“Birtherism” is the greatest Alinsky ever perpetrated.
They have gotten the American people to reject one of the most valuable safeguards bequeathed to us by the founders.
The natural born citizen clause served us well until we ignored it.
Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama should be proof enough of the wisdom of the founders when they tried to prevent him from being President by requiring someone who could only be a US citizen and nothing else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
One cannot be anything else and also be a natural born citizen.
It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii if his father was a foreign national.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
No other possible citizenship(s).
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen.
No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.
Obama told us he was born a British subject.
Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?
Who believes they would have thought the recently deceased King of Thailand was eligible to be President?
He was born in Cambridge MA.
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible.
The truth of the Kenyanesian Usurpation will never see the light of day because both parties cooperated in the violation of the Constitution
I would hardly suggest ‘the people’ ignored our Constitution. It would be more correct to state ‘the people’ relied on their government ‘officials’ and the MFM far too greatly. ‘THOSE FOLKS’ pushed the lies by not informing common citizens the truth in our CONSTITUTION. It does take NBC to be a President. Not any old Tom, Dick, or Harry is eligible. Add to that ‘it takes TWO, baby, TWO parents who ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS to produce such an individual. Not one, not 1 and a 1/2, but TWO!
The MIT liar, the one named after the jar of baby food, has told the nation they can lie their way into the fabric of our understanding. The fault is with our EDUCATION SYSTEM who are too interested in sex education when they should be giving students CIVICS EDUCATION. Even Mark L. and Rush L, were pushing for another who had no more qualification than BO’B
Not just the uni-party. Many here on Freerepublic colluded with the establishment to shut down the truth of the laws of nature and of nature's God.
No foreign birth. No foreign parent(s) No foreign citizenship(s) No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen. * * * *
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
This is going to be an interesting thread so I am going to address the points you raise here one time.
In inverse order, your second point is correct. The establishment wants to get rid of the Article II Sec. 1 (natural born citizen--NBC) argument. We are now a globalist society and it is inappropriate. The last election may have dispensed with that argument and you get a couple more literal constructionists on the Court and, the establishment may not get another chance to accomplish that objective.
That said, you want to argue a Constitutional legal issue. What you want to believe is not the way the Supreme Court is going to come down so we don't want to taint the rest of the discussion with a bunch of meaningless legal argument.
The meaning of the NBC clause is still uncertain.
The historical view is born in the geographical territory of the several states. There is room for a jurisdictional argument and you might be successful with an argument against an anchor baby--you might not.
Get the anchor baby facts under circumstances where the anchor baby has won election to the Presidency with a majority vote, you might lose that argument also.
But in Barry's case, the argument is born outside the geographical territory of the several states.
There is some room for uncertainty on those facts also.
Born outside the several states, if you have a person who became a citizen of the US under the statutory citizenship statutes in effect at the time of his birth, he has an argument that he is a NBC and again, the outcome before the Supreme Court is uncertain--if he is elected, he has a good shot to win that argument. A better shot to win if he makes it while in office--if someone gets this argument before the Court, where the person is not the party but in an argument over the consequences of prior acts, the Court is more likely to hold the person not eligible.
Barry doesn't make NBC because he could not have become a citizen at birth under any of the possible factual settings so he loses.
The born in Kenya argument is significant only from the perspective of the legal procedure in which the case gets to the Court. His oral statements are the only present evidence on the record as to his place of birth--that should be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the contending party to prove where he was born. Even though he wasn't born in Kenya.
Contrary to popular argument McCain flunks the NBC test. The Canal Zone is not the territory of the several states; he wasn't born in the Canal Zone anyway, he was born in a hospital outside the zone; under the then applicable citizenship statutes, he didn't become a citizen at birth.
Goldwater probably was not eligible either. He was born in Arizona prior to statehood. The better argument could have been that because Arizona became a state, he passed the territorial birth argument test however I believe the location in Arizona where Goldwater was born was under sovereignty and effective government of Mexico at the time of his birth so probably Goldwater didn't make it either--at least as to an abstract proposition. If he had been elected, the Court would probably have upheld his eligibility status anyway.