Posted on 09/08/2018 10:23:35 AM PDT by EagleUSA
It is simple - if you were born of two American citizens then “naturally” you are a citizen.
If there is any procedural need for either parent to become a citizen after you were born then you are not a “natural born” citizen.
Two parents from Sweden or Japan or Russia or wherever who have a child here in America did not birth an American citizen.
This needs to be hammered home!
You think they took his word? I think they didn’t care - all they cared about was whether not they could get away with it.
And now we know...if you have dark skin you can get away with pretty much anything.
The Republicans had a perfect opportunity to get the truth about soebarkah and to confirm the definition of natural born citizen but they lacked the testicular fortitude.
Two parents from Sweden or Japan or Russia or wherever who have a child here in America did not birth an a Natural born American citizen.
“This is just a pointless windmill to tilt at.”
America is on that sad height because we have let the left run roughshod over the Constitution...Let them pick and choose which parts to follow. Let them ‘interpret’ it so it’s no longer a Constitution.
I'm curious as to what President Trump's opinion is. If he believes that four out of his five children are not natural born citizens and therefore ineligible to ever serve as president.
“Yes, she is a undoubtedly a citizen of the US”
Why do you say that?
Their stance is so liberal that no one has standing to challenge an opponent's status.
Lurkinanloomin has a pretty good understanding of this. Just search on his/her posts.
Yes you may. A writer I’m not.
That will be ignored if she chooses to run. Anyone who points it out will be shouted down as a misogynist racist or racist misogynist. Whichever causes the most peal clutching!
But you aren't really "in the game" are you? You're really just a very small man bravely (or so you see it) typing away to others about how they should "get off the field". As though you are courageously effecting Constitutional law by your overuse of platitudes.
“I’m curious as to what President Trump’s opinion is. If he believes that four out of his five children are not natural born citizens and therefore ineligible to ever serve as president.”
Good point. This whole exercise is a giant waste of intellectual effort.
“Natural Born Citizen” isn’t defined in the US Constitution and like it or not ultimately the Congress and Courts will decide what that definition will be. As they are currently constituted anyone not requiring to be “Naturalized” is a “Natural Born Citizen.” If you require to be “Naturalized” you aren’t a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Obama’s birth is a red herring. Phony birth certificates exist because of the true nature of Obama’s real father, not his place of birth. When Obama was born a notice was placed in the local Hawaiian newspaper. If he had been born in Kenya it wouldn’t have been there. Folks keep ignoring Frank Marshall Davis.
Fixed it for you.......
Roberts = New Kennedy, count on it.
Born to U.S. citizen parent(S) on U.S. soil...NO EXCEPTIONS
The O’muslim exception all but KILLED AMERICA and the jury is still out on that one...
There is no ‘right’ to run and become POTUS. No matter how much it may hurt your feelings or those in your family that are not eligible.
“When Churchill was born citizenship passed to children born overseas through the father. When Obama was born it was mother or father.”
Yes, the previously mentioned Cable Act, passed in 1922 allowed for that. That means that PRIOR to 1922, the citizenship of the father of a child born overseas was the citizenship transmitted to his offspring. With regard to Article II eligibility, that was the understanding on that matter since 1787. The Cable Act did not retroactively alter Article II, as that requires a constitutional amendment.
The Immigration and Nauralization Act of 1952, under which Obama was born, did not alter Article II with regard to POTUS eligibility either.
Do not conflate that form of statutory citizenship granted Obama under the act with Article II eligibility citizenship. It is clear that it must be NATURAL BORN citizenship, however one interprets it.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
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.