Posted on 12/12/2015 3:56:13 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Ann Dunham’s citizenship is irrelevant, because she could not transmit citizenship to a child by the fact of birth, since she had not lived in the U.S. the requisite number of years (4) since her 14th birthday. Soetoro was a citizen at birth ONLY if he was born on U.S. soil, or if his father is Frank Marshall Davis.
If his biological father is Barack Obama, Soetoro was a British Subject at birth, and if he was born outside the U.S., Soetoro is an illegal alien.
There is, of course, no evidence that Soetoro was born in Hawaii or any other part of the U.S., and absolutely no evidence that his father is Barack Obama, and no solid evidence who else might be his father.
Thank you.
Fair enough.
I will agree that if there’s anyone at all they did not want to have divided loyalties in any way it would have been the president.
No matter where Obama was born, if his father is Obama Sr he is not a natural born citizen.
That is my take on it.
Such a status completely ignores the entire point of the qualification.
All the Harvard eggheads that there be could come to agree that is the case and it still would not even be rational never mind valid.
They’re both former Solicitors General (the government’s lawyer) of the United States.
Has anyone heard it discussed further on the rumor that Cruz’s mother took out Canadian citizenship? If true, and it was prior to her son’s birth, this could present a problem.
I haven’t heard that although his father has said “while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”
If he was a U.S. at the moment of his birth, he is a Natural Born Citizen.
But there is no evidence that he was a U.S. citizen at birth.
While I agree with your first statement, I believe your second statement is in error.
First, let me state that if in fact, Obama was born in Hawaii then yes, he is a NBC. However, if he was born in Kenya as many believe, then his mother was NOT able to transfer citizenship automatically as she had not met the requirements under the law that existed at that time. Sen Cruz does not suffer from the same.
Granted all is a moot point at this time.
Sorry, a statue is still required for the government to recognize citizenship. In essence, the need is for the government and is to protect the citizen. If the government were to attempt to deny the citizen their rights, the statue would for the basis of legal standing to bring suit and force the government to play by its own rules.
Perhaps an outdated concept given the current administration’s propensity for disregarding laws, but for now, it still holds weight in the courts.
That is incorrect.
The Constitution specifically gives Congress the exclusive power over the rules of naturalization. It is an enumerated power. That means Congress sets the rules for who can enter the US, who can become a citizen and who is naturally born a citizen.
One of the first acts of Congress was the Naturalization act of 1790 that specifically stated that those born abroad to US citizen parents shall be as NBC. In other words, from the very first Congress, there has NOT been a requirement to be born on US soil.
Not according to the SCOTUS
Yes, however, notice parents. Plural. Not a single parent, both parents.
LOL - parents can also mean all parents of all children. Reread that section with the understanding of parents meaning all parents .... not two parents.
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Well, it’s probably a losing argument anyway on my part. This country seems hell bent on destroying what our Founding Fathers created.
Thanks to lawyers, intellectuals, fraud and greed, the law now means whatever the guy in charge wants it to. The American people don’t seem to care anymore.
In 2008 this country elected Obama, only 1/2 American, either by stupidity or fraud. We can see where that has gotten us and why the FF warned us in the framing of the Constitution.
Now, the American people want to do that again, only this time with someone who wasn’t even born in this country. Oh, he says he’s a constitutional scholar and he’ll fix what the last guy did. Oh, and since he’s a constitutional scholar, he knows he is qualified. If he had an ounce of understanding of our constitution and any integrity, he wouldn’t even be running.
Or they want to vote for the guy who is an “anchor baby” because he also talks such a good game. Again, here is someone who is ready to turn our country over to invaders. At this point in time, our Constitution doesn’t mean anything. The American people have made it clear, they’ll vote for anyone.
I’d imagine our founding fathers are watching, saying “for this, we fought and died?”
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.