Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Congressional Republicans avoid the Obama Eligibility Issue
The Post & Email ^ | 5/2/2010 | John F. Sweeney

Posted on 05/02/2010 10:06:04 AM PDT by Menehune56

In discussions concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama II for the office of President of the United States, many point out that if there were a real issue, the Republicans would have leveraged it in 2008 to retain control of the White House. But it was well-documented at the time, and additional documentation and analysis have established, that John McCain’s eligibility was in question as well. With that being the case, why would the Republicans nominate a candidate who might not be constitutionally eligible to serve in the office?

The answer may be a simple one – the 2008 race was going to the Democrats and the Republicans did not want a leading candidate for 2012 to lose or be roughed up during the campaign. So the solution – let the man who needed to win in 2008, if he was ever going to be president, run – even if he might not be constitutionally eligible. Was this a grand conspiracy by the Republican Party? No, it was just simple pragmatic political strategy.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; gop; naturalborncitizen; obama; republicans; republicrats; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last
To: Menehune56

> Why Congressional Republicans avoid the Obama Eligibility Issue
I’d say brown lips. Obama is not eligible and that’s all there is to it. Denying is is just being RINO.


51 posted on 05/02/2010 1:35:37 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Comrade O has to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

I despise McCain to the point I voted for Romney since Thompson dropped out (Romney being the only one left with any chance of beating McCain in Arizona).

The idea millions of voters made strategic decisions based on fear of challenging Obama as ineligible is silly. I called Obama far worse that ineligible during the election...I still can’t believe the Rev Wright’s sermons didn’t take him out of the contention.


52 posted on 05/02/2010 1:36:53 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Now the 60k question is, why didn't bammie need a resolution too?

That's been my question too. My guess is that Obama saw that McCain made his long form BC available and didn't want any questions about why he didn't do that too. Obama no doubt figured that the RNC would be too afraid of the racist tag to raise the issue and that the lapdog media would cover for him in any event. So far he's been right, unfortunately.

53 posted on 05/02/2010 1:38:08 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; Fractal Trader

“McCain’s BC was doctored to make it appear that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.”

Oh Lord. How can I start/fight this. I fractured my left elbow a couple of weeks ago, and I just want to go to bed now. It does not hurt. I am just tired…maybe it’s stress.

Anyway, McCain’s “birth certificate” shown on FR was his Certificate of Live Birth …It was not “doctored.” It told the truth. It is a legitimate CoLB. Unlike Obama’s, McCains’s CoLB was truthful and showed he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama and not the CZ. (This still would not have made him eligible to run for president.)

A few days later, I went to Panama’s official public registry to dig up his official birth record in Colon. The staff and I combed the computers, official written documents before, during, and after the year his birth and nothing.

Why did nothing show up? Because it is up to a parent to take the child’s birth certificate to the national registry and record it. If not, there is no “public” record of it in RP. The McCain’s never did that. They left without recording his birth in Panama. BUT, they were required to show his official Panamanian birth certificate to the Canal Zone which showed he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. If not produced, he would never have received his CoLB from the CZ.

If am ever in Colon, I will go directly to the Amador Guerrero Hospital where he was born and ask for a copy of his BC. But I don’t plan a trip to Colon soon. It is a dangerous town. Maybe a lawyer friend of mind can pull some strings and call in some favors, but I am not going to plan on it.

.


54 posted on 05/02/2010 1:53:41 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: x

“McCain was eligible...”

No. He never was eligible. Read my posts.


55 posted on 05/02/2010 2:01:05 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: x

“McCain was eligible...”

No. He never was eligible. Read my posts.


56 posted on 05/02/2010 2:04:39 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

It has a lot of people frustrated. We don’t want to think badly of our countrymen, we don’t like this feeling of unease, and we are not into conspiracy theories. BUT, and it’s a big but, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. The unease about all the things that make no sense leaves us to wonder about conclusions that have been drawn, none of which makes us feel safe or intact as a country. The word coup comes to mind far too often, and if there was nothing to it, why would our countrymen NOT put the minds of the American people at ease over it?? Nothing makes sense, and that a huge problem.


57 posted on 05/02/2010 2:15:55 PM PDT by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

I agree. One of the stupidist political analyses I have ever glanced at. It’s even too stupid for the Stupid Party to espouse.


58 posted on 05/02/2010 2:17:26 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I have often wondered if they are frightened about more than just that.


59 posted on 05/02/2010 2:19:57 PM PDT by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Gee! I share your feeling. You described it very cleverly! Obama’s eligibility just sticks in my gut!

What bothers me the most is the near complete silence on the part of the conservative media: Rush, Hannity, Beck, Ingram, Levin, and the rest.

What WEENIES! They have gonads the size of dust mites!

In all relationships there is always a “deal breaker” point. It is true in marriage, friendships, business, and even stores that one will patronize.

Well...These conservative yappers are running a business. They are “selling” their reputation for delivering honest reporting on conservative issues of importance.

That Rush, Beck, Hannity...and the rest, have BRAZENLY, and with complete gall, ignored Obama’s eligibility is a flat out DEAL BREAKER for me. I absolutely will never trust their integrity again.

Beck tears up over the Constitution? Rush has the utter **contempt** to write Friday a week ago that he cares about the Constitution? Coulter calls those with reasonable concerns “CRANKS”? OReilly waves print out from the Internet and lies to his viewers that he has seen the birth certificate. UNBELIEVABLE!

These guys are phonies or cowards!

If Rush, Beck, Coulter ( and the rest) are phonies, then when tryanny comes they will sell their talents to fascist oligarchy. They will spit shine the jack boots crushing our necks.

If Rush, Beck, Hannity, Ingram, ( and the rest) are cowards then the time to report is NOW!!! Because....

** The fascist oligarchy will carry out their threats anyway.
** The fascist oligarchy will throw them off the air anyway.
** The fascist oligarchy will steal their money anyway.

What I find amazing is that 40% to 50% of Americans have serious questions about Obama’s eligibility. Likely the percentage is higher than that since the polls were mostly contracted for by liberal/Marxist sponsors.

Imagine that! Nearly half the country knows about Obama’s eligibility through pure word of mouth and the Internet.

In one way, Obama has orchestrated an enormous Alinsky win. Surely I can be the only conservative who is absolutely revolted by Rush, Beck, Hannity ( and the rest). Obama has succeeded in driving a great big wedge of distrust between the conservative talk show yappers and likely a significant percentage of their customer base.

Personally, if there is ever a serious alternative to those guys and gals on Fox News, as well as Rush and the other yappers, I will be GONE in a nanosecond!

60 posted on 05/02/2010 3:17:36 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

As I posted before: They made a deal.

If John McCain had won the election we’d have the same issue... as he was also born on foreign soil in a civilian hospital in Colon, Panama and fails the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship. It was so nice to hear pundits and media bring up this fact /lol. The “born on a military hospital” is PSYOPS fantasy.

What’s VERY interesting is that in early 2008 the 3 candidates were already conniving with each other.

February 28 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) with co-sponsers Barry n Hillary in background attempted Bill S. 2678 Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to change requirements on the Constitution’s natural born citizenship provision to no avail.

One month later McCaskill is back again w/co-sponsers Barry and Hillary for Resolution 511 declaring John McCain eligible as “both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth...”

So

— never minding the fact this bill is toilet paper and Barry didn’t even qualify said criteria —

WHY were there TWO Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, TWICE, WHO were in direct COMPETITION with John McCain in the 2008 election?

Funny how Hillary get’s Sec of State. See how blackmail works?

And if McCain had won..what would have Hillary gotten? The one with nothing to lose...

And of course we’ve heard the McCain camp declare “we’ve looked into Barry’s NBC issue, nothing to find”..riiight.

Usually the question comes up, well if such and such (opposing) campaign and management had this dirt on such and such candidate, why wasn’t it brought up?? Because the whole house of cards would fall.

Everybody’s dirty.


61 posted on 05/02/2010 3:35:00 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

I don’t accept the premise. It was not a foregone conclusion that Obama was going to win (or Hillary or Johnny either). That’s just plain silly.


62 posted on 05/02/2010 3:40:06 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
“I don’t accept the premise. It was not a foregone conclusion that Obama was going to win (or Hillary or Johnny either). That’s just plain silly.”

I agree. It's not like this was 1984 where everyone knew Mondale was doomed, to the extent that even conservatives almost felt a twinge of pity for his trudging on to the inevitable (although choosing Grandpa Munster makeup for his last debate with Reagan remains relatively inexplicable—maybe he just finally cracked).

McCain clearly lost, but it was not a total rout. One can imagine a better run campaign, or a few select events playing out slightly differently, getting him over the top.

63 posted on 05/02/2010 4:04:14 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy
Star Traveler is a well know troll who journeys here from the Obot Universe to haunt threads concerned with Obama’s birth certificate and the meaning of natural born for the purpose of spreading misinformation. Star’s specialty is long monotonous posts containing partial truths that clutter up a thread with confusion and are rife with an irritating number of LOL’s and doncha knows. Star is regularly kicked off “birther” threads by mods and has been warned by the site owner as well.

Star Traveler has a number of fellow travelers who show up in force if a thread gets legs - there are dozens and dozens of examples of it on this site. This happens because Obama and his handlers really don’t want the birth certificate issue to go mainstream. It’s a gotcha item and they know it.

Now, to correcting the information about John McCain and eligibility. The president must be a natural born citizen.

A natural born citizen is easy to define:

1. Both parents have to be American citizens.
2. Must be born on U.S. soil.

John McCain meets the #1 requirement but not #2. McCain was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama. Panama was not U.S. territory and the hospital was NOT on a U.S. military base. Seems unfair, but it is the truth.

The fact that both McCain and Obama were ineligible to hold office is thought by many to be something other than a coincidence.

It gets very tiresome having to go over the same ground because trolls like Star Traveler provide devious falsehoods so I’m not going to provide a collection of links to you nor any backup for what is stated above. However, if you are interested in having links and backup for everything I have stated here, please respond and I will send you that information via FReepmail.

Alternatively, most of what I have said can be verified by reading this recent thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2504335/posts

64 posted on 05/02/2010 4:24:11 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Natural Born 54

“John McCain meets the #1 requirement but not #2. McCain was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama. Panama was not U.S. territory and the hospital was NOT on a U.S. military base. Seems unfair, but it is the truth.”

Uh, no, it’s actually nut house stuff that removes one from serious conversation.


65 posted on 05/02/2010 4:31:44 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Is that you, tired_old_liberal?


66 posted on 05/02/2010 4:59:22 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Natural Born 54

“Is that you, tired_old_liberal?”

No, it’s just a sane person.


67 posted on 05/02/2010 5:03:40 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

People with inquiring minds don’t suffer from tunnel vision.


68 posted on 05/02/2010 5:03:46 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Sane - probably. Wrong - definitely.


69 posted on 05/02/2010 5:32:05 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

“I have read repeatedly that Natural Born Citizen applies when both parents are citizens”

Read Vattel’s Law of Nations” the legal treatise the founder’s used in writing the Constitution and actually referenced in the Consititution. Natural Born Citizen is defined as someone born in the country by 2 parent citizen’s of that country. “Law of Nations” was the book which was recently discovered that George Washington had not returned to the New York library. McCain and Obama should have both been ineligible, regardless of where the Kenyan was born his father was a British subject.


70 posted on 05/02/2010 6:21:06 PM PDT by Bizhvywt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

bump


71 posted on 05/02/2010 6:22:52 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping List-freepmail me to be included or removed. <{{{><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift; LucyT; BP2; rxsid

gnip


72 posted on 05/02/2010 6:23:50 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping List-freepmail me to be included or removed. <{{{><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco
yep it's here, it just can't stay away, maybe we need the spray but this might work too...


73 posted on 05/02/2010 6:49:38 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping List-freepmail me to be included or removed. <{{{><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
I agree. One of the stupidist political analyses I have ever glanced at. It’s even too stupid for the Stupid Party to espouse.

It's stupid, super-sized.

74 posted on 05/02/2010 9:36:51 PM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Menehune56
I called Obama far worse that ineligible during the election.

But you certainly have been and are still rooting for him here!!!

75 posted on 05/02/2010 10:23:14 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Uh, no, it’s actually nut house stuff that removes one from serious conversation.

So why do you continue to butt or break into the "nut house"???

Nobody here are preventing you from going back to DU where you again may feel more welcome and comfortable. And we won't miss you either!!!

76 posted on 05/02/2010 10:47:20 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: danamco

So, just for the record, you are stating that you support the proposition that McCain is not a natural born citizen? Because that is what I was objecting to, and that is complete nut house stuff. There’s no need to single me out, either, as multiple other people on this thread found it equally ludicrous.


77 posted on 05/02/2010 11:16:16 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
Idiot article.

McCain was totally eligible, having been born to two American citizens, one a naval officer, no less.

Obama was totally eligible, having been born in Honolulu. He's totally eligible in fact and law, just not in his own mind.

78 posted on 05/02/2010 11:30:50 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
I don't buy this theory. Why not run a stronger candidate and uphold the Constitution at the same time? Or, since McCain was challenged on his eligibility, why not turn the tables on BHO and demand the same authentication?

Tho' it may be painful to admit it, the GOP turned their backs on the Founding Fathers here, no question; they didn't even try.

I keep getting GOP "surveys" soliciting for cash. I respond with a promise for big bucks IF they redeem themselves and press for resolution of BHO's eligibility BEFORE NOV 2010.

Do you have proper Tea Party attire?:


79 posted on 05/03/2010 12:12:22 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constituion - No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: tired_old_conservative
If he is born in Colon, Panama, YES. The republic of Panama is not U.S. soil, it's a foreign country. So he has the same problem as your dear leader, the illegal alien an usurper in the White House has regarding to be eligible!!!

Why do you think five (5) democRAT Senator were sooooo eager to create Resolution 511, it was not the puppies idea???

82 posted on 05/03/2010 4:53:49 AM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

For the nutty tired_old_LIBERAL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2504335/posts?page=167#167


83 posted on 05/03/2010 5:04:39 AM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
Pure BS.

McCain got his Panamanian pass and did not want to put that in jeopardy by pointing out that Obama is a Kenyan Born Citizen.

He figured he would beat the Kenyan anyway. Without objecting the day after Obama became the nominee, he would lose all credibility going forward if he objected to Obamas Kenyan citizenship.

McCains ambition sealed our fate. Thats why Democrats came out and voted for McCain in the early primaries. They want a doddering old Maverick on our ticket.

84 posted on 05/03/2010 6:35:54 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

McCain is / was an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.

Obama is not / was not an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.

COngress can only confer statutory citizenship (i.e., “naturalized”) on anyone.

A statutory citizen can never be an NBC, and vice versa.

There is little to no doubt what the founders and framers intended here. A natural born citizen can never (in appearance or in fact) be calimed by a foreign power.


85 posted on 05/03/2010 7:35:25 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
Worse, McCain was not only not born in the CZ, he was born in foreign country.

You've been shown the evidence that he was indeed born on the Coco Solo naval base. Why do you insist on repeating that falsehood?

Now as to your other statement:

All of us kids who were born in the Canal Zone knew we could never run for president.

Where "all of us kids" born of a parent who was in the US military? That is the basis by which McCain is natural born, while most of you, whose parents were neither diplomats nor military, are not.

86 posted on 05/03/2010 7:42:13 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
I don't have the primary sources here, but I have read repeatedly that Natural Born Citizen applies when both parents are citizens and they are abroad in the service of their county

Vattel, "Law of Nations", volume I, a combination of section 212 and section 217. 212 contains the "born in the country of parents who are citizens" definition, while 217 indicates that those born in the armies of a nation or its diplomatic corps are considered born in the country, since they never really left its jurisdiction.

But the CRS is incorrect. The principal does not extend to the children born abroad of citizen parents not in the military or diplomatic corps.

87 posted on 05/03/2010 7:46:18 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
That theory is pure BS

Perhaps, perhaps not. Political consultants and finger-in-the-wind politicians could easily have gone through this thought process. It is the political consultants who are always advising conservatives to move to the middle (Leftward in other words) to appeal to the moderates. Those who listen are killed following that advice.

Good Lord we are not that stupid

Are you a political consultant? If you are a voter you are correct - we are not stupid enough to follow such advice. Republican politicians generally are stupid when campaigning. They are too careful for fear of the media savaging any slight slip or even true statement the media can misinterpret.

88 posted on 05/03/2010 7:48:45 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
Interesting explanation for why our leaders are trying not to see the emperor's new clothes
89 posted on 05/03/2010 8:05:22 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keflavik76
Republicans don’t plan that well, but by the law of unintended consequences they managed to get Sarah Palin destroyed for 2012. Most of the time stuff just happens.

Who was our candidate in 1976? Why?

In case you have temporarily forgotten, it was Bob Dole. He had been a staunch Republican conservative and Senate leader. Although few thought he had a chance most thought he deserved it. A key consideration was that Clinton had the election sown up, this was before Lewinsky was revealed, and so Dole was offered as the sacrificial lamb.

As far as Sarah Palin is concerned it brought her out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Without McCain we may never have heard of Palin. Now she is a leading light of the conservative movement and may well have a great chance in 1012.

Needless to say, I disagree with your entire premise.

90 posted on 05/03/2010 8:19:05 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“You’ve been shown the evidence that he was indeed born on the Coco Solo naval base. Why do you insist on repeating that falsehood?”

What evidencs? You show ME the evidence.

Because you are so dang dumb, his Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Canal Zone, which is not the same as a birth certificate, states he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. But then, you have trouble reading.

“Where “all of us kids” born of a parent who was in the US military?”

Again, for the millionth time, there were no hospitals on military bases at that time.

If they were born on the Pacific side, they were born in Gorgas Hospital, Canal Zone. If they were born on the Atlantic side, they were born in a Panamanian hospital, Republic of Panama.

Had there been hospitals on military installations, they would have still been born in the Canal Zone since military installations were located in the Canal Zone.

You know NOTHING, ZERO, about the Canal Zone and Panama. So shut up.

At the very least, borrow a brain.


91 posted on 05/03/2010 8:26:09 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Dull in ‘96, not ‘76 !!!
.


92 posted on 05/03/2010 8:47:53 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA
Obama is not / was not an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.

That's not how the Court has read the law.

COngress can only confer statutory citizenship (i.e., “naturalized”) on anyone.

Both McCain and Obama were citizens at birth. Hence, they are natural born citizens, by the commonly accepted definition of the phrase, not likely to be overturned.

There is little to no doubt what the founders and framers intended here. A natural born citizen can never (in appearance or in fact) be calimed by a foreign power.

Under that reasoning, a foreign government not wanting Candidate X to become the US president could keep him out of the race simply by passing a law making him a citizen of their miserable nation and inviting him to come down to their embassy and pick up his passport. The framers never meant to cede US sovereignty in that way or any other. It has to be up to the voters to decide whether a candidate who meets the basic legal requirements is actually a patriot or not.

93 posted on 05/03/2010 9:03:08 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

I’m not challenging you, I’m just curious as to your reaction to factcheck.org’s entry on McCain’s status:
“John McCain’s father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who was stationed in Panama in 1936, when McCain was born. This has led to speculation as to whether McCain is a U.S. citizen and whether he can be elected president, a question that was raised during McCain’s run for the Republican nomination in 2000 as well.

Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:

Article II: ‘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.’

But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790. Congress: ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’

Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from ‘natural born citizen’ to ‘citizen.’

But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

In a 2009 lawsuit challenging both John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that both McCain and Obama qualify as natural born citizens and both were entitled to receive the votes of Indiana electors. The lawsuit was “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.” The decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to review the appeals court’s decision.


94 posted on 05/03/2010 9:23:54 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; NOVACPA

“Obama is not / was not an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.”

“That’s not how the Court has read the law.”

.
BS!

In the only cases that addressed this specific issue, that is exactly how the court ruled.

Give up Obama Man.


95 posted on 05/03/2010 9:30:36 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; NOVACPA
Clearly, the framers did not intend to consider, post grandfather clause, someone born a subject to the crown of her (his) majesty the Queen (King) of England to be considered a NBC and thus eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Besides, in 1787, there was no known definition for a natural born citizen, other than born in country to citizen parentS.

96 posted on 05/03/2010 9:35:36 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: danamco
“If he is born in Colon, Panama, YES. The republic of Panama is not U.S. soil, it's a foreign country. So he has the same problem as your dear leader, the illegal alien an usurper in the White House has regarding to be eligible!!!
Why do you think five (5) democRAT Senator were sooooo eager to create Resolution 511, it was not the puppies idea???”

Contrary to your mindless assertions and sad quotations of threads here, this is the type of stuff the sane world takes seriously:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25457698/The-Tribe-Olson-Natural-Born-Citizen-Memo

It and similar lines of reasoning are why rational people believe John McCain could not have been President if elected. All one needs to know to appreciate the irrationality of your position are your own absurd words: defending the eligibility of John McCain for President, whom I voted for, makes one an Obot.

But I'm glad we've cleared up that you really are that far gone.

97 posted on 05/03/2010 10:26:14 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

1. That’s not how the Court has read the law.

I don’t believe that’s the case. In the limited times SCOTUS has defined this term, the only way they have defined naturla born citizen is “born of citizen parents (always in the plural).

2. Both McCain and Obama were citizens at birth. Hence, they are natural born citizens, by the commonly accepted definition of the phrase, not likely to be overturned.

Again, that’s not the case. Citizens and natural born citizens are not equal in terms of Presidential eligibility. If this were true, there would have been no need to state it differently in the Constitution.

Further, Justice Marshall, in Marbury vs. Nadison stated that “It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

If you equate citizen and natural born citizen, then that leaves “natural born citizen,” written directly into the Constitution, without an effect, which is inadmissible (i.e., not a competent argument before the Court). Marshall stated clearly that one cannot construct such an argument.

3. Under that reasoning, a foreign government not wanting Candidate X to become the US president could keep him out of the race simply by passing a law making him a citizen of their miserable nation and inviting him to come down to their embassy and pick up his passport. The framers never meant to cede US sovereignty in that way or any other. It has to be up to the voters to decide whether a candidate who meets the basic legal requirements is actually a patriot or not.

Nope, again it does not work, becuase of the phrase “born”, i.e., “at birth”. Under A2S1C5, the operative time is at birth.

This has always been the intent and the common (and only SCOTUS definition).

From the Yale Law Review:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.

The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.

The definition was stated in Minor vs. Happersett.


98 posted on 05/03/2010 10:47:39 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

BS!

In the only cases that addressed this specific issue, that is exactly how the court ruled.

Give up Obama Man.


I’m sorry but you are mistaken:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in the case of US v] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009


99 posted on 05/03/2010 10:50:08 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Dull in ‘96, not ‘76 !!!

I had to check to se if I really said that! Thanks! It sucks to get old. 1976 seems like yesterday, but I'll admit I was thinking 96.

100 posted on 05/03/2010 10:56:24 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson