Article, also # 1.
.
Posted on 01/16/2012 11:21:39 AM PST by Obama Exposer
I knew this would happen and in a way, it is a good thing because it will also bring focus to Barack Obama's eligibility. Reading the paperwork on this I found out some things I wasn't aware of pertaining to our citizenship statutes back in the 1940's such as the statute listed in this challenge, U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 Sect 201, 54 Stat. 1137 which provides provides the law by which a person born outside the U.S. is bound by in order to qualify legally as a U.S. citizen. For some that do not know, according to Mexican law at the time when Mitts dad George was born in Chihuahua, he became a Mexican citizen. That citizenship was passed to Mitt at his birth in 1947 despite the fact he was born in Michigan. That means Mitt was born a dual citizen and a born dual citizen is not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen eligible for the presidency as our founders intended. Reading the challenge, they bring out the SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett which is binding precedent defining a natural born citizen. They also cite The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 289 (1814) as well as the case Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830). It goes on to say:
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization: A. Mexicans by birth are: I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
"By virtue of this law, in order for George Romney to have become a U.S. citizen he would have to be naturalized".
Well, it will be interesting how the media responds to this.
“If the law was based on a principle which the US recognizes, then yes.”
See, I think that is where it goes over the cliff. You’re saying that Mexico law is relevant, but only to the extent that we say it is relevant. Why not just say that it’s our law that is relevant? If it’s entirely dependent on Mexican law, then you’ve got the problem I described that some foreign nation is deciding who our President should be. If it’s our law that’s important, then forget about what Mexican law says.
You say that if they have a claim to make him a soldier in their army... Do you mean under their law? Because their law can say anything they want it to say. Or do you mean our law? Because I doubt that there is any American law that says that Mexico can draft Romney, or anyone else for that matter. Or maybe you mean, what if Romney rec’d a draft notice from Mexico, and the Mexican government wants our government to extradite him so they could enforce it? Very likely, our government would not extradite him unless it first concluded that Romney was a Mexican citizen, so you find yourself in a circular pattern. He’s a citizen of Mexico if he can be extradited to Mexico, but he can’t be extradited to Mexico unless he’s a citizen of Mexico. You haven’t solved the problem.
“If he were both born in Mexico AND to Mexican parents, by what stretch could we even recognize him as one of our citizens?”
Yes, but no one is arguing that, and the point further confuses the matter because it deals only with the question of citizenship, and not whether he is “naturally born.” The problem is that you’ve got to separate the issues, “Is he a citizen?” “Is he natural born?”
The original Constitution deferred to the States to define citizenship, and that was the law when they wrote “natural born citizen.” The 14th Amendment federalized it, but has a very obscure definition of who’s a citizen. You’ve got to be born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction, which leaves a lot for Congress to determine. It certainly does not answer the question of what the Founders meant when they used the term “natural born citizen” 80 years earlier.
The definition of citizen has changed over the years. Therefore, whether you were a natural born citizen in 1792 may not be dispositive of whether you would be one today.
Originally, the “natural born citizen” concept was seen as being determined entirely on where you were born. But that was because in common parlance there was only one way to be BORN a citizen, and that was to be born in the US. Now we have laws that say you might be born a citizen even if you were born in Panama (ie. McCain), or anywhere really, assuming your parentage meets the citizenship test.
I think that ultimately, the courts will say that the focus on where you were born is a matter of citizenship—not a matter of whether you were natural born. The issue of whether you are natural born they will hold depends on whether you were a citizen from birth. Maybe if you renounce your citizenship after birth, that will prevent you from being a natural born citizen, but I doubt they are going to invent a new body of law that did not exist in 1792 (when the Constitution was written) to say who is and who’s not a citizen who could be “natural born.”
Not true. Nowhere in the history of the Constitutional Convention. Was that from Wiki?
Thanks for the ping!
Article, also # 1.
.
Yes, it was raised as an issue.
It was dropped when he didn't become the nominee.
It's because the whole concept of "American citizenship" has become diluted, and this has been going on for the last 50 years. If you don't know and value American citizenship, then it's an easy segue into running for POTUS.
He didn't need to confer anything to his son other than his own flawed genes. Zero was born a citizen and is therefore natural born. That's all it means — citizen by birth, as opposed to naturalization.
So give it up unless you like looking like a jackass. You aren't going to prevail with this ridiculous argument — and even if you did, Obama's neighbor Billy Ayers would still be eligible, de Vattel be damned!
The Mittwit was born in Detroit. Unfortunately, that means he's eligible, even if his momma had stepped off the plane from Leningrad, Mitt having been conceived along the shores of Lake Baikal. The actual citizenship status of George and Lenore is immaterial.
It was dropped when he didn't become the nominee.
As I recall, the main issue was brainwashability, not constitutional eligibility.
yep it sure was. Came up with respect to Barry Goldwater in 1964 too. Arizona was just a territory when he was born if memory serves(memory is not what it once was).
Where do you find that threads are #1?
Sorry. I meant where do you look to see where threads are rated?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Natural Born Citizenship is the highest subset of a citizen.
Good luck in Court.
 The Chief Justice, a conservative appointed by GWB, was conscientious enough to do a do-over after a minor dialog slip. |
The NBC hobby horse is a blind alley. It's not going to defeat Obama, but, it could provide spurious ammunition against possibly worthy candidates in the future. Therefore, it must be ridiculed to oblivion!
Oh, sorry; my mistake. Thanks for calling my attention to the error.
. . . . Pinging. ... Back to the thread, check out article, and links at Post # 2.
.
“This is precisely why they are pushing for Romney. He can’t criticize Obama on the same issues he himself is guilty of (citizenship, healthcare, cap and trade, etc)they are the same in too many ways for my liking.”
You stole my thunder, and thank you for that.
“If on the other hand, you feel like educating yourself on this issue, here is the link to the research thread.”
Not sure if they wish to educate themselves further on this issue, but I sure do. I thought myself pretty thorough reader of the NBC forum, but I was unaware of an ongoing thread dedicated to the research. Thanks for the link!
You stole my thunder, and thank you for that.
Great minds think alike! (and this time I’m not talking Romney and Obama)
Yes, Goldwater was born in 1909, as I recall (similar memory). AZ gained statehood in 1912.
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.