Posted on 01/11/2016 3:03:26 PM PST by Kaslin
I didn’t hear it at rallies until after he was asked by reporters. Do you have any evidence that is not the case?
It is settled. Enjoy your trip to fantasy island. I’m not going with you.
Why is this controversial? Whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, by virtue of his mother's citizenship status, Obama is a natural born citizen.
For those who cannot be bothered, the Supreme Court case that Rush’s caller cited, “Minor v. Happersett” was an 1875 case deciding if the US Constitution granted the right to vote to all US Citizens. The plaintiff, Virginia Minor, was a leading Woman Suffragette in Missouri, seeking the right to vote (Reese Happersett was the county registrar who rejected her application to register to vote.)
The Supreme Court first cleared the ‘underbrush’ to make it plain that the plaintiff was, in all respects, a US Citizen. This was done to render moot any challenges that defined citizenship as gender based. They then rendered the decision that the right to vote had not been specifically granted to US Citizens as a class but that current (legal) precedent allowed the various states, not the Federal Government, to determine who may vote. This decision was not over-ruled but was, itself, rendered moot by passage of the 20th Amendment which specifically prevented use of gender to deny the right to vote.
IMHO, to use the ‘preamble’ of this Supreme Court decision to claim that this unanimous decision had proven that Sen. Cruz is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is simply fallacious. The wording from the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, (author of the decision) simply made a relatively clear statement about Mrs Minor’s citizenship, that there was nothing to be doubted about her possession of citizenship.
Since lawyers (and theologians) can make mockery of apparent clear thought, nothing here or elsewhere would prevent litigation on this issue at a future date. However, if we were to allow our votes to be dictated by the fear that Hillary or the Democrats would litigate an election, then we would be the fools and poltroons!
Reporters bring up embarrassing things about Trump during interviews with him. Does he bring these up at rallies?
By the way, one of the theories of Gordon was that Madison may have wanted to give the States more rights when it came to citizens - so he took out the definition.
Seems to me that the natural born citizen definition should be the same for every State ..so I don’t quite understand that theory. I must be missing something in his analysis.
Rubio is in effect an anchor baby as his parent were neither one US citizens when he was born. They might as well have swam across the Rio Grande and popped him out on the US side.
My point is if Cruz is, so is Obama. If Obama wasn’t, neither is Cruz. Obama actually is one step closer because he was born in the US. Cruz wasn’t. Both their mothers were citizens, both their fathers were not.
I didn’t hear it at rallies until after he was asked by reporters. Do you have any evidence that is not the case?
From Wikipediea (mainly to show the courts cases for those who want to do further research; for context this is regarding Obama):
“Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked “There's [sic] some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law.”[67] As a further example, in an unpublished New York decision, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (Kings Cnty Supreme Ct., April 11, 2012) 35 Misc.3d 1208(A), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614(U), 950 N.Y.S.2d 722 (table), 2012 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 1635, 2012 WL 1205117, the pro se plaintiff challenged Obama’s presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that “natural born citizen” required the president “to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents.” (emphasis added) To which the Court responded, “ Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. .... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil.” [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].”
I can't imagine a court that would want to take on the issue and admit that Chester A Arthur and Barrack Obama were illegitimate presidents. The democrats can't use twisted courts against Cruz without tarnishing (or annihilating) Obummers legacy.
Nice blog.
That’s your answer to the question to “Why the hypocrisy??”
Wow. You might already be on fantasy island!
I’m not going to play the answer game. It has all been answered and settled to my satisfaction. If you want to go to Fantasy Island with a comrade, pick someone else.
And sadly, the opportunists in the Trump camp are going after this as their desperate attempt to stop Cruz from gaining on him. I guess ideas and ideals don't mean as much to Mr Trump as most here seem to pretend.
Then so was Obama.
“So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)”
Awesome!
Flat out lie. The court had no doubt about who were the natural born Citizens.
1. "...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." First, the Court states that these persons are "citizens". But then it makes a second statement about this class:
2. "These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." This class of citizens are part of a class defined as "natural-born citizens'. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
What the court doubted was whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were "citizens", but this was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor's did not.
The clear difference is that Cruz loves traditional America, and Obama (from the Church of “God Damn America”, from the Indonesian madrassas, from the wife who stated she as never proud to be an American, from the “I will stand with Muslims”, and from his every act in office) simply does not.
You tell me why that was controversial to all the conservatives that questioned it.
And from what I've read one parent does not make one an natural born citizen, a citizen yes but not a natural born one. It really doesn't matter to me - what I hate is the hypocrisy on the part of conservatives who ranted long and loud about Obama’s natural born status now ranting about reporters questioning Ted's.
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.