Posted on 08/23/2011 7:09:19 AM PDT by AAABEST
(Austin, TX) -- The Austin American Statesman reports that a new Gallup national poll of registered voters shows that if the 2012 presidential election were held today, it would be a dead heat between current President Barack Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The poll shows that both Obama and Perry, when squared off against each other, would each garner about 47% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did slightly better than Perry against Obama, but Perry, who just joined the race a week ago, is already beating out most of the other Republican front-runners, like Michele Bachman and Ron Paul. Perry also led the poll among independents, a voting sector that will likely play a key role in the upcoming presidential race.
Okay, then why did you insinuate that I was lying about that?
The bottom line for me is really quite simple. IF Perry makes it through the Primary process and gets the GOP nomination to run against Ubama, I will vote for him.
That said, I have only voted for Perry for Governor in the election because he was not the democRAT running. He’s never had a real conservative challenger in the primary, the Establishment Elites in the Texas GOP have seen to that.
I will not support Perry in any way, shape or form through the primary process to the GOP convention of 2012. He just does not measure up to my level of conservative standards because of a number of issues.
In the end, we must defeat Ubama and his fellow Socialists/Marxists completely in not only 2012, but in the following elections if we are to survive as a nation.
I'm with you...who ever the GOP nominee is, is who I will support...I think the worse vote I have ever had to cast was for McRino. I even worked phones for his campaign...I did that for Sarah and to beat that scumbag who was elected.
Even the Republicans in Congress don't agree with you. Will they be tried for treason as well?
Members of Congress were purposefully lied to by a lawyer, Jack Maskell, (Democrat, of course) working for Congress on Constitutional matters.
MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009
Subject Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
From: Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.
41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions
[The Congressional Research Service memo mentioned Leo Donofrio twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.]
It would appear that one of the reasons why references to the precedent in Minor were scrubbed was so that the Congressional Research Service could publish the following lie to members of Congress:
The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
These are examples of fraud in the legal reference system. The Democrats are trying to change our constitution by tearing off the sections they don’t like.
The same efforts were made at Justia.com to hide the references to Minor vs. Happersett (the owner of the company is a major Obama supporter). The Way Back machine indicates that the efforts began in 2006.
Native born does not equal natural born - never!
Not going to call you stupid. I have CRS at times. lol
I also voted for Sarah Palin and that RINO that she was tied to, for the same reasons.
I ran into a lady at the store this afternoon that had a really nice bumper sticker on her truck. “Don’t Blame me. I voted for Sarah Palin”. We chatted for a couple of minutes and she got a kick out of the sticker on my truck. “IMPEACH OBAMA”.
We have some serious work to do this coming season. Don’t let the bastards get you down.
We will win this!
They would have said the same thing if they were asked before 2009, when this memo was released. That's because it's the position held by just about every expert in the field, not some crazy theory spread by a lone liberal.
The same efforts were made at Justia.com to hide the references to Minor vs. Happersett
When Leo first made this ridiculous claim, I pointed to other examples of the same thing happening with cases that aren't related to citizenship. Of course, they responded by saying, "b..but they could have done that to divert attention and make it seem like an error!"
“They would have said the same thing if they were asked before 2009...because it’s the position held by just about every expert in the field, not some crazy theory spread by a lone liberal.”
Oh, really?
Then why has Congress tried many times to use a back-door measure to neutralize Article II, Section 1, clause 5, “natural born citizen” eligibility requirement for the Presidency and V.Presidency?
* June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”
* Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
* Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.”
* Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
* Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
* Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
* April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
* Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
And then there is the paper written by Sarah Herlihy, an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.
Herlihy let slip the key to all the efforts above: the Democrats want a Global government, a world-wide socialist government, even though socialism has never worked on the local, state, or national level. To achieve their aim, it appears they want to destroy our Constitution.
I would include the entire paper but it is 27 pages long, and frankly I believe most decent folks here on Free Republic would find the contents sickening.
shield wrote: “Made up you say....then why hasn’t any of our former Presidents except for two who went to great links to hide the fact of not being Natural Born Citizens.”
Hahahaha.... Oh, you crack me up.
Whatever you think Barack Obama hid, no way did he hide that his father was a foreigner. Books, speeches. Hide it? He wouldn’t shut up about it.
Obama’s first major speech to a national audience was his 2004 Keynote at the Democratic National Convention. After the thank-yous, the speech began, “Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya.” Right after that speech was when the buzz about Obama as a future presidential candidate started.
Why would people talk about Obama — correctly as it turned out — as a future presidential prospect, if his speech implied he’s ineligible?
Fact is, in 2004 there was no one saying that for a child born in the U.S. to be a natural-born citizen his or her parents must have been citizens. That theory died with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and would not be revived until October of November on 2008 when amateur attorney Leo Donofrio brought the first of his losing cases. Does in not dawn on you that lawyers who face-plant in court, every single time, might not be your best source of legal analysis?
shield wrote: “Precedent HAS been set long ago.”
Indeed. Nevertheless, the first time I can find where a court specifically stated how the precedents applied to presidential eligibility was the Court of Appeals of Indiana in November of 2009, when a three-judge panel unanimously held:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by 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.” — Ankeny v. Daniels
For courts examining the eligibility clause, also see Robinson v. Bowen for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction; and Barnett v. Obama where the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California responded to the argument by citing Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968)
I have a question. I may be climbing up the wrong tree here, but with regard to the 14th Amendment supposedly conferring US citizenship upon tourist/layover and anchor babies, if those babies are US citizens automatically, and two of those category of people were to marry, have a child and then that child wanted to run for the presidency, they could do so. Because their citizen parents (by virtue of the “anchor baby” principle) qualify under the two-citizen parent rule, the NBC rule has been satisfied. Now we’re talking deeper waters.
magritte wrote: “Doesn’t matter. New rules since Obama. Born in the United States, qualified to be President. No more ‘Natural-born’ citizen necessary.”
“New rules since Obama”? You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Here’s a legal reference from 1904, long before Obama was born, that explains ‘natural born citizen’ (keyword search may not work but the term is there in alphabetical order):
http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
In part (and the other parts do not help you either, as you can check): “Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.”
How is it “New rules since Obama” when the rules were stated and cited in 1904? Do you think Obama is over 107 year old? Do you think the evil obots have time-travel technology?
Can you cite any case between 04 Aug 1961 when Barack Obama was born, and 10 February 2007 when he announced his candidacy for the presidency, where *anyone* took the position that a native-born child (other than the child of foreign diplomats immune to our laws, or hostile foreign invaders) is not a natural-born citizen?
“I have a question. I may be climbing up the wrong tree here, but with regard to the 14th Amendment supposedly conferring US citizenship upon tourist/layover and anchor babies, if those babies are US citizens automatically, and two of those category of people were to marry, have a child and then that child wanted to run for the presidency, they could do so. Because their citizen parents (by virtue of the ‘anchor baby’ principle) qualify under the two-citizen parent rule, the NBC rule has been satisfied. Now we’re talking deeper waters.”
When you “have a question”, I suggest you should present it clearly, and even go so far as punctuate your actual question with a question-mark. Why not?
As it is, I’m not sure what you are asking, but I’ll take a stab at trying to understand the questions. Are US-born children of illegal aliens natural-born citizens, potentially eligible for the the presidency? Can the U.S. legislature make that call, or the does the Constitution preempt congress on the issue?
Tricky. Current policy is that, apart for the specific exceptions cited, any child born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen. If the House and Senate were to pass a law holding that children of illegal aliens were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not citizens, would and should that be the law? Would and should the judicial and executive branches defer? There are plausible argument on both sides.
I’m not pretending to be a great legal scholar. For guidance on hard legal questions, you’d be silly to look to me. My thing is that we can can answer some super-easy questions, and easy as they are, many here have failed. The birther stuff — whether the false pretension that a Hawaiian COLB is not a valid state record as Phil Berg claimed, or the constitutional crankery that a child born in Hawaii in 1961 to a Kansas girl and a Kenyan on a student visa is ineligible to be president — that’s all garbage.
As those of us over 40 recall, William F. Buckley took up the cause of disassociating the Republican party from the kooks. He did well, and easy and obvious as the task sounds, his passing left a hole we have yet to cover.
Hey Birthers: The world’s liberals thank you for making conservatives look so stupid.
Some believe that the requirement is unfair, going back way before Obama. That has nothing to do with the definition they held of 'natural born citizen.' I believe those in Congress who wanted it neutralized had the same basic understanding of the term as those who felt it should stay.
You misunderstand. Obama is clearly not a NBC. One parent citizen, and one not, and Obama was born on US soil.
Yet he’s President of the United States.
No one cares about 1904 rulings. His election has successfully negated all of that.
Rubio was born on US soil. That’s the new defacto standard.
Nice try, Kleon.
There is a process by which the U.S.Constitution can be amended. All members of Congress know what it is. Using any other means to alter constitutional amendments is illegal and treasonous.
“Some believe that the requirement is unfair,..”
It’s really very liberal of you to say that above, using the word ‘unfair’. Of course, no one has the right to be President - that’s ridiculous.
By trying to eliminate the eligibility requirement of “natural born” citizen, anyone could be president, even someone like Robert Mugabe, Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. While you’re at it, why not eliminate the 35-years of age and U.S. residency requirement? President Justin Bieber has a nice ring to it, right? Who needs laws anyway?
The answer is that we all need laws. Progressives/Democrats find such requirements and laws inconvenient to achieving their ultimate goal. That is why Butterdezillion and MissTickley, two women who are Freepers examining BHO2’s background, have experienced Democratic Party activists contacting them by telephone, threatening to kill the children of those two women. Is this means justified to achieve whatever goal Progressives want? That the laws and rights we’ve taken for granted as protecting us are useless in the face of the inevitable socialism of Global government?
Just because people get away with murder doesn’t equal murder being “...the new defacto standard.”
Murder?? Apples and oranges.
“No one cares about 1904 rulings. His election has successfully negated all of that.”
No. A section of the U.S.Constitution is not negated because a crime is committed.
“Rubio was born on US soil. That’s the new defacto standard.”
Defacto standard? Of what? Ignoring Constitutional requirements and following the criminal example set by Progressives?
Apples and oranges?! I don’t for a moment think you’re stupid, but you’re not presenting anything to deter that suspicion.
Lol! I don’t think there is a right to abortion in the Constitution either. Guess what.
There is, even if I don’t believe it.
I live in reality, not the law school debating club.
I'm not making any statement about my personal views, only saying why others would have an interest in changing the law.
Anyway, you're going off on a tangent, as this has nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen—unless I've underestimated your capacity to formulate insane conspiracy theories.
“I live in reality, not the law school debating club.”
Good to know that you live in reality, only that’s the same crappy excuse criminals use.
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.