Posted on 05/01/2012 11:22:15 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Prominent Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier has posted an explanation on the network’s website of why he believes Barack Obama is eligible to be president.
However, Harvard-educated Jerome Corsi, author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? says Baier isn’t quite on track yet.
“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”
Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.
“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.
“To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” he said.
He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You almost have to wonder whether Baier has been instructed to post this story as a “straw man piece” to start a dialog.
Baier pretends to inform the ignorant, yet repeats many of the public (Democrat/CINO) misconceptions about NBC.
Even though his piece was posted by an underling, it is too stupid to be taken seriously as journalism as approved by Baier, IMO.
Baier says he wants to have a panel discussion of legal experts on his show. That should provoke further “consciousness raising”!
Still nothing about the purportedly forged birth certificates,
or possible places of birth?
Some people will then point to Calvin's Case [1608] in English Common Law as proof that Obama is natural-born, but that does not exactly state the findings in that proceeding.
Calvin was born in Scotland and it was challenged that he was NOT entitled to inherit land in England. HOWEVER, James I was the Sovreign of BOTH England AND Scotland when Calvin was born. This was BEFORE the uniting of the kingdoms. Two kingdoms, BUT ONE Sovreign. The Court ruled in favor of Calvin since he had loyalty to ONE Sovreign - and the ruling was ABSOLUTELY correct. However, that ruling DID NOT address the case of a subject owing loyalty to TWO Sovreigns [dual nationality].
This aspect was actually debated in Parliament the 13th year of Elizabeth I's reign, as it appeared that she would remain childless. The debate concerned as to whom would reign after her death. A couple of quotes from that debate are:
Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be.
And:
If the child of an alien born in England should be free in England; and by reason his father is a Scot before also in Scotland, (as doubtless by the law he is, wheresoever he be born,) if wars should happen, (as it hath done many times between these two realms,) whose part shall he take? No man can serve two masters at one time, saith the right Lawmaker, and also common reason. If he follow the Scotch part, then he is a traitor to England. If he should with England, then he is a traitor to Scotland. If he will take part with neither, then is he a traitor to both. For every man by the laws of nature, (which is God’s law,) and by the law of every realm, is bound to declare himself a member of one commonwealth: that is, to bestow his life and goods in the defence thereof, when need requires. Therefore I ask, which part it is like that he will take, that is a mongrel of both nations?
This absolutely states that a dual national COULD NOT be natural-born ...
if they were born outside the US, then they could claim citizenship from that country.
if one or both parents are not US citizens, then they could claim citizenship of their parents citizenship country.
it's that simple.
only those trying to make excuses for 0bama make this confusing. this is not a term made up by the founders. it's a term that has been used worldwide for centuries.
Obama is not only a slave, as in the mentality of hating the free and submitting himself to looks and fashion of democratic crassness, he is a slave of foreigners and beholden to them. Plus, he is a convict and convictophile.
He is tripple quadruple ineligible to ever be leading a hair off my toe or be hired to take care of it.
Who the frack are these people? It’s like a stranger just popped in my house.
There’s a simple argument to this. The Founders didn’t have 8 USC Section 1401 when they inserted the natural-born citizen requirement into the Constituion. Their concept of natural citizenship was in defiance of British subjecthood and based on collective allegiance to the United States for “ourselves and our posterity” ... IOW, the original citizens and the children of those citizens. This is why 18 Supreme Court justices agreed that NBC is defined OUTISDE of the Constitution in accordance with the law of nations: All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
It states the President must be a “natural born Citizen.”
The Founders were not in the habit of wasting words.
“Citizen” clearly does not mean the same thing as “natural born Citizen.”
Every person who claims that Obama and Rubio are eligible must clearly explain the legal difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.”
Great point. It is a measure of this inherent and necessary adoption and honoring of such.
Obama has no charity into America, heck, he was told that raping was ok and humane thing to accept, much the way he “accepts” the drunkeness of his father. He was raped or raped himself and others to his position of power.
Indeed, the Constitution is a document of language and definitions. It tells what constitutes what and what differentiates this from that.
Callous moronic liberals do not want to delve into those “details”. Liberals are whores who not only reject the mandates of the constitution by laziness, but who are completely incapable of making important distinctions, relativizing everything.
To adhere to the COnstitution is nowadays to be risking being accused of being “extreme” or to “exagerate”.
Let us face it, to these corrupt a$$ hole politicians, we are terrorists and they are the cute nice ones, cute little swines swimming in their own excrements. RINOs disgust me the same.
But these things are important, and they cannot take life. THey are too stupid to comprehend and inject themselves into oblivion and stupid behavior, on drugs, drunk, and happy to be crass slaves that they think the materialness of it makes them indispensible nevertheless.
They cannot stand that some of us are above that. We do not need them, and that is why they are in our faces all the time.
It’s not going to work, materialist communism is never ever going to work because it is immaterial and totally dispensible, ultimately. And that is why they hate progress and technological advance which makes these “workers mentality” OBSOLETE.
The Presidency as defined by teleprompting Obama is completely obsolete as it is controled and puppeted. So they cling to humaness and other bull crap.
Sorry Zero, we can get Version 2, 3 or 4 of you next year, if that is all that your job is all about. Meanwhile, these pieces of garbage need to go.
Am amazed at how many, too; are simply convinced of their 'right mindedness' re an authentic BC; that Obama has never produced for transparent legal scrutiny; and by his own history; thus far, marked by omissions and sealed records.
Of course; Brett's convictions seem all to rational; when put up against the now 'Breitbart.com'; who by Editorial and for 'own' reason, perhaps; have declared this a 'non issue'. . .
That said; could be more than meets the eye; and Fox News doing a bit of vetting on it's own. . .and/or; just some power 'blowback' given how the Left/Obama,Inc. wants Fox News shut down; and out; and exert effort to that end.
I think the Obama elligibility was pushed in Obama as Obama for communist political dialectic, of this vs. that. It is BY DESIGN to make a case of war, or, rather, it reads like a suicide note: we cannot make sense of it (the COnstitution), let us be animals and be at peace and shoot ourselves, because animals live, right?
What about Mitt Romney? Wasn’t his father born in Mexico?
That is irrelevant. George Romney (Mitt's dad), was a U.S. citizen at Mitt's birth.
The real question is Marco Rubio. Under this definition, he wouldn't be a NBC because his parents weren't U.S. citizens at Marco's birth.
Faux News bows to 0bama (and kisses his butt).
Nor would Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, nor my husband be natural born citizens.
If we accept Rubio for Vice President we play into the hands of Obama by accepting another non NBC .
Thereby legitimising Obama.
I expect Obama will make a nationwide address saying that he knew he was in a shady area during the election process and will claim ignorance on the issue.
Question is how far will the MSM stand behind Obama?
Even blind rats know when a ship is about to sink, and they say animals can sense an impending earthquake.
I think the MSM may just now realize that they cannot fool all the people all the time anymore.
Why?
Case in point, a recent blockbuster film which was supposed to be released in America instead was released in Europe first, its “Battleship” and the studios were hearing too much negative social circle reviews of it and they figured it would cost too much trying to hype it in America, so far its doing good overseas but its predicted to flop in America like John Carter did.
Its becoming too expensive trying to hype and prop up the Obama image, and the social networks are evading the MSM subliminal manipulations and are growing stronger every day.
NBC 5 2012
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.