Posted on 12/05/2008 8:35:50 PM PST by JGA2Z
The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.
(Excerpt) Read more at newmediajournal.us ...
“Plausible deniability. Who has retrievable memories of where they were the day they were born? If you grew up with people telling you you were born in “x”, you grow up believing you were born in “x”.”
Obamafraud has no plausible deniability. He has stated in one of his own fraud memoirs that he has seen his birth certificate. He knows where, when, and under what circumstances he was born under.
His involvement in trying to add strange verbiage ( verbiage that would help him not McCain) to the senate resolution regarding McCain’s eligibility can be construed as “conscience of guilt.”
Furthermore, his unwillingness to release his vault birth certificate and answer simple questions (such as what hospital was he born in) are more evidence of “conscience of guilt.”
If this egg ever cracks, he is going down and hard.
It’s not all about the birth certificate. It’s really about the legal definition of a “natural born citizen.”
Based on the raonale for the “natural born citizen” provision-—ensuring against foreign allegiance, etc.-—here’s what I think would have made sense to the framers at the time:
(1) Natural born citizen = a citizen literally “born American” (as opposed to merely born IN America). This means citizenship determined by descent-—i.e., by operation of nature (or “natural law”). At that time, most likely descent from the father. I don’t think we have had a president whose parents were not both Americans at the time of his birth. Obama’s named father clearly was not an American.
(2) Citizenship at birth = those who are Americans at birth because a law makes them so-—i.e., by operation of law-—, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. These Americans AT birth would not have the same status as Americans BY birth. In the latter case, no law, at all, was required to make them citizens while, in the former case, a law was required.
(3) Naturalized citizens = those who were not Americans BY birth or AT birth, but obtain citizenship later by fulfilling a legal requirement and doing a substantive legal act to obtain citizenship. This would be citizenship by operation of law and volition.
In short:
— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.
Since much of the caselaw on citizenship addresses only citizenship, and therefore could be limited to citizenship by operation of positive law (i.e., AT birth as opposed to BY birth), much of that precedent may not be helpful in determining eligibility to serve as President.
OTOH, if natural born citizenship status is as simple as having two parents who were Americans by the time of one’s birth, or—according to the law at the time-—a father who was American by the time of one’s birth, that’s a straightforward standard that would greatly limit the possible factual permutations that could be presented.
Stop reading in things to what I said. Too many people here are firing from the hip at shadows.
What I said in my post and what I personally believe about Obama (yeah I think he’s hiding stuff about this) are two different things.
Have a beer, dammit.
We’ve been through riots before and survived just find. We will not survive a Kenyan president.
That is the best breakdown of citizenship definitions I have seen yet.
Why thank you.
Let’s hope a court of competent jurisdiction sees it that way.
I’ll just be happy if Obama simply lets the Supreme Court see it. They can then rule as they see fit.
Fine, then you’re just dumb.
Since we all know that any illegal Mexican can come to the US and have a "Natural born citizen". Is that because Mexico does not have have a law comparable to the "British nationality act"or is it because of a flawed US "anchor baby" policy?
To “overturn” the election, we would have to have elected an eligible candidate.
I beleive there is a lot more case law regarding citizenship status “natural born” or otherwise than we are aware of. Hopefully the SC will use it.
Both Obama and his wife are highly educated people with law degrees and they have worked in high-powered law firms. Do you really believe that he is going to risk everything that he and Michelle have worked for, their futures, the futures of their two little girls, when a simple public health document would bring it all crashing down? Not to mention that the scandal would be the biggest thing in democrat history, instantly rendering things like Watergate unremarkable.
I hope so too. But doesn't that depend on the case being presented to a court properly in several different respects? Principle, precedent, plaintiff standing etc? I'm afraid that people will believe that a refusal to hear a given case means that the merits of the case have been disproven.
“— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.”
There are only two categories of citizenship: 1) born citizens, and 2) naturalized citizens. Your third category is a figment of your imagination. “Natural law” has been superceded by man-made law in America, or haven’t you heard?
“or—according to the law at the time-—a father who was American by the time of one’s birth”
The law at what time? Certainly not after the passage of the 14th amendment, which is the only place in the Constitution to define citizenship.
Yeah I do believe it. My belief is that they think they are so above us all that they can get away with it. I doubt they think ANY sacrifice is too great to achieve their goal
The law at the time of birth of the individual in question.
The 14th Amendment required states to recognize former slaves as citizens.
This case is not about whether anyone is a citizen. It is about the definition of “natural born citizen,” which is not answered by the 14th Amendment (although that amendment may illuminate the answer).
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.