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.”
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?
Faux News bows to 0bama (and kisses his butt).
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.
The Constitution could always be considered a living document. There is a well defined process contained therein on how to amend it. Oh wait! I forgot. That is too hard to do.
Brett Baier is just another tool of the establishment. They have all decided to just change the constitution without that pesky ammendment.
The administration of the "father" of the U.S. Constitution did NOT recognize such children as citizens either.
"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship....
The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.
This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:
There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.
..."
From The Rights of Man, Applying Principle to Practice, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Part 2 of 2:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine 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.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
Having reread it yesterday, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen. The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office. Someone who reads that entire chapter that I excerpted from cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.
-PJ
Except for the HOT info babes Fox doesn’t seem much different than the other news outlets. News sources in Europe and of course Free Republic seem to have better data. JMHO.
Born in the USA” Bill Takes Another Step Forward
WE NEED HELP FROM ALL WHO READ THIS! PLEASE TELL YOUR MISSOURI FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO CONTACT THEIR STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE AND PERSUADE THEM TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
WE NEED TO FLOOD THE MISSOURI LEGISLATURE WITH LETTERS SUPPORTING HB 1046……..
Born in the USA” Bill Takes Another Step Forward
Cole Karr, KMOX Capitol Bureau
JEFFERSON CITY, MO. (KMOX) – The so-called “Birther Bill” to require presidential nominees prove their citizenship to be on the Missouri ballot moves on one last time to the Senate.
If passed, presidential candidates would have to provide an official record of birth and citizenship when filing with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office.
The office would keep the document for public record. Senate Elections Committee Chairman Republican Kevin Engler says with only three weeks remaining, the bill may not be taken up for debate stating he would be very surprised if it did.
Republican Senator Luann Ridgeway supports the bill, and she is also unsure if the bill will make it.
”I completely understand the concerns of people who want to make sure that our Constitution is willing to be obeyed. Our president is supposed to be born in the United States. But, I just don’t know if there are enough people out there that are willing to stand up in opposition to it.”
Democratic Senator Robin Wright-Jones is upset over the so-called birther bill’s 4-to-1 passage out of a Senate committee.
CONTINUED HERE: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/born-in-the-usa-bill-takes-another-step-forward
~ ~ ~ ~
Sponsor: Rowland, Lyle (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2012
LR Number: 4081L.01P
Last Action: 4/30/2012 – Executive Session Held (S) - VOTED DO PASS
Bill String: HB 1046
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
http://house.mo.gov/BillSummaryPrn.aspx?bill=HB1046&year=2012&code=R
Find your Legislators simply by entering your full nine-digit zipcode.….
http://www.senate.mo.gov/llookup/leg_lookup.aspx
