in the media, those organs’ reluctance notwithstanding. At the least, a larger public knowing what has been done to them and our founding document can sweep all these self-serving dirtbags in DC into the unemployment lines and start over with a whole batch of new monkeys, and keep doing that until we get a set of monkeys that understand that they are our employees and are bound to uphold the country’s charter.
A Natural Born Citizen is one who cannot be any other kind of citizen, due to their birth to parents who are themselves both citizens.
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.