Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Just in time for the election.
“Or do you agree with every decision that has ever been handed down?”
You can always pull that old argument. The courts are not infallible, and actually are extremely and constantly fallible. But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome? Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case? Or was it all, “Three chears for SCOTUS!”
“Or do you agree with every decision that has ever been handed down?”
You can always pull that old argument. The courts are not infallible, and actually are extremely and constantly fallible. But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome? Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case? Or was it all, “Three cheers for SCOTUS!”
Sorry Mr. Baier - FAIL. Complete and total FAIL."
Thanks for putting up this info.
bfl
Civilization must predate citizenship, you mean?
Oh, WOW! You really scored some points there!
Yes, exactly. Keeping clear that by plains indians you mean hunter-gatherers with perhaps some minimal level of agriculture.
I mean Plains Indians as in the Sioux, Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfeet, Comanche, Pawnee and others, not some creation of your mind. Funny then that many such tribes are referred to as sovereign Indian nations throughout our history. Why, those nations even signed treaties with the government!
But there was no government and no citizenship except in a metaphorical sense.
You just can't accept that there were tribal elders and councils, can you? And you can hardly be a member of a sovereign nation unless you were first considered a citizen of that nation.
Why do you belittle the American Indian so?
And, once again, the rest of your reply isn't even worth responding to.
Unfortunately, as much as I love reading your well-written jousts FW, I believe you are wasting your time here, as Tublecane has, from what I've read of their posts on previous threads, no problem with the concept of an "anchor baby" president either.
The idea of undivided loyalty to the US as an eligibility requirement escapes them for some reason. . .
What controls "plain meaning" is when other contemporaries plainly used the same words to mean the same things.
I posted the words of Thomas Paine, a Founder, if not a Framer. He wrote in The Rights Of Man about the origins of nations, and a comparison of the United States, France, and England, in terms of the authority of those governments vs. the rights of its citizens.
He wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome?
What a weighted, and qualified, query.
I trust little "implicitly". I'm too familiar with the foibles, faults and failures of mankind to do that.
Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case?
When I disagreed I said so. There are some aspects that I don't agree with in that they were still too restrictive on the rights of citizens.
So even though they were "good" wins, if you will, they still IMO left much to be desired, the DC gun case in particular. You couldn't pay me to live in DC!
Define NBC status "exhaustively"? They gave the definition, mentioning other classes whose "citizenship" status is in doubt. What part of judicial restraint don't you understand?
"I defy you to quote them saying native borns are not natural born."
That is one of the worst bs strawman arguments I've ever seen at FR, and that includes ones by "squeeky". The Court in Minor gave a definition of what IS a NBC. All others, by (non) definition, are IN DOUBT.
Whether you know it or not, you are arguing what the meaning of "is" is.
Only after-birthers try so hard to sow doubt and confusion.
His father George was born in Mexico...
This is the reason the powers that be made sure Willard was the GOP nominee. One need look no further than this.
For the same reason he wasn't allowed to be seen even holding a copy of the "LFBC" that was "released" on 27 April 2011: deniability.
Find even one instance of "Obama" ever having been asked point-blank whether or not he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency. Bet you won't find one.
“as I love reading your well-written jousts FW”
Blush blush. Made my night.
There are some posters on these threads that are clearly liberals. I, perhaps more than some, recognize liberals when I encounter them. As many FReepers know, I used to be a liberal. Not a moderate Dem, but a full-metal gushing-heart far left activist moonbat. [Long story.] When you’ve lived that lifestyle the way I have, it’s not hard to recognize a (formerly) fellow lib. They give themselves away a hundred different ways when they ‘debate’ this type of issue.
I’d liken it to being raised on a particularly smelly pig farm. Eventually you get away from it, but that distinct odor is one you’ll never forget...or confuse. Later in life when you catch a whiff of it you don’t stop and wonder, ‘hey, that’s vaguely familiar; have I ever smelled that smell before?’ No, you KNOW it’s pig farm stench, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
There are conservative anti-birthers. I’ve met several on these threads. Then there are liberal anti-birthers. I’ve met quite a few of those too. Many are now banned. Some remain. It’s always interesting to see what the future holds.
Anyone who thinks being raised by US citizen parents vs non-US citizen parents is the same thing has never been around anyone in the latter category for any extended time. We see it in our own family with my son-in-law whose parents came to the US to fulfill his dad’s lifelong dream of coming to America. In most regards they make better US citizens than many native or natural born.
BUT unlike the original settlers and most immigrants thru the first part of the 20th century, that family is able to return ‘home’ every year. The children were equally steeped in US and the old country’s cultures and languages. They were able to obtain dual-citizenship. One of the US born children has returned to live in the old country. Some very basic things that American kids, born of US citizen parents and steeped in US culture, just KNOW can come as a surprise to our son-in-law. It’s endearing, just not qualifying if he ever wanted to be POTUS.
“The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401.”
I thought interpretation of language in the Constitution was the job of SCOTUS? Federal law, after all, is whatever passes through the Congress and we know they don’t normally bother to read the laws they pass. At least with SCOTUS, which I know has declined to interpret ‘natural born’ at every opportunity, when they DO interpret Constitutional language, they’ve read every piece of the history behind it and explain their reasoning in their Opinions, dissents, etc.
Well that’s one type of immigrant family. Then you’ve got the reconquista type, who believe that southwest USA was stolen from Mexico and needs to be returned by any possible necessary. [The kids are raised believing this—and raised to hate the US in the process.]
Then you have the even more virulent and insidious post-colonialists, who literally believe the US is the biggest source and force of evil in the modern world. Obama is one of these. This explains his truly nasty and hateful attitude toward the US, and his personal jihad against us.
Anybody who thinks the kids of foreign post-colonialists and reconquistas are exactly what the Framers intended via NBC, has just drunk too much Kool-Aid, period. The incidence of this type and level of anti-Americanism among the kids of citizens is much lower, and far, far easier to identify. That’s why we never had to worry about a POTUS trying—and succeeding very well—to outright destroy the US pre-Obama. When the powers that be decided the kid of a virulently anti-American foreign post-colonialist was just peachy, we started down the fast track to national destruction, and that is just a fact.
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.