Marie didn’t run for President, but the Court refers to her as a natural born citizen. It also approvingly cites a determination that a native born citizen would be eligible to run for President.
Again, I think birthers have ONE reasonable interpretation of what NBC means, but I don’t think they have the ONLY valid interpretation. I find it unlikely that the US Supreme Court will overturn previous cases and insist on removing Barry from office based on his father being a foreign citizen.
I would be satisfied if birthers would concede that they disagree with some of us on FreeRepublic, but the disagreement is not so clear cut as to call other Freepers trolls, Obamabots, paid employees of Obama, traitors, etc.
It ought to be possible to disagree without hatred.
I haven’t called anyone a troll. Besides, I believe Obama was born in the U.S., I also believe that he is the son of Malcolm X. Clarence Thomas has already said that SCOTUS is evading the NBC issue. I do not expect Obama to be removed from office related to his birth certificate. I think it is much more likely that he would be removed for bribery, fraud, credit-card fraud, mail-fraud, identity theft, falsifying government documents, misappropriation of government funds, real estate fraud, abuse of office, and treason. If they decide to throw the birth certificate thingy in there - it is all just gravy.
Marie didn’t run for President, but the Court refers to her as a natural born citizen. It also approvingly cites a determination that a native born citizen would be eligible to run for President.
Again, I think birthers have ONE reasonable interpretation of what NBC means, but I don’t think they have the ONLY valid interpretation. I find it unlikely that the US Supreme Court will overturn previous cases and insist on removing Barry from office based on his father being a foreign citizen.
I would be satisfied if birthers would concede that they disagree with some of us on FreeRepublic, but the disagreement is not so clear cut as to call other Freepers trolls, Obamabots, paid employees of Obama, traitors, etc.
It ought to be possible to disagree without hatred.
Good point.
A lot of the Birthers (me included) are so tired of the MSM spin (inclduing MSFoxNews)....they just ridicule Birthers, and do not rationally discuss the issue. This is even a problem with people like Glenn Beck, Ann Coutler, Andrew Breitbart, and some others on the conservative end who are Enabling Obama with their MSM adopted spin
The most important thing with the entire BC issue is that, if proven that Obama is not born in the US, he would not get on the ballots for 2012. There would be so many challenges, and a few states passing laws, that the Democrats could not win the White House with Obama on the ticket.
I’ve had long arguments on this topic with other Freepers and didn’t see anyone called a traitor. Yes the Obama birth controversy is an emotional one. So I suppose some get carried away.
I very much appreciate your posting!
I used to be very sceptical over the “Obama is not a citizen” argument, but as I’ve learned more and watched him fillibuster the issue (which could be solved easily with a release of documents) ... well I’m not so sceptical anymore.
You are referring to the Steinkauler case in which, like Elg, a child of a naturalized citizen father was removed to the home country of the parent.
The ambiguous usage of the term “native citizen” in Elg and Steinkauler does not support a dilution what we now increasingly understand to be an unambiguous Vattel definition used by the founders of “indignes” as “natural born citizen” meaning parents are citizens and born on national soil. All NBC’s are natives, but not all natives are NBC.
Elg and Steinkauler both had US citizen fathers, so there is no comparison to Obama. Under US law in effect when they were born their mothers were US citizens by marriage so both parents of Elg and Steinkauler were US citizens, unlike Obama.
Elg and Steinkauler were both born on US soil which is still in dispute due for Obama due to failure of Obama to release his original vital records and any amendments that might have been made to his original HI vital records.
A particular native born citizen, who was also natural born, having US Citizen parents and having been born in the US.
One of the key problems is the from the establishment of the US Constitution and the Natural Born Citizenship was inherited from the Father. This only Changed in 1934. When you change the rules in the middle of the game, the players become confused. Before the 14th Amendment citizenship was granted at birth based upon their bloodline connection to US Citizen. After the 14th Amendment citizenship was granted by place of birth and/or bloodline. The problem of course is that the 14th Amendment changed the rules of citizenship without explaining how it was going to affect NBC status. So now that the 14th amendment has created another type of citizenship in addition to ius sanguinis (bloodline) citizenship, we have to ask which one of these is the one that confers NBC status? Bloodline, place of birth, or both? But the Constitution doesn't say that all citizenship types granted at birth confer NBC status.(If you just had to be born a citizen to be an NBC then why not say "native citizen" or only a "born a citizen" shall be eligible to the office of President? Why does the Constitution use the word "natural" born to qualify the statement? It suggests that the is a distinction between a "born citizen" and a "natural born" citizen.)
Nevertheless, the Constitution does not address the problem because the founders did not recognize ius soli (citizenship through place of birth) and the authors of the 14th amendment didn't think their wording through very well. This gets even more complicated if you start to ask questions about what the term "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means...because it suggests that ius soli itself has limitations on when it may be granted.
There are "previous cases" in which dicta gives the "born in the country of parents who are citizens" definition. None of them would need to be overturned, because none of them hinged on whether someone was or was not a natural born citizen.
However in both the cases you cite, the person was a natural born citizen, by the citizen parents and born in the nation definition.
Find a case where they declare someone not born of citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, and you'll have something more, but it will still be dicta.
Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a citizen, and was "native born" by modern usage, but was not declared to be natural born. His parents were subjects of the Empress of China.