Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Close enough for government work.
Why would they “widen” the qualification? I personally see no historical writings (court, our outside of) that would give them reason to do so.
Of course, it’s all speculation on what they might do in the future. I suppose just about anything is possible.
++++++++++++++
Well, they haven’t exactly defined that phrase, and they’ve hinted it’s outside the purview of certain cases before them. So defacto and in reality based on Obama, by inaction they’ve widened it.
But if the SCOTUS actually rules on this, will they widen ‘natural born citizen’ to mean ‘citizen by birth?’ Right, it’s just speculation, because the SCOTUS has decided to do nothing about it.
Yes, that would be the scenario of birth outside the US with only a too-young Stanley Ann to pass on the citizenship.
++++++++++++++
Would she be too young according the later statute, that’s retroactive?
Will the SCOTUS rule about the differential or equivalence of NBC and ‘citizen at birth?’
I don’t think there’s a chance the SC goes controversial in defining NBC with Obama sitting in office, unfortunately.
IIRC, Alan Keyes was on the presidential ballot against McCain and Obama, from a third party. He definitely has standing as having been defrauded if obammy is not eligible.
Not in the sense that “citizen at birth” is defined under a naturalization statute, passed pursuent to the Congress’ power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, while “natural born citizen” is a Constitutional term. It means whatever it meant in 1787. It cannot be changed by statute, any more than the meaning of “solider” or “house” could be in regards to the meaning of the third amendment.
+++++++++++++
It could be ‘interpreted’ differently than ever before or changed by activist SCOTUS judges.
It’s interesting what you’re saying about the ‘citizen at birth’ being part of a naturalization statute - so statutory citizenship - would that also apply to John McCain making him ineligible (and I know that many thought affirming McCain’s natural born status, was a trick to affirm BO’s supposed NBC status.)
SCOTUS precedent on this is just too foggy, imho.
Oh, was he? I must have forgotten—then indeed you’d think he would have standing.
I don’t think there’s a chance the SC goes controversial in defining NBC with Obama sitting in office, unfortunately.
+++++++++++++
I agree, it goes nowhere. However, if the lingering doubts about zero’s Kenyan birth continue, or if it’s proven he was born in Kenya, that as just an incredible lie/coverup, will sink his and the dims effectiveness till 2010 can really block them. Don’t you think?
We’ve much work to do blocking their insane agenda between now and then!
In 1961 I am very certain that one could go between Canada and USA without checks in either direction. In 1983 no checks going into Canada but checks coming back into USA.
I remember back in 1961 everyone was proud that there were such good relations between Canada and USA that you could travel without checks. Same was true into Mexico. Might have been some quick checks coming back into USA from Mexico.
I’m pretty sure Nicaraguan socialist Roger Calero was also removed from a couple of states’ ballots last year, since he is not an American citizen, much less natural born.
The sad thing, and most telling about where we are, is that Calero actually made it ON a few states’ ballots.
+++++++++++++
This is sad and telling, and one IMPORTANT reason why we’re fighting zero’s birth deceptions - for those that call it worthless.
I also think this fight weakens any shred of decency and moral authority he may have had. It’s like hitting zero with body shots...we’re weakening him/the dims for the knockout in 2010/2012.
In reverse order.
The term "natural born subject" is an established common law concept--someone here posted some excerpts from Blackstone the other day; if I ever got into this as a litigator, I know where there is an excellent law library collection of this kind of material.
A natural born subject was a person born subject to the sovereignty of the king of the geographical area where he was born. The framers of the US Constitution simply lifted the phrase and concept as the eligibility test for President but changed the word "subject" to "citizen" because we do not have subjects but only citizens.
A person born outside the geographical limits of the US is subject from birth to the sovereignty of the head of state of the geographical area in which he was born--the founder's didn't want a person subject to someone else's sovereignty as head of state.
It ought to be an easy Constitutional decision to find that the requirement is that a person be a citizen at birth, born in the geographical territory of the US.
There ought to be a number of other constraints--parents as committed US Citizens; no interrupting sovereignty in other jurisdictions; etc.
But the court ought to start with a rule of law based on "born in the USA". Whether they would nor not depends on the skill of the lawyers who argue the case.
In Obama's case, he wasn't born in the US--he was born in Kenya. And he was not a citizen when he was born under applicable citizenship statutes.
The applicable statute says so; although it was changed after he was born, there is a specific effective date clause which makes the modified statute inapplicable to persons born before the cut off date--which Obama was. He doesn't get statutory citizenship under any of these tests. There is an excellent brief I wrote on this topic as a separate post in July of 2008--it is a fairly complete summary.
I don't know why you think it is a small possibility that he is not a US citizen. Let's reverse it--when and under what law did he become a US Citizen?
There is a good chance you might be correct. The only way he is a citizen is if there was a naturalization proceeding. He obviously had an interest in hiding such a proceeding if there was one because on its face, a naturalization proceeding requires as a precondition that he not be a citizen at the inception of the proceeding. Which would vitiate his claim of natural born citizenship.
I know he was not born in the US and is therefore not a Natural Born Citizen. I don't see any indication that he did anything to become a citizen at all and therefore don't think he is one.
Wrong. The term “natural-born citizen” comes from the Law of Nations, not British common-law. We went to war with Britain in 1812 because we disagreed with English common law’s definition of a natural-born subject.
Hope this helps.
I think I maxed out around 65 wpm on a Brother electric in high school.
[my mom made me take the class...I hated it because truly, I hate typing]...:))
In the mid-70s, our school electric typewriters were *so* hug and heavy they’d have killed you if they fell on you.
If a desk needed moving, the teacher would go next door to the engines & motors class and bring back a few guys to carry them around.
As far as learning goes, I wish I’d NEVER had to learn anything about Kenya, corrupt Chicago poli-tactics, ACORN or anything else this life disrupting.
An anchor baby is currently determined to be a "citizen by birth." Right?
Now, how did that anchor baby get it's "citizenship?"
By way of a federal law.
In other words, it takes something "unnatural" (no pun intended), as in a law, in order to "give" citizenship to that person.
The whole point of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is to emphasis that the citizenship did NOT arise by way of a law or statue. Therefore, while an anchor baby may indeed be a "citizen" by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, they could not be considered a "Natural Born Citizen", at least in the way the term was described during the time of the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. Again, otherwise the framers would have been intent to adopt Hamilton's suggested requirement.
While I have no doubt that Obama Senior’s British citizenship disqualified Barry, the birth certificate may be the only way to force our frightened and corrupted judicial system to protect the constitution.
+++++++++++++++
Need I say, *if* Senior is BO’s father. That’s what BO and the fake COLB from HI say, I suppose we could take that FWIW, seeing as half the bloomin’ nation is accepting that POS carte blanche. But I thought I’d say that again, in the interest of the truth.
Why didn't they just say “an American citizen born of American citizen parents”? Was there an ink shortage? As I've said that whole passage was very carefully crafted to allow one man (Alexander Hamilton) to run for the Presidency if he wished. Obviously many people here like the like one definition, I honestly think the other one is the correct one. If there weren't these constant disagreements about the law there would be a lot of lawyers standing in soup lines.
The truth is this isn't going anywhere. Obama isn't going to be turned out of the White House because of a problem with his birth certificate, said problem which may or may not exist at all. 69 million votes is 69 million votes. Maybe he will be removed for something else he does, or a series of things he does, which finally turns a lot of those 69 million voters against him, but this birth thing is not going to be the silver bullet. And you can rest assured I wish he was out of office as fast as it can be legally arranged.
I take your last sentence as a compliment.
Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero isn't even a U.S. citizen! Naturalized OR Natural Born, yet appeared on the following state's presidential ballot:
New Jersey, Delaware, Minnesota, New York and Vermont.
Calero is a permanent resident alien (holding a green card). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero
7,000
7,000
Can a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., be GOVERNED by a foreign government at/from birth?
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.