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

To: reed13k
If Obama was based on only his mother’s citizenship then so is Ted. Not saying Obama should have been allowed.

Devil's advocate: Two wrongs DO make a right?

31 posted on 03/23/2015 9:01:36 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & Ifwater the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: JimRed

When we have a sitting president finishing up his second term in office, I would say the issue is dead and the argument done.


61 posted on 03/23/2015 9:24:53 AM PDT by ansel12 (Palin--Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: JimRed; reed13k
If Obama was based on only his mother’s citizenship then so is Ted. Not saying Obama should have been allowed.

Devil's advocate: Two wrongs DO make a right?

Guys, you are not analyzing this correctly.

Everyone admits that Obama's father, like Cruz', was not an American citizen. That is utterly settled.

So now we have to turn to the mothers of each. The requirement at the time both were born was that to be a citizen from birth when one parent is not a citizen (regardless of where the birth in question took place), the citizen parent had to reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 14. In the case of Cruz, this requirement has been met, so he was a citizen from the moment he was born. In the case of Obama, it wasn't met - his mother was under 19 when he was born. So, based on that, Obama never was and never could be eligible. HOWEVER, there is one exception to that - if he was born on US soil. Hence the fight/controversy over whether he was born in Hawaii or not.

FYI, there is an old Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), which indicated that the term "natural born citizen" was different and more stringent than a "mere" citizen. It involved being the product of 2 American citizen parents at the time of one's birth. This safeguard (and it applies in U.S. law ONLY to the President) was viewed as having been put in place to ensure that not only did the President have a first loyalty to this country, but that his parents did as well - meaning that the environment in which the future President was raised was one loyal to the well-being of this country. Given the circumstances of Obama's upbringing, we can see the wisdom of that - and he is ineligible even if born in Hawaii, for the simple reason that his father was never a US citizen. If this test is used, then Cruz is not eligible - nor are my own kids, because my wife (though a legal resident at the time), was not a US citizen when they were born (she is now), even though I am a NBC. Under the definition in the first part of this post, Cruz and my kids are NBCs, but Obama's status is in question until the Hawaii thing can be resolved.

123 posted on 03/23/2015 10:25:33 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

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