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 ...
“Whoever said it was?”
the Constitution and the founders. as has been stated, time and again, the intention by the founders was to insure any person running for the office of the president would not have split allegiances by parental birth. this is the reason for the specific language, unlike the requirement to be a congressman.
the anti-birthers/anti-Constitutionalists constantly repeat their claim that any anchor baby could be president.
thanks for stopping by
Oh, for crying out loud. Clinton himself would be proud of your dissembling. Why can't you admit you made a mistake?
You said that "natural born citizen" meant "citizen at birth". It doesn't, because the former is a subset of the latter. A person can be a "citizen at birth", but still not a "natural born citizen".
It is correct to say that a "natural borne citizen" is a also a citizen at birth, but it is not correct to say that a "citizen at birth" is also a natural born citizen.
“’Whoever said it was?’
the Constitution and the founders”
Wait, wait, wait. You’re involved in a phantom debate. I was responding to the specific quote: “being a citizen is not enough to be qualified for the office.” The point of asking “Whoever said it was” was to highlight how no one disagrees with you point.
If being a citizen were enough, naturalized citizens would be eligible. Since no one thinks they are, what were you possibly getting at?
“Senators need not be natural-born and Presidents need to be. That is where the confusion comes in”
No, the confusion is between the common sense meaning of NBC and the fictitious category of “native born but not natural born” invented because people don’t like Obama and wish he weren’t president. The distinction between senatorial and presidential eligibility isn’t any deeper than that naturalized citizens can be senators but not president.
“Clinton himself would be proud of your dissembling”
Huh? I’m not talkingn about the meaning of “is.” I’m not even using very fine distinctions. I’d say I was being a whole lot simpler and more apparent (if laconic) than the guy who brought up the arcane legal textbook.
“Why can’t you admit you made a mistake?”
For the best of reasons: because I didn’t.
“You said that ‘natural born citizen’ meant ‘citizen at birth’”
Uh-huh.
“It doesn’t, because the former is a subset of the latter.”
If that were true, there would be a category of citizen known as “native born but not natural born.” Since there isn’t, and never has been in the history of humankind, perhaps that’s a clue that something’s off.
“A person can be a ‘citizen at birth’, but still not a ‘natural born citizen’”
Wrong.
Sorry, the distinction isn't fictitious, and it wasn't invented by the anti-Obama contingent.
This issue arose with Chester Arthur. Initially, he was thought to be born in Canada, but that was incorrect. He was born in Vermont, to a father who was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Arthur realized this was a problem, and concealed it until after he left office.
It also was potentially an issue for Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona while it was still a territory and before it was admitted to the US as a state. He lost the election and rendered the issue moot, but there were Democrat "birthers" ready to challenge him.
Sorry FRiend, misinterpreted your post.
Read the post that the link takes you to directly. It is a book from the Boston public library belonging to John Adams and passed down to his son. The clear definition of natural born Citizen is in that book. References to Vattel as well.
based upon the writing of a guy named Vattel
Speaking of Vattel Vattel's Law of Nation is the textbook for National Law; William and Mary College 1830
Speaking of William and Mary College
This is a short list of some of the students who attended.
The College has been called “the Alma Mater of a Nation” because of its close ties to America’s founding fathers. A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through the College and would return as its first American chancellor. Thomas Jefferson received his undergraduate education here, as did presidents John Tyler and James Monroe.
So you see my FRiend when we say that the term natural born Citizen was common knowledge we have some facts to back it up. In 1875, Minor v Happersett, it was still clear as to what that meaning was but this was the first time it would be applied to a woman for the purposes of voting.
It’s all good
According to the Vattel's Law of Nations, that category does exist. And the US Supreme Court affirmed it in Minor v. Happersett.
Wrong.
I see. Simply because you said so, with no evidence other than "it can't possibly be true".
“Arthur realized this was a problem, and concealed it until after he left office.”
This is one of my favorite, and one of the weakest, of birther talking points. But fine, I’ll admit I overspoke by saying it was “invented” to denigrate Obama. It was borrowed. But suffice to say it is a concept in the extremest of minorities, totally obscure to the general run of mankind, and almost nobody on FR would care about it if Obama weren’t president.
I can’t be absolutely sure no birther on these threads ever thought about the (fictitious) distinction before 2008 (or ‘04, since Obama was hyped for a full term before his anointment), but I doubt it.
The distinction between senatorial and presidential eligibility isn’t any deeper than that naturalized citizens can be senators but not president.
Geezoo! You people have me bouncing all over the place. What you say makes sense too but I don’t think they had a naturalization process back then, did they?
I LOVE THIS
“I don’t think they had a naturalization process back then, did they?”
Well, the first relevant law was the Naturalization Act of 1790, so, yes!
Love your tag line. My fear is that the GOP will bring us an unqualified candidate, or successor thereto, and that would simply throw out any chance of challenging this current pResident today or in the future.
“the US Supreme Court affirmed it in Minor v. Happersett.”
No it didn’t, to my knowledge. It may have used the term “native born,” but it didn’t say that native borns weren’t natural borns. And why would it, as that wasn’t at issue?
“I see. Simply because you said so, with no evidence other than ‘it can’t possibly be true’”
I don’t see why my flat denial is any more deficient than your flat assertion.
Wow, I'm impressed. You actually admitted you made a mistake.
But suffice to say it is a concept in the extremest of minorities, totally obscure to the general run of mankind, and almost nobody on FR would care about it if Obama weren’t president.
You are probably right that few would care. But, as I said, the issue predates Obama.
I can’t be absolutely sure no birther on these threads ever thought about the (fictitious) distinction before 2008 (or ‘04, since Obama was hyped for a full term before his anointment), but I doubt it.
You would be wrong. I remember the question being posed about John McCain the first time he ran for President, in 2000. But, that would be before your time on FR.
According to one of the contemporary sources for legal terms in the Constitution, born outside the country to US citizens "in the service of the country" is considered an addition to the classification of "natural born". But, I'm not aware of any legal precedent in the US for that.
Have you actually read the decision?
I don’t see why my flat denial is any more deficient than your flat assertion.
Perhaps because I have something to back up my assertion other than my opinion?
We don’t need to determine that- I KNOW what he submitted a few months ago is a fraud, and I am a computer software engineer with enough imaging experience that I would be qualified to testify as a witness to that fact in court or swear an affidavit.
IT IS A FRAUD
being a proud member and litigant from the inception of Liberty Leagal Foundation, i urge others to join as well.
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.