I May Be a Birdbrain
But Smart FReepers Donate Monthly
To Abolish FReepathons
Posted on 01/02/2012 3:58:38 PM PST by Ordinary_American
Good question. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann. Roemer, Huntsman, Paul,I would think. I don’t know about Romney in light of the discussion. He was born here; that much is certain.
I don’t know about Romney in light of the discussion
Me neither, for the sake of discussion, his father was a Mexican national and he's non-NBC for the same reason as Obama.
We're left with a handful of 3rd party candidates (probably including Paul as a Libertarian) Trump, Biden, and whoever Mitt tapped to be his Veep.
It would make a good novel, and sell a LOT of popcorn...
I’m assuming religious refugees would not file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad with the US consulate...
It belongs in the courts. The Judges have all run from it.
The polite bar-room brawls (and not so polite) the endless references to the worthy von Puffendorf .... the iconic Vattel .... ain't worth a hill'o'beans until a court takes the case on the merits.
Our last chance is a state election board, a governor, an attorney general, someone somewhere who merely takes The Mombasa MF or whoever he is off the ballot, as is that official's Constitutional right and duty under the laws of his state.
That will put it in court where it belongs and we'll get to know if we are right ... or if we are all crazy.
From my research, so while it may be true that the rationale is not in the Constitution itself, it appears quite like that the reasons for the requirement were driven more or less by the concern about foreign intervention. And with FUBO in the White Hut, it looks as though their concerns were valid.
“Why, then, did the generally pro-immigrant founders include a provision in the Constitution that would exclude immigrants from the presidency? The rule seems anti-egalitarian if one imagines a poor boy coming to America and rising through the political system by dint of his own sweat and virtue only to find himself barred at the top. But in 1787, the more plausible scenario was that a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue and use his European riches to buy friends and power on a scale that virtually no American could match. No such grandees had yet come to our shores, but it made sense to anticipate all the ways that European aristocracy might one day try to pervert American democracy.
Several months before the Constitution was drafted, one prominent American politician, Confederation Congress president Nathaniel Gorham, had apparently written to Prince Henry of Prussia, a brother of Frederick the Great, to inquire whether the prince might consider coming to the New World to serve as a constitutional monarch. Though few in 1787 knew about this feeler, the summer-long secret constitutional drafting sessions in Philadelphia did fuel widespread speculation that the delegates were working to fasten a monarchy upon America. One leading rumor was that the bishop of Osnaburgh, the second son of George III, would be invited to become America’s king. “
it is possible to be both...
WHOA! Never anticipated a projected turn like this. Interesting for sure.
Ah yes MindBender26. We are back to "It depends up what is is." Justice Waite did not say that Mrs. Minor is included in the class of natural born citizens. He used the verb to be: is, were. Supreme Court justices were careful with their use of language. "Words must be presumed to have meaning." In mathematics "is" implies a definition. A definition means "the same as." Spoken and written language is not so concise as mathematics, and great jurists seem to take special care to insure that logical constructions are well-formed.
No amendments passed (many amendments were attempted, nine between 2000 and 2007 attempted, and twenty six attempts since 1789) have addressed natural born citizenship, and while no federal laws have been passed either, separation of powers prevents a law from reinterpreting the Constitution, as Clare McCaskill and Barack undoubtedly knew when they submitted the "Bill to Insure That Foreign Born Children of Citizens in the Military have Presidential Eligibility", SB2678, in February of 2008. They wanted to establish talking points for the Obama Media, and to discourage any Republican from raising the ineligibility flag. Citizenship laws - article 1 section 8, "To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization," make naturalized citizens. The president must be a Natural born citizen, the only class defined by the Constitution, all of which definitions come from, as Justice Waite so clearly explained in Minor v. Happerwsett: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar..." There is but one redefinition, the clarification of "Treason against the U.S." in the Constitution, and no other definitions - by design. The intention was to explicitly use the common-language and common-law at the time of the framers so that citizens would understand our foundations. Our framers did not want law dispensed by legal Mandarins from private libraries filled with thousands of dusty leather-bound volumes of often contradictory decisions designed to protect the prerogatives of the monarchy (Justice James Wilson wrote scathing chapters about the lunacy of building US Law upon Blackstone - British Common Law.)
"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."
Language and prepositional logic make any definition other than "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" a definition of a class other than that of natural born citizens. "Citizens are either natural born or naturalized." If there are two classes, and every element of the first is also in the second, and every element of the second is also in the first, the classes are equal. That is the nature of a definition. Any citizen other than one born to citizen parents on our soil is a naturalized citizen, which, by-the-way, is exactly the legal definition Obama applied to his own status on his web site, fightthesmears-dot-com. He defined himself using the 14th Amendment terminology used to define naturalized citizens, as a "native-born citizen of the U.S.", the same status given by Justice Gray to Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese Nationals, but on our soil. There is no mention of natural born citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and its author, John Bingham, confirmed the Vattel definition made "stare decisis" - decided law - by Minor. Wong Kim would not have been eligible to be president (though no law would prevent him from running, just as Calero, McCain and Obama ran, leaving open whether accepting presidential campaign contributions constituted fraud).
It is good to raise the issues so that more will understand. Just as there is no question that Rubio understand, and Jindal understands, that neither is currently eligible. Each of them can try to get someone, as Senator John Conyers tried for Obama and Hatch tried for Schwarzenegger, to initiate an amendment to Article II Section 1. The British still don't even allow naturalized citizens to be MPs whereas our naturalized citizens can hold any office but the presidency.
We now have an example of what can happen when we allow the power of the presidency, eligible or not, to be wielded by someone whose dreams were influenced by a father who hated capitalism. Do our soldiers believe their commander in chief is committing them to risks in the interests of the nation they volunteered to fight for, where their wives and children live, and which government was created to protect them? Or can they see, as in "Fast and Furious", that their commander believes that sacrificing a few soldiers might help with his stated political ambition for a global defense force controlled by the UN or some new consortium perhaps alled with those behind the "Arab Spring."
If we don't insist that the doctrines in our republic's foundation be adhered to, even if an exception seems worthy, such as McCain's service and his sacrifice as a war prisoner exemplify, respect for our laws becomes a political expedient. If we want to change the precedent in Minor to allow someone born to one dual citizen (Stanley Ann became a British subject by marrying Obama Sr.) and an alien, born on our soil, to be a reputed natural born citizen, or to two aliens if they never belonged to a community that threatened to blow up Israel or the US, or their parents subsequently became naturalized citizens like Chester Arthur, or to two illegal aliens if they got a college degree paid for by our tax money... we have a constitutional mechanism, Article V, for changing the Constitution. Assuming legislators can be bought after having spent a year or two in Congress, would three fourths of the states accept the risks associated with mucking with "born on the soil of citizen parents?"
So?....What are the very highest military silent? Where are the requests to congress and the courts for certifiable documentation that Obama is a natural born citizen and is who he says he is. Where were the press conferences and highly public resignations? Is **this** how our highest military defend the Constitution and watches to the backs of our honorable, brave, and highly trained troops? Is fraud, identity theft, forgeries, usurpation of the position of Commander in Chief, multiple social security numbers, and failure to e-verify not part of the military code of honor? I this how they defend the Constitution.?
How many soldiers have died or been grossly wounded because Obama uses the military to promote his election chances? Personally, I think the very highest military treats the Constitution like a snotty piece of Kleenex. I don't know why lightning doesn't strike when our brave troops salute them. Why don't they wither into a little pile of dust when they look into the faces of the love ones of our dead and wounded soldiers?
I don't believe anyone in the Republican party will raise the issue. It is considered gauche. (And yes I do believe that most Republicans are more concerned about social awkwardness than constitutional requirements.)
And to follow up, I spend almost as much time arguing with wrong headed Republicans/conservatives as I do with Obots. As hard as it is to believe, there are conservatives that simply do not want to believe the truth.
I could see one or more Republicans who are NOT running for reelection raising the issue in either the House, Senate or both and calling for an investigation. Would that work?
Trump has already raised the issue and dropped it. He does not need to run third party to raise it again. No, I don’t think that is his motivation.
I believe there are questions about both Romney and Rubio, hence a perfect ticket for Obama to run against. some more “I won’t ask you if you don’t ask me” and the American people lose again. We need to be praying A LOT.
What a coup that would be! It would at least be legitimate, unlike the one Obama has perpetrated. I don’ trust Trump but capitalism has been very good to him and I doubt he is a Communist, like the thugs we have now.
I don't think you could get any to do so. The Republican movers and shakers are absolutely afraid the media will "Willy Horton" them with any accusations of ineligibility, and it would certainly get repeated as fact throughout the black community. (95% Democrat voters.)
That and McCain's own perceived eligibility issues is what kept much of the Republican rank and file off this topic in the first place. Now they have bought their dogma by acquiescence and are now compelled to defend it.
I can't read minds, or bend them MindBender26, but his failure, like every other Republican, to directly address the clear definition in Minor v. Happersett, the clear statement in Perkins v. Elg, the statement by John Bingham, or the dictum in John Marshall's Venus decision, etc. etc. sounds like evasion. I think Rubio wants to ride it out, hoping that the evasion which allowed McCain to run and Obama to run and assume the office will continue.
Remember, Obama’s constitutional law professor Larry Tribe, writing in the bogus hearing, one of six, to confuse the public about McCain's ineligibility, SR511, based the support he and Ted Olson gave upon McCain havign satisfied jus sanguinis - having been born to citizen parents. Every Democrat and every Republican knew Obama was not born to citizen parents. He was born to a dual citizen and an alien.
These are not dense or ignorant people. They have developed the discipline to hide their beliefs essential to most politicians - and poker players. So I could certainly be wrong, but, like the hidden Obama history, it seems very unlikely that we will learn Rubio’s beliefs as long as there is a chance he could be a presidential candidate. If Rubio talks honestly he puts hundreds of Republican legislators in the embarrassing position of having to argue with Rubio, or having to explain why they failed to respect The Constitution.
Having read Rubio’s aides make claims about Rubio’s eligibility means that Rubio retains plausible deniability should truth prevail and Rubio be offered Sec. of State. or Attorney General position. What remains a fact is that no legislator has been willing to engage in a discussion. They are using the politics of power to avoid a legal discussion for which they now know there is clear precedence. I do believe that many legislators could have been deceived by the remarkable scrubbing of Supreme Court case documents of citations to Minor executed by minions of Soros’ Center for American Progress. Few lawyers with whom I've discussed this point knew anything about Article II Section 1, Minor v. Happersett, The Venus, Perkins, Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ attempt to ignore Article II, etc. etc. The topic is hardly a topic at most law schools, and Constitutional law has little to do with activities of working attorneys.
There is nothing incomprehensible about the law. Our framers consciously created a document which every literate citizen could read, debate, and understand. Rubio is playing politics of a sort which should warn against his ambitions for higher office. He saw what happened to congressman, and now Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, who had the courage to question Obama’s eligibility, unleashing the thugs of Holder's justice department.
But if you think he “understands” that he is eligible, and I am not at all a follower of Rubio’s public statements, I'd appreciate a reference to some clear statement by Rubio confirming that. That would follow him through his career, and I doubt that he is foolish enough to do that given all the legal confirmation by our greatest justices and judges, including 14th Amendment author John Bingham.
IMHO Trump was used (bought?) to bring the issue of BC so the Kenyan cab show the fake and put the question to rest.
Now if Trump runs as independent case closed, Kenyan reelected, trump has done the job and few more casinos are added.
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.