"The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark."
Posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:17 PM PDT by kristinn
The three underage Senators I listed were permitted to serve. I guess the age requirement just didn’t seem quite as important to our early forefathers.
Those Senators were appointed by their State governments. Political appointees can pull all kinds of strings, push all kinds of levers for preferential treatment. So were the two usurper appointees later kicked out of the Senate, one of whom naturalized and returned to serve in the Senate, by the way. Politics in the early 19th century was more of a blood sport at the State level, and a lot less tidy than now.
The 17th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution allowing direct election of Senators wasn’t ratified until April 8, 1913. The result was that open investigations of candidates could ensue. That should have been what happened in 2008, but people were threatened and some weird things happened to source information.
Supreme Courts have removed Executives
See North Dakota case Sathre v Moodie. This case has been almost completely scrubbed from the internet, but here is one reference. Perhaps someone with paid access like Lexis Nexis can verify.
http://charleslincoln3.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/state-of-north-dakota-v-thomas-h-moodie-1937.doc
I believe this is accurate because it comports with a legal reference which WAS available on google books but has since disappeared.
No, it's not "that simple".
In 2008 the State of Hawaii refused to confirm Obama's eligibility. Nancy Pelosi took it apon herself to personally certify Barack Obama as eligible for the State of Hawaii.
Investigating this should have been John Boehner's first priority as Speaker in 2010 at the very latest.
Pelosi likely broke the law. If this is allowed (and so far it is) it's a set precedence (maybe not for Republicans, but for anybody else wanting to run but without proof of eligibility).
In other words, if you're not eligible to be President of the United States you should not be on the ballot in the first place for other to have a chance to vote for you.
This hot potato has been sitting on John Boehner's & the Republican controlled House's lap since at least 2010. Nothing's been done. THEY are now as guilty as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.
Don’t vote for someone who’s not born in America.
It's as simple as that and nothing less.
No court has ever tried to remove a president of the United States. North Dakota law won’t help. Our Constitution provides procedures for removing presidents. There’s been some discussion of impeachment, but I have real doubts about anyone really doing anything.
Of course N.D. law doesn’t help. It illustrates the point that ineligible persons are removed as a matter of law, not politics.
U.S. Senators are elected for 6 year terms per the U.S. States Constitution even though state senators in North Dakota are elected for only 4 year terms. The United States is not obligated to follow the lead of states.
Impeachment is political, eligibility is legal. The governor was removed upon a judicial determination of Constitutional ineligibility.
1) That all the judges believe Obama is eligible?
2) That none of the judges agree with you that they have the power to remove presidents?
3) That there are judges who want to remove him, but that the judges just can't find the files for any of the cases that have been filed regarding Obama's eligibility?
It’s the same as when a business opens up that you don’t like.
Don’t buy anything from there.
The only reason Obama wins is because people vote for him.
None of the above.
"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article I, Section 2.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Article 1, Section 3
Those are the rules for removing presidents.
Agreed.
My personal interpretation of the law is that any citizenship granted by Congressional statute is, in and of itself, a process of naturalization.
The State Department disagrees with me (and SCOTUS, apparently). The Foreign Affairs manual states:
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by "Naturalization"I'm temporarily stumped about this issue. I'll have to research it further.
(CT:CON-479; 08-19-2013)Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.
Does the "power to enact an uniform rule of naturalization" granted to Congress by the Constitution give them the authority to say who does not need to be naturalized (i.e. Those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents become "citizens at birth") or does it give them the authority to say how those who are not born in the U.S. may be naturalized? (i.e. Those born outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. require either citizen parents or must complete a specific process and take an oath.)
That is impeachment.
Eligibility is a matter of law.
Impeachment is a POLITICAL process, LEGAL matters are Judicial.
Impeachment is a political act of the Legislative Branch.
Conversely eligibility is a legal matter determined Judicially.
If eligibility were a political matter then there would be no set standard and the mandate of Article II § 1, cl 5 would become an arbitrary and shifting standard. Article II § 1, cl 5 would be surplusage.
II.
Article II commands that an ineligible person shall not be President. A person who is not President can not be impeached.
Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after, a person failing to meet the requirements is at all times legally disqualified.
Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is. If the Framers intended an exception they would have written one.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.
III.
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
IV.
The Legislature has no power to interfere with a Judicial determination of ineligibility.
There is no Legislative role, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5.
There is no requirement that the Legislature impeach, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5.
To allow an ineligible person to remain in Office on the premise that the Legislature has not impeached would be an improper interference with the Judiciary and an improper combination between the Legislative and Executive Branches.
V.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from Office.
“My personal interpretation of the law is that any citizenship granted by Congressional statute is, in and of itself, a process of naturalization.
“The State Department disagrees with me (and SCOTUS, apparently).”
I personally could only defer to SCOTUS for a ruling on any specific POTUS eligibility case that manages to get up to them, which, so far, has been a near impossibility!
I am not a SCOTUS justice so my opinion doesn’t count and even an individual justice’s own personal opinions don’t count. Only a SCOTUS majority counts and predicting what any ruling would be with certainty just can’t be done!
Every questionable candidate so far seems to have a unique fact-pattern. Chester Arthur, Goldwater, Romney Sr., Cruz, Jindal, Barry, Rubio, McCain...their fact-patterns are all distinguishable one from the other.
Look at McCain. He was a citizen at birth, but only nunc pro tunc! He became a citizen at birth a year or so AFTER he was born by an act of Congress, IIRC. So was he a citizen at birth? That depends on what the meaning of “at” is!
I’m with Kenny Bunk! SCOTUS needs to take an NBC case and have at it. We NBC purists (who prefer the MvH definition) may not like the result, though.
"Impeachment is a POLITICAL process"
"Impeachment is a political act of the Legislative Branch."
"A person who is not President can not be impeached."
"Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after, a person failing to meet the requirements is at all times legally disqualified."
"Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is."
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5."
Good job.
The other parts need more work. Flesh them out. ;-)
Don’t buy anything from there.
The only reason Obama wins is because people vote for him.
You're comparing apples to oranges, unless that busness is a meth lab, hand granade retail shop, slave dealership or a child molester's magazine store.
By law the Obama campaign never should have opened up shop in the first place. He was ineligible by law to be on the ballot. He refused to prove his eligibility whether it be because he simply could care less about the US Constitution and wanted to open the door for non-americans in the future to run (and he has)or he was hiding his own past and eligibility problems. Either way he failed to prove his own eligibility therefore should never have been on the ballot.
We're already in BIG trouble if we compare opening a business with being eligible to be POTUS. That's exactly how Obama sees things.
"If they pay taxes they should be allowed to vote" Barack Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II), an undoubtedly terrible man, had the choice of Kenyan, British, Indonesian, or American citizenship upon reaching his majority. Does that strike you as a "natural born Citizen" of the United States of America?
"The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark."
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.