Skip to comments.Fox News anchor declares Obama is eligible (Jerome Corsi schools Bret Baier on NBC)
Posted on 05/01/2012 11:22:15 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Prominent Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier has posted an explanation on the networks website of why he believes Barack Obama is eligible to be president.
However, Harvard-educated Jerome Corsi, author of Wheres the Birth Certificate? says Baier isnt quite on track yet.
Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define natural born citizen, as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, he said. The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not natural born citizens under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.
Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term natural born citizen or to Article 2, Section 1, Corsi said.
To novices, the distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of birth tourism to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a citizen at birth, under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401, he said.
He continued, Natural Born Citizen is a term of natural law it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You almost have to wonder whether Baier has been instructed to post this story as a “straw man piece” to start a dialog.
Baier pretends to inform the ignorant, yet repeats many of the public (Democrat/CINO) misconceptions about NBC.
Even though his piece was posted by an underling, it is too stupid to be taken seriously as journalism as approved by Baier, IMO.
Baier says he wants to have a panel discussion of legal experts on his show. That should provoke further “consciousness raising”!
Still nothing about the purportedly forged birth certificates,
or possible places of birth?
Some people will then point to Calvin's Case  in English Common Law as proof that Obama is natural-born, but that does not exactly state the findings in that proceeding.
Calvin was born in Scotland and it was challenged that he was NOT entitled to inherit land in England. HOWEVER, James I was the Sovreign of BOTH England AND Scotland when Calvin was born. This was BEFORE the uniting of the kingdoms. Two kingdoms, BUT ONE Sovreign. The Court ruled in favor of Calvin since he had loyalty to ONE Sovreign - and the ruling was ABSOLUTELY correct. However, that ruling DID NOT address the case of a subject owing loyalty to TWO Sovreigns [dual nationality].
This aspect was actually debated in Parliament the 13th year of Elizabeth I's reign, as it appeared that she would remain childless. The debate concerned as to whom would reign after her death. A couple of quotes from that debate are:
Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be.
If the child of an alien born in England should be free in England; and by reason his father is a Scot before also in Scotland, (as doubtless by the law he is, wheresoever he be born,) if wars should happen, (as it hath done many times between these two realms,) whose part shall he take? No man can serve two masters at one time, saith the right Lawmaker, and also common reason. If he follow the Scotch part, then he is a traitor to England. If he should with England, then he is a traitor to Scotland. If he will take part with neither, then is he a traitor to both. For every man by the laws of nature, (which is Gods law,) and by the law of every realm, is bound to declare himself a member of one commonwealth: that is, to bestow his life and goods in the defence thereof, when need requires. Therefore I ask, which part it is like that he will take, that is a mongrel of both nations?
This absolutely states that a dual national COULD NOT be natural-born ...
if they were born outside the US, then they could claim citizenship from that country.
if one or both parents are not US citizens, then they could claim citizenship of their parents citizenship country.
it's that simple.
only those trying to make excuses for 0bama make this confusing. this is not a term made up by the founders. it's a term that has been used worldwide for centuries.
Obama is not only a slave, as in the mentality of hating the free and submitting himself to looks and fashion of democratic crassness, he is a slave of foreigners and beholden to them. Plus, he is a convict and convictophile.
He is tripple quadruple ineligible to ever be leading a hair off my toe or be hired to take care of it.
Who the frack are these people? It’s like a stranger just popped in my house.
There’s a simple argument to this. The Founders didn’t have 8 USC Section 1401 when they inserted the natural-born citizen requirement into the Constituion. Their concept of natural citizenship was in defiance of British subjecthood and based on collective allegiance to the United States for “ourselves and our posterity” ... IOW, the original citizens and the children of those citizens. This is why 18 Supreme Court justices agreed that NBC is defined OUTISDE of the Constitution in accordance with the law of nations: All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
It states the President must be a “natural born Citizen.”
The Founders were not in the habit of wasting words.
“Citizen” clearly does not mean the same thing as “natural born Citizen.”
Every person who claims that Obama and Rubio are eligible must clearly explain the legal difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.”
Great point. It is a measure of this inherent and necessary adoption and honoring of such.
Obama has no charity into America, heck, he was told that raping was ok and humane thing to accept, much the way he “accepts” the drunkeness of his father. He was raped or raped himself and others to his position of power.
Indeed, the Constitution is a document of language and definitions. It tells what constitutes what and what differentiates this from that.
Callous moronic liberals do not want to delve into those “details”. Liberals are whores who not only reject the mandates of the constitution by laziness, but who are completely incapable of making important distinctions, relativizing everything.
To adhere to the COnstitution is nowadays to be risking being accused of being “extreme” or to “exagerate”.
Let us face it, to these corrupt a$$ hole politicians, we are terrorists and they are the cute nice ones, cute little swines swimming in their own excrements. RINOs disgust me the same.
But these things are important, and they cannot take life. THey are too stupid to comprehend and inject themselves into oblivion and stupid behavior, on drugs, drunk, and happy to be crass slaves that they think the materialness of it makes them indispensible nevertheless.
They cannot stand that some of us are above that. We do not need them, and that is why they are in our faces all the time.
It’s not going to work, materialist communism is never ever going to work because it is immaterial and totally dispensible, ultimately. And that is why they hate progress and technological advance which makes these “workers mentality” OBSOLETE.
The Presidency as defined by teleprompting Obama is completely obsolete as it is controled and puppeted. So they cling to humaness and other bull crap.
Sorry Zero, we can get Version 2, 3 or 4 of you next year, if that is all that your job is all about. Meanwhile, these pieces of garbage need to go.
Am amazed at how many, too; are simply convinced of their 'right mindedness' re an authentic BC; that Obama has never produced for transparent legal scrutiny; and by his own history; thus far, marked by omissions and sealed records.
Of course; Brett's convictions seem all to rational; when put up against the now 'Breitbart.com'; who by Editorial and for 'own' reason, perhaps; have declared this a 'non issue'. . .
That said; could be more than meets the eye; and Fox News doing a bit of vetting on it's own. . .and/or; just some power 'blowback' given how the Left/Obama,Inc. wants Fox News shut down; and out; and exert effort to that end.
I think the Obama elligibility was pushed in Obama as Obama for communist political dialectic, of this vs. that. It is BY DESIGN to make a case of war, or, rather, it reads like a suicide note: we cannot make sense of it (the COnstitution), let us be animals and be at peace and shoot ourselves, because animals live, right?
What about Mitt Romney? Wasn’t his father born in Mexico?
That is irrelevant. George Romney (Mitt's dad), was a U.S. citizen at Mitt's birth.
The real question is Marco Rubio. Under this definition, he wouldn't be a NBC because his parents weren't U.S. citizens at Marco's birth.
Faux News bows to 0bama (and kisses his butt).
Nor would Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, nor my husband be natural born citizens.
If we accept Rubio for Vice President we play into the hands of Obama by accepting another non NBC .
Thereby legitimising Obama.
I expect Obama will make a nationwide address saying that he knew he was in a shady area during the election process and will claim ignorance on the issue.
Question is how far will the MSM stand behind Obama?
Even blind rats know when a ship is about to sink, and they say animals can sense an impending earthquake.
I think the MSM may just now realize that they cannot fool all the people all the time anymore.
Case in point, a recent blockbuster film which was supposed to be released in America instead was released in Europe first, its “Battleship” and the studios were hearing too much negative social circle reviews of it and they figured it would cost too much trying to hype it in America, so far its doing good overseas but its predicted to flop in America like John Carter did.
Its becoming too expensive trying to hype and prop up the Obama image, and the social networks are evading the MSM subliminal manipulations and are growing stronger every day.
NBC 5 2012
IMHO, (I am not a practicing lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express)the entire citizenship issue needs review about now. I can find no reason in the law to offer citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, or indeed legal aliens.
It is a national disgrace that the Supremes jink and jive around the issue, when it has been properly presented to them on many occasions. Hey, I could be wrong ... but I have a right to know one way or the other. Is The Mombasa MF legit ... or not?
He is a convict?
what on earth is a “social network”
The Constitution could always be considered a living document. There is a well defined process contained therein on how to amend it. Oh wait! I forgot. That is too hard to do.
Every person who claims that Obama and Rubio are eligible must clearly explain the legal difference between a Citizen and a natural born Citizen.
A natural born citizen is actually born within the borders of the United States. A person born outside (except a person born of U.S. Citizens) must undergo a naturalization process to become citizens and are not natural born. WHY DO PEOPLE COMPLICATE THIS. The framers were smart enough to state their thoughs clearly and without ambiguity.
Brett Baier is just another tool of the establishment. They have all decided to just change the constitution without that pesky ammendment.
I don’t believe the English have any rules as to who can be king/queen or prime minister. Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip is the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and was born Prince of Greece and Denmark yet his son will become King of England one day. Surely that would make Charles a dual national wouldn’t it according to Vattel?
“Every person who claims that Obama and Rubio are eligible must clearly explain the legal difference between a Citizen and a natural born Citizen.”
The term citizen refers to all citizens, both natural born and naturalized.
Naturalized citizens may become Senators and Representatives eg. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, but may not become President.
Natural born citizens, those who did not need to be naturalized, eg. George W. Bush or Marco Rubio may become President.
Non citizens may not become Senators, Representatives or President.
By Mexico law, George Romney was born and was forever a Mexican citizen. No records of his naturalization as a US citizen were produced back in 1964 and 1968 when the issue was discussed during his primary races for president. He lost the primaries, and the subject was dropped.
“Every person who claims that Obama and Rubio are eligible must clearly explain the legal difference between a Citizen and a natural born Citizen. “
The first includes naturalized citizens. The second does not.
Was it the English version of "Common Law" as you appear to suggest?
There’s still a substantial difference between Rubio and Obama. I’m not saying Rubio is a natural-born citizen, but that he can make a much, much, much better argument because his parents stayed in the United States. Obama’s father was deported to Kenya, and Obama would have been deported with him had his mother not divorced Barack Sr. and remarried an Indonesian, with whom she was an emigrant.
Not really, a few g=have just been deemed ratified and no one complained.
Can you say "Anchor Babies united for President"
Parents must also be Citizens, which is why Zero's father makes him ineligible. The fraudulent BC is just icing on the cake.
The administration of the "father" of the U.S. Constitution did NOT recognize such children as citizens either.
"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madisons Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.
The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.
This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:
There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginias statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a son of the soil was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.
Mexican laws have no influence on American Constitutional law. They are irrelevant.
Was it the English version of "Common Law" as you appear to suggest?
This "English Law" argument always amazes me. It was Specifically the "English Law" regarding our status as "Subjects" which we explicitly rejected through the American War of Independence!
As we rejected the status of "subjects" we also rejected the rules defining such.
And why would you be reading Corsi's book? Opposition research?
Leo credits you for finding that newspaper article. It is EXCELLENT evidence. It summarizes the argument in a nutshell, and demonstrates that it was the common thinking of the time.
You are to be commended for finding this. I think it is currently one of the bests proofs available. The Obots really have no means of refuting it.
Again, thank you for your efforts in the service of our country.
From The Rights of Man, Applying Principle to Practice, Chapter 4 Of Constitutions, Part 2 of 2:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
Having reread it yesterday, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen. The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office. Someone who reads that entire chapter that I excerpted from cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.
“Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want ‘half-foreigners’ to be president, and why only people with a ‘full natural... connection with the country’ were allowed to become President.”
I love that! Great passage from Paine.
"Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
However, natural law (Law of Nations) tells us that "man" has a right to quit his country and become a member of another.
If the founders had adhered to the English version of Common Law, they could not have quit their allegience to the King...and be recognized internationally.
Lest we forget, the father of the Constitution and the father of the Bill of rights said (during the ratification period):
October 18, 1787 - James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason [Edit: George Mason] was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
June 18, 1788 - George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), states:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Except for the HOT info babes Fox doesn’t seem much different than the other news outlets. News sources in Europe and of course Free Republic seem to have better data. JMHO.
Born in the USA Bill Takes Another Step Forward
WE NEED HELP FROM ALL WHO READ THIS! PLEASE TELL YOUR MISSOURI FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO CONTACT THEIR STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE AND PERSUADE THEM TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
WE NEED TO FLOOD THE MISSOURI LEGISLATURE WITH LETTERS SUPPORTING HB 1046 ..
Born in the USA Bill Takes Another Step Forward
Cole Karr, KMOX Capitol Bureau
JEFFERSON CITY, MO. (KMOX) The so-called Birther Bill to require presidential nominees prove their citizenship to be on the Missouri ballot moves on one last time to the Senate.
If passed, presidential candidates would have to provide an official record of birth and citizenship when filing with the Missouri Secretary of States office.
The office would keep the document for public record. Senate Elections Committee Chairman Republican Kevin Engler says with only three weeks remaining, the bill may not be taken up for debate stating he would be very surprised if it did.
Republican Senator Luann Ridgeway supports the bill, and she is also unsure if the bill will make it.
I completely understand the concerns of people who want to make sure that our Constitution is willing to be obeyed. Our president is supposed to be born in the United States. But, I just dont know if there are enough people out there that are willing to stand up in opposition to it.
Democratic Senator Robin Wright-Jones is upset over the so-called birther bills 4-to-1 passage out of a Senate committee.
CONTINUED HERE: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/born-in-the-usa-bill-takes-another-step-forward
~ ~ ~ ~
Sponsor: Rowland, Lyle (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2012
LR Number: 4081L.01P
Last Action: 4/30/2012 Executive Session Held (S) - VOTED DO PASS
Bill String: HB 1046
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
Find your Legislators simply by entering your full nine-digit zipcode.
And the only citizenship laws that the federal government can make are those pertaining to naturalization per Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
The State of Missouri is trying to lie to it's own 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.