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 ...
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.