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

Skip to comments.

How Mitt Romney’s Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President
ABC News ^ | January 27, 2012 | Huma Khan

Posted on 02/15/2012 9:21:05 PM PST by James Thomas

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, has been invoked on the campaign trail often.

Newt Gingrich used his release of 12 years’ of tax records as an example to push his rival to release his own tax returns. On Thursday night, Romney mentioned the fact that his father was born in Mexico in response to Gingrich’s allegations that he is “anti-immigrant,” which raises the question: If George Romney was born in Mexico, how could he run for president?

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birther; certifigate; georgeromney; moonbatbirther; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; naturalbornmormon; nbc; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: OrioleFan
In 2008 election Congress spent time looking into McLame and ignored Obama the Obvious. Go figure.

A clear case of the dog that didn't bark scenario. They were painfully aware of Obama's eligibility problem from day one.

51 posted on 02/16/2012 11:38:18 AM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Yes, as Democrat Law Professor Gabriel Chin explained in great detail in "Why Senator John McCain can Never Be President". The law is clear. A number of the children of military personel born in The Canal Zone before the Zone was incoporated in 1937, a year after McCain's birth, were deported by our INS for lack of citizenship.

Chin speaks of "a number of individuals born in the Canal Zone under U.S. jurisdiction ... even one claiming to be a birthright citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment" being deported. Presumably, they were the children of Panamanian or other non-US citizen parents. Chin does say that Congress and the courts didn't recognize children born in the Canal Zone to American parents as citizens from birth, but he doesn't say that children of American citizens born in the Canal Zone were actually deported.

Chin also notes that this reading was subject to question depending on how one read the statutes and what one meant by "limits and jurisdiction." If Congress had not acted, the courts may have ruled that children in McCain's situation were in fact citizens from birth. See Stephen E. Sach's companion article, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth. Ironically, if McCain was born on Panamanian territory outside the Canal Zone, he would indeed have been a citizen from birth, according to Chin's reading -- which is pretty much the opposite from what many of us assumed at the time.

52 posted on 02/16/2012 11:47:40 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
But his legal “analysis” is key to your arguments.

Which arguments are those?

And it is clear he has no legal experience.

Care to back your statement up?

It's clear to everyone here that you only came here to troll and I have already backed that statement up.
53 posted on 02/16/2012 12:00:43 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance; MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

With the (bride?) wearing a matching atomic hat. Fetching.


54 posted on 02/16/2012 12:30:38 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; Brown Deer

Oh, is Leo a candidate then? Which party?

How’s your evil twin doing?


55 posted on 02/16/2012 12:33:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

He is just the “Constitutional Scholar” who conned the birthers.

Leo and Orly - ever wonder why the eligibility movement has been such a spectacular failure. Online law school grads and professional poker players playing scholar is a good place to start.


56 posted on 02/16/2012 1:14:34 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
He is just the “Constitutional Scholar” who conned the birthers.

You're saying he conned you?

Online law school grads...

You know that Leo didn't get his law degree online, so why do you continue with your lies?

Did you get your GED yet?
57 posted on 02/16/2012 1:31:53 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Orly is the online law school grad. Leo is the guy with no legal experience. Sorry for the confusion.

Have you been able to document Leo’s legal background? Aren’t you the slightest bit interested?


58 posted on 02/16/2012 1:36:11 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Leo is the guy with no legal experience.

You keep saying that over and over again, but still haven't produced any proof of that.
59 posted on 02/16/2012 1:53:46 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Can’t prove a negative.

Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.

Don’t you think odd that Leo wouldn’t pad his bio on his web site to show something to indicate he has some practical legal experience? What is he hiding?


60 posted on 02/16/2012 2:02:14 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Wow, your tactics are pure Alinsky. You've been trained by your obot masters well. Some of your tricks on this thread:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

61 posted on 02/16/2012 2:16:24 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Turning those tactics back on someone employing them is sweet as well. {;^)
62 posted on 02/16/2012 2:38:04 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Fogbow 0bots such as yourself drool and shiver at Orly’s flaws, and Leo’s unusual interests apart from the legal. Your feeble (to put it mildly) “arguments” in the eligibility field are embarrassing. The only reason you and your fellow 0bots are not emabarrassed must be the psych meds your doctors prescribe; or the self-medications you imbibe.

You are so transparent in your efforts that your guts are showing.


63 posted on 02/16/2012 2:42:21 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

I take that to mean you cannot document Leo’s legal experience? Why am I not surprised that it means nothing to you - after all, he tells you what you want to hear.


64 posted on 02/16/2012 2:44:25 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Brown Deer

Do you agree that Leo has no documented legal experience prior to the eligibility stuff?

Yes or no.

Time to put up or shut up.


65 posted on 02/16/2012 2:53:29 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Can’t prove a negative.

Is that why you can't prove any of your failed dreams?

Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.

I don't need to, because I've obviously already known quite a bit more than you for quite a while now. ;-)

What is he hiding?

What makes you think that he has anything to hide? He's always been quite open about his past.
66 posted on 02/16/2012 2:59:10 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: James Thomas
On this point, neither party has an interest in trying to uphold the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution.

Then it's up to us citizens, isn't it.
67 posted on 02/16/2012 2:59:14 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Do you agree that Leo has no documented legal experience prior to the eligibility stuff?

NO!

Time to put up or shut up.

Still waiting...
68 posted on 02/16/2012 3:01:00 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

If he is open about his past and is not hiding anything then there must be nothing there to hide.

Why is it so hard to accept that Leo has no actual legal experience? It is not like it will make you change your mind about him - after all without him, the eligibility movement has no “intellectual” foundation.


69 posted on 02/16/2012 3:02:25 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Why is it so hard to accept that Leo has no actual legal experience?

Because I know better. So why are you a pathological liar?
70 posted on 02/16/2012 3:07:47 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
the eligibility movement has no “intellectual” foundation.

Indeed, you are partially correct...

Harlan1196: "Did I miss something along the way - I was hoping and praying it was a done deal."
71 posted on 02/16/2012 3:12:36 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Another word for things you “know” but can’t prove is fantasy.

I told the truth: there is no documentable proof that Leo has any legal experience that would make him an expert on Constitutional law. No court cases and no publications.

That is the truth - I challenge you to prove me wrong.


72 posted on 02/16/2012 3:20:16 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I told the truth: there is no documentable proof that Leo has any legal experience that would make him an expert on Constitutional law. No court cases and no publications.

That is the truth - I challenge you to prove me wrong.


It's not up to us to prove you wrong. You made this statement and many other strange statements, yet have not backed up any of them with facts.

Nobody here is going to share any information with a lying troll that just signed up a couple weeks ago.
73 posted on 02/16/2012 3:32:03 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

You can’t be that dense.

How do I prove a negative? There are no facts to be found. No record what so ever. He is a legal cypher.


74 posted on 02/16/2012 3:39:42 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
There are no facts to be found.

At least, not by a dummy.
75 posted on 02/16/2012 3:46:52 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Harlan1196
Look closely at what is being said...

Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.

With the combinations of "play with" and "the Google"...who says "the Google"? Sounds like lots of sexual innuendo there to me.
In other words he's saying...don't even bother masturbating as you've got no penis to begin with.
But, then again, I could be wrong.

Of course, denials will be forthcoming on the morrow. LOL

76 posted on 02/16/2012 4:17:52 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Know your enemy......... and fight fire with fire.


77 posted on 02/16/2012 4:21:53 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

You attack the messenger because you are unable to defeat his message.


78 posted on 02/16/2012 4:22:02 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Know your enemy......... and fight fire with fire.
I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.
79 posted on 02/16/2012 4:24:30 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The courts have been doing a fine job defeating his message.

He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court - should tell you something his legal skills.


80 posted on 02/16/2012 4:28:46 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court - should tell you something his legal skills.

Really? more foolish babble from you?
81 posted on 02/16/2012 5:00:31 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

So list his victories. Tell me of his great successes. I am all ears.


82 posted on 02/16/2012 5:05:09 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You made the statement, "He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court", troll. So please, tell us all the juicy details about each of those cases.

This is good place to stop - have a good evening.

Really? What happened?
83 posted on 02/16/2012 5:21:08 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

The problem with Natural Law is that no one can authoritatively say what it is. Or rather, that anyone can say it says anything they want. Hobbes identified 19 Natural Laws, but a two-parent requirement for natural-born citizenship wasn’t among them. Theologians argue that natural law is that ordained by God, but I doubt you can find a religious scholar anywhere who can find much Biblical support for a theory of the transmission of citizenship across generations one way or the other.


84 posted on 02/16/2012 5:24:01 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

You are right - he has led the birther one victory after another.

Donofrio v. Wells

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

Montgomery Blair Sibley quo warranto (based on his “analysis”>

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.

I don’t mind answering real questions.


85 posted on 02/16/2012 5:51:42 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You are right

About time you figured it out.
86 posted on 02/16/2012 5:56:51 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
By all means let's bring in Hobbes.

@The Elements of Law Natural and Politic / by Thomas Hobbes
Where shall we begin? How about @CHAPTER 16. Some of the Laws of Nature?

2. The breach or violation of covenant, is that which men call INJURY, consisting in some action or omission, which is therefore called UNJUST. For it is action or omission, without jus, or right; which was transferred or relinquished before. There is a great similitude between that we call injury, or injustice in the actions and conversations of men in the world, and that which is called absurd in the arguments and disputations of the Schools. For as he, that is driven to contradict an assertion by him before maintained, is said to be reduced to an absurdity; so he that through passion doth, or omitteth that which before by covenant he promised not to do, or not to omit, is said to commit injustice. And there is in every breach of covenant a contradiction properly so called; for he that covenanteth, willeth to do, or omit, in the time to come; and he that doth any action, willeth it in that present, which is part of the future time, contained in the covenant: and therefore he that violateth a covenant, willeth the doing and the not doing of the same thing, at the same time; which is a plain contradiction. And so injury is an absurdity of conversation, as absurdity is a kind of injustice in disputation.
87 posted on 02/16/2012 6:02:14 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You ought to appreciate this from Hobbes... 9. And in this precept of nature. is included and comprehended also this, That a man forgive and pardon him that hath done him wrong, upon his repentance, and caution for the future. For PARDON is peace granted to him, that (having provoked to war) demandeth it. It is not therefore charity, but fear, when a man giveth peace to him that repenteth not, nor giveth caution for maintaining thereof in the time to come. For he that repenteth not, remaineth with the affection of an enemy; as also doth he that refuseth to give caution, and consequently is presumed not to seek after peace, but advantage. And therefore to forgive him is not commanded in this law of nature, nor is charity, but may sometimes be prudence. Otherwise, not to pardon upon repentance and caution, considering men cannot abstain from provoking one another, is never to give peace; and that is against the general definition of the law of nature.

I rejected your apology as I knew it to be insincere. I was merely being prudent.

88 posted on 02/16/2012 6:12:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; Brown Deer

Who the hell are you to tell either Brown Deer or me to shut up?

I agree that you are a mentally ill stewed in anger and delusion 0bama a** kissing Fogbow retread troll. Either on doc prescribed psych meds and/or self medication with weed/alcohol.

:-)


89 posted on 02/16/2012 6:27:39 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep; All
Hobbes identified 19 Natural Laws, but a two-parent requirement for natural-born citizenship wasn’t among them.

Oh well, getting directly to your point...pay attention to the emphasis.
@CHAPTER 17. Other Laws of Nature

1. THE question, which is the better man, is determinable only in the estate of government and policy, though it be mistaken for a question of nature, not only by ignorant men, that think one man's blood better than another's by nature; but also by him, whose opinions are at this day, and in these parts of greater authority than any other human writings (Aristotle). For he putteth so much difference between the powers of men by nature, that he doubteth not to set down, as the ground of all his politics, that some men are by nature worthy to govern, and others by nature ought to serve. Which foundation hath not only weakened the whole frame of his politics, but hath also given men colour and pretences, whereby to disturb and hinder the peace of one another. For though there were such a difference of nature, that master and servant were not by consent of men, but by inherent virtue; yet who hath that eminency of virtue, above others, and who is so stupid as not to govern himself, shall never be agreed upon amongst men; who do every one naturally think himself as able, at the least, to govern another, as another to govern him. And when there was any contention between the finer and the coarser wits, (as there hath been often in times of sedition and civil war) for the most part these latter carried away the victory and as long as men arrogate to themselves more honour than they give to others, it cannot be imagined how they can possibly live in peace: and consequently we are to suppose, that for peace sake, nature hath ordained this law, That every man acknowledge other for his equal. And the breach of this law, is that we call PRIDE.

Be sure you don't confuse the right of nature and the law of nature.

90 posted on 02/16/2012 6:29:28 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Very sound advice!


91 posted on 02/16/2012 6:34:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I like Hobbes. He’s archaic in his writing and it takes a lot to “grok” him.


92 posted on 02/16/2012 6:41:59 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Being the illiterate that I am, my sole knowledge of “Hobbes” is “Calvin and Hobbes”. I mean, I knew that some philosopher/think was named Hobbes, but that quote is the first thing I’ve read that he wrote, and I grok it right well. Makes me want to try a bit more of the original Hobbes.


93 posted on 02/16/2012 7:06:40 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You need to check out some of his quotes as well then.
@Thomas Hobbes quotes
Curiosity is the lust of the mind.

I lust greatly, and daily.

94 posted on 02/16/2012 8:17:39 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Well, I’d say there are two kinds of curiosity - “idle” curiosity, sort of like scratching an itch, and then the thirst for truth, which is more akin to quenching a need of the deeper being.


95 posted on 02/16/2012 8:53:01 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: x
"See Stephen E. Sach’s companion article, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth. Ironically, if McCain was born on Panamanian territory outside the Canal Zone, he would indeed have been a citizen from birth, according to Chin's reading — which is pretty much the opposite from what many of us assumed at the time."

Thanks x. The more knowledgeable people and honest questioners respond, the closer to truth we'll come.

I, of course, said that Professor Chin was a Democrat, by which I meant that his analysis had several glaring omissions. As I pointed out, not mentioning the precedent so clearly established by Minor v. Happersett is about as clear a signal as a writer can provide, since any discussion of “Birthright citizenship” must dispense with Chief Justice Waite's clear collision with what seems an intentional misinterpretation that “Birthright” citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. Since Waite, along with dozens of other justices, makes natural born citizenship “born on our soil of citizen parents,” then what is “Birthright citizenship.”?

Having seen a number of interpretations, what counts is that it is not defined in the Constitution or by precedent. Many claim, at odds with Minor, that a “Birthright citizen” is either a jus soli - of the soil - or jus sanguinis - of the blood implying citizen parents, but not both. That is not the law. A natural born citizen must satisfy both conditions, jus soli and jus sanguinis. That is why Justice Waite and Judge Bingham described the definition as "never doubted." After all, someone could be born on our soil to at least one alien parent, raised overseas, and may not even speak English, but be a "Birthright citizen." One may be born to citizen parents, overseas, raised overseas and have acquired allegiance to a foreign culture and laws, but be a "Birthright citizen". Marie Elg was born in New York to naturalized Swedish parents, but raised in Sweden. When she was twenty one she knew she wanted to make the U.S. her home, and our secretary of state didn't understand Minor v. Happersett.

Thanks to judicial review, and Chief Justice Hughes, our state department was informed that someone naturally born a citizen is always a citizen, unlike any other class of citizen. There are all sorts of laws governing the circumstance which cause a citizen to lose citizenship. No law can affect natural born citizenship. Since our State Department disagreed, Marie Elg's case went to our final appeals court and Marie Elg was admitted back into the U.S. from Sweden, and informed that if she chose, after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35, she could run for for the presidency.

Thank you for the reference to the Stephen Sachs article. About the article let me first observe that it only confirms my argument that McCain's status was uncertain. While we are mostly concerned with Obama (and indirectly with Romney's grandfather, which argument seems to have been dealt with satisfactorily, Sachs thesis is that John McCain was born a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen. I will read the details of Stephen Sachs article carefully, but wanted to respond to your thoughtful reply before it disappears into archives which, unlike Google’s Wayback Machine, will be forgotten, but not scrubbed or blocked.

As with Wong Kim Ark, which contains many irrelevant threads of argument, it is useful to look at Sach’s conclusion. “The balance of that evidence suggests that John McCain was a citizen at birth.” So, while I find some foggery in Sach’s argumentation, his disagreement is with Chin's assertion that McCain seems not to have been born a citizen at all, a question many have raised regarding Barack Obama, since Obama’s State Department records were “cauterized” in 2008 and the perpetrator, while a cooperating witness, acquired a bullet in his head while sitting in front of his church, rendering his citizenship status unverifiable.

Sach’s research into the labyrinth of citizenship statutes may be correct, but having been born a citizen by statute defines McCain as a naturalized citizen, and not eligible by Article II. Our framers certainly understood the capabilities of clever barristers, which is probably why they took Presidential eligibility requirements out of the hands of the legislature. The British didn't need to think much about jus sanguinis since it was built into their monarchial form of government. Our "king" need only have bloodlines from citizen parents, regardless of where they were born. The British required that their legislators (Parliament) consist only of natural born subjects, but Calvin's law made the foreign born children of British Subjects into natural born subjects. British common law was not U.S. common law, though Justice Gray of Wong Kim Ark, spent much of his decision writing about British law.

Just a quick read of Sach’s article reveals another bit of artifice which you will find in Larry Tribe and Ted Olson's work for the Obama campaign committee in their letter to the Resolution 511 hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee in April of 2008. Sach’s mentions the 1790 Naturalization Act and mention that it was superseded by the 1795 and 1802 Acts, but not that the 1790 Act explicitly removed the language of the 1790 Act, including the term natural born citizen. NBC never again appears in the U.S. Code (there may be a recent citation mentioned in a Leo Donofrio article, but not having read it yet, I'll stick with "never.") Sach’s conclusion could be interpreted by those so inclined as to clarify “limits and jurisdiction” as it applies to natural born citizens. Of course, Sach’s doesn't do that. He is only, and correctly, referring to citizens.

Neither McCain nor Obama are eligible until the court reinterprets Minor v. Happersett, which is why Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud were willing to put their reputations on the line to hide the truth by “mangling” citations to Minor v. Happersett. I suspect that every law school will follow the guidance of Professor Robert Berring, who subtly warned Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud at the Soros’ sponsored (one of the sponsors, as confirmed by Carl Malamud's "Law.gov" sign, Malamud being the Center for American Progress CIO) symposium, that he assigns his students the task of comparing the accuracy of the cases they acquire from the free sites, Justia, Findlaw, and others (Stanley founded both of them), to those obtained at the fee-for-service sites, Lexus and Westlaw. (Berkeley Law.Gov Workshop - Part 5, on YouTube) Of course Obama will find a way to reward Stanley and Malamud,but dishonesty and freedom conflict, so even they may someday be sorry. Were I still in the venture business, while it is about money, it is also about trust, and both Stanley and Malamud have shown that their ideals and probably their profits trump the law. A few still believe there is integrity in the law. Lawyers (Stanley graduated from Harvard Law about the time Obama was there) should be smart enough to construct convincing arguments without requiring that the foundations, the axioms, be altered to support their thesis.

96 posted on 02/16/2012 11:24:53 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; x
I was woken up and couldn't get back to sleep so I decided to do some catch up reading and chose your references.

Thanks for the mentions.
@Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship

I found Lawrence B. Solum's inclusion of "ORIGINALISM AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE" in the .pdf rather humorous as he's wafted back and forth on the issue several times. I found the following from the introduction of Daniel P. Tokaji's in "THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY: MAY COURTS DECIDE WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT?" to be almost prophetic in laying out the various means of challenging eligibility.

That does not mean that all hope is lost for those seeking to challenge the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, or future presidential candidates. There are other avenues through which the issue might be adjudicated. The most plausible is an action in state court challenging an allegedly ineligible candidate’s access to the ballot, which would not present the same justiciability obstacles. Though state-court challenges to a presidential candidate’s eligibility raise concerns about consistency and political bias, the U.S. Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in such cases would provide a check against such abuses.
97 posted on 02/17/2012 4:05:22 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: James Thomas
Please do not conflate your personal, narrow opinion to “the rule of law” -—

The majority of opinion, even in Conservative circles, believes that “natural born citizen” means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

98 posted on 02/17/2012 4:02:27 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Congress has as much of a right and duty to interpret the Constitution as the Courts.

Congress has defined Citizenship issues, several times.

Congress has every right to define the rules for Natural Born AND Naturalized citizenship, the only two forms of Citizenship available, in our country.


99 posted on 02/17/2012 4:06:54 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
You come off like a paranoid hack.

The majority of the conservative movement thinks the birther stuff is a waste of time.

However? YOU call anyone and everyone who challenges you an “Obot” or a “communist” or some other ridiculous charge.

The vast majority of those who voted against Obama think you are wrong on this stuff.

100 posted on 02/17/2012 4:15:18 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 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