New Proposed Laws Threaten Obama's 2012 Re-Election Prospects

[gekaap]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age

They might. But it would be irrelevant because he was born in the US, which brings us back full circle to them demanding a hand written letter from God proving his citizenship.

 

[DiveCon]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age

They might. But it would be irrelevant because he was born in the US, which brings us back full circle to them demanding a hand written letter from God proving his citizenship.

yup
even then i think many would question it

 

[USArmyRetired]

You say

1. Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship.
Based on what facts?

2. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.

What do you base this on?

You are the one who made the claims that such disbars a person from serving as President. You have to provide the evidence to support your claim.

When you are born with dual citizenship, you are bound by allegiances to the other foreign country or government. The founders when drafting the constitution put natural born citizen in the presidential clause to be a safeguard to having the commander in chief of the armed forces not to have any ties or allegiances to foreign governments to prevent a takeover or usurpation of America. After all we just finished a war with England. John Jay, one of the founders and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to George Washington advising him to put a NBC as president. There is good reason to believe that Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen played a central role in a letter that Founder John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”


Obama has dual citizenship and it is confirmed. He played on the populace of voters not having knowledge of the NBC and citizenship status in America and it worked. The media never made a issue of it and his little website Fight The Smears had this little paragraph in it which the last sentence says it all about Barack Jr:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children

All presidents since the first natural born citizen commander in chief ,Martin Van Buren, have been born to both US Citizen parents (plural) except Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born as it was later found out. Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship. Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom. Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

[/IMG]

 

[WorldWatcher]

The are differing opinions on this. As far as I know there has never been a SCOTUS case involving eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. (As far as I know, all prior cases have dealt with citizenship, not POTUS eligibility).

Everyone claims the high ground on the issue, the truth is it is not likely to be settled until the SCOTUS answers the question as it pertains to POTUS eligibility. The birther laws being proposed are probably the best way to get the question to the SCOTUS as a candidate would definitely have "standing" to address the issue to the courts.

The issue is plainly laid out in the constitution regarding the natural born citizen requirement for Presidency. No requirement relating to one's parents is required. Indeed, such a requirement would be akin to British peerage titles of which the infant USA would have been especially adverse.

So the issue becomes relatively simple: Is Obama a natural born citizen? The answer is yes. He was born in the United States. The Supreme Court has been clear when the questions have been presented to them that dual citizenship does not deprive a US citizen of any rights as a US citizen, and that natural born citizenship does not require that a person's parents be a citizen. Being born in the US makes a person a citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents.

Therefore, there is no reason to appeal to a theoretical hearing by the SCOTUS of the question. It is a plain question that is more than answered already. Any other answer contrary to this would require an extraordinary reading of the constitution which is not supported by either a record of historical application. Without such history to support such a radical reading of the constitution, positive case law becomes necessary to support the question, which does not exist.

Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.

However, I recognize that there are other opinions and those opinions may have a logical basis.

To quote the Minor case...

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. "​

1. The Constitution does not define NBC.

2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.

3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.

4. Minor was a voting rights case and not a Presidential eligibility case, it may not be precedence for establishing eligibility for POTUS.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

Some feel it is contained in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", there are others who do not - they interpret it to mean "born a citizen". Still others think it means born to citizens on US soil by those willing to throw the children of military born in foreign lands under the bus. Ultimately it will have to be answered by the SCOTUS in a case involving Presidential eligibility and not just citizenship status.


>>>>

It only requires you be born in the US

That's one view.

Others differ.


>>>>

 

[Polk]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

Yep. If you had to be born inside the United States to be a "natural born citizen" George Romney's campaign in 68 was for naught.

 

[DiveCon]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age

Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).



>>>>

yup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt

 

[gekaap]

When you are born with dual citizenship, you are bound by allegiances to the other foreign country or government. The founders when drafting the constitution put natural born citizen in the presidential clause to be a safeguard to having the commander in chief of the armed forces.....

All you've done here is present a theory that you wish were valid and accurate. However, it is not. There is nothing that preempts any person having dual citizenship from serving as President. There is nothing that preempts a person from being a natural born citizen if one of your parents is a citizen of another country.

 

[gekaap]

Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.

Maybe you need to read the constitution. Show me where it says that one's parents must be a citizen in order for one to be a natural born citizen. It does not so say.

1. The Constitution does not define NBC.

True. But the Supreme Court has established long ago that all people born within the US are natural born citizens under the constitution.

2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.

And the Supreme Court has addressed that in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it has been established that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen under the constitution.

3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.

No, it did not address that question at all. But the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did, and it was unambiguous about the matter. The citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant when a child is born in the United States. Both parents can be illegally present in the United States, and the child is still a natural born citizen.

 

[USArmyRetired]

When you are born with dual citizenship, you are bound by allegiances to the other foreign country or government. The founders when drafting the constitution put natural born citizen in the presidential clause to be a safeguard to having the commander in chief of the armed forces.....

All you've done here is present a theory that you wish were valid and accurate. However, it is not. There is nothing that preempts any person having dual citizenship from serving as President. There is nothing that preempts a person from being a natural born citizen if one of your parents is a citizen of another country.

You refuse to look at why the founders added NBC in Article 2 Section 1 instead of Citizen. Why is that and why do you think the founders made that move?

 

[USArmyRetired]

Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.

Maybe you need to read the constitution. Show me where it says that one's parents must be a citizen in order for one to be a natural born citizen. It does not so say.

1. The Constitution does not define NBC.

True. But the Supreme Court has established long ago that all people born within the US are natural born citizens under the constitution.

2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.

And the Supreme Court has addressed that in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it has been established that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen under the constitution.

3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.

No, it did not address that question at all. But the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did, and it was unambiguous about the matter. The citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant when a child is born in the United States. Both parents can be illegally present in the United States, and the child is still a natural born citizen.

Show me in Wong Kim Ark where the term 'natural born citizen' is used? Wong was found to be a 'citizen', not 'natural born citizen'.

 

[WorldWatcher]

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age

Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).



>>>>

yup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt

I caught that later and had already delete this post.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

You refuse to look at why the founders added NBC in Article 2 Section 1 instead of Citizen. Why is that and why do you think the founders made that move?

I refuse to look at what? I'm looking at the whole thing, the whole kit and kaboodle. I know why the natural born citizen stipulation is included in the qualifications for President. You are trying to add to the constitution something which is not there. In order to serve as President you must be a natural born citizen. There is no requirement that your parents must also be citizens, and there is no exclusion of people who have dual citizenship. You keep insisting that this should be there, but it is not. Regardless of why the founders including the requirement to be a natural born citizen, they did not include in the constitution any prohibition against a person serving as President who holds dual citizenship. It's just not there, and you trying to insist that it's implied does not change the fact that it's just not there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.

Maybe you need to read the constitution.

I have, numerous times. As a matter of fact I've carried one in my flight bag/brief case/back pack for decades.

Show me where it says that one's parents must be a citizen in order for one to be a natural born citizen. It does not so say.

Sorry, I've never claimed it is written in the Constitution (see my previous posts). I've said it is the opinion of some.

1. The Constitution does not define NBC.

True. But the Supreme Court has established long ago that all people born within the US are natural born citizens under the constitution.

If you knew it was true, why did you ask me to show you were it says citizen parents are a requirement (something I've not said, I've said other say it) for NBC.


Please site the SCOTUS case concerning NBC which was based on a case to determine NBC status of a candidate?

2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.

And the Supreme Court has addressed that in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it has been established that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen under the constitution.

Ark was about citizenship, not POTUS eligibility.

3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.

No, it did not address that question at all. But the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did, and it was unambiguous about the matter. The citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant when a child is born in the United States. Both parents can be illegally present in the United States, and the child is still a natural born citizen.

Ark is about citizenship under the 14th, not about POTUS eligibility under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

The SCOTUS would have to clarify whether there prior words were to be considered a definition or whether they were exercising artistic freedom in their writing.


>>>>

 

[GStarz]

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age

Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).



>>>>

yup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt

You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?

There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).

Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.

And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!

All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!

******* pathetic. Just ******* pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.

Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.

 

[DiveCon]

Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).



>>>>

yup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt

You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?

There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).

Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.

And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!

All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!

******* pathetic. Just ******* pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.

Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.

no, its you and he that are the idiots

 

[GStarz]

yup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt

You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?

There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).

Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.

And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!

All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!

******* pathetic. Just ******* pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.

Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.

no, its you and he that are the idiots

Except that we agree with the lawyers and legislators who know a hell of a lot more about constitutional and election law than you do, dive-boy, so you're the outsider looking in - you just don't know which side of the glass is which. the laws will pass. rely on it. Then what excuse will you make up?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?

There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).

Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.

And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!

All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!

******* pathetic. Just ******* pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.

Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.

no, its you and he that are the idiots

Except that we agree with the lawyers and legislators who know a hell of a lot more about constitutional and election law than you do, dive-boy, so you're the outsider looking in - you just don't know which side of the glass is which. the laws will pass. rely on it. Then what excuse will you make up?

1. If legislators were perfect then there would never have been any law overturned by the courts. However, I think that there have been many laws overturned, which shows that when legislators pass laws for political purposes their efforts may no stand.


2. I don't think DiveCon or I have said that there would probably not be one or two states (at least) that would pass a birther law. The question (and I speak for myself) has been the likelihood that they would pass Constitutional review. Personally I think invidious laws targeting one specific person (which if you are honest, most of the attempts do) will fail. Personally I support Maine's proposed law because it applies to all elected officials and specifies candidates must submit proof of eligibility. Maine's law is much more likely to pass judicial review. All MHO of course.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

Show me in Wong Kim Ark where the term 'natural born citizen' is used? Wong was found to be a 'citizen', not 'natural born citizen'.

Are you even familiar with the case? Wong was found to be a citizen by birth, i.e. a natural born citizen.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In 1869, Attorney General Hoar gave to Mr. Fish, the secretary of state, an opinion that children born and domiciled abroad, whose fathers were native-born citizens of the United States, and had at some time resided therein, were, under the statute of February 10, 1855 (chapter 71), citizens of the United States, and 'entitled to all the privileges of citizenship which it is in the power of the United States government to confer.

The same rule must be applied to both races; and, unless the general rule that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the fourteenth amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

 

[GStarz]

no, its you and he that are the idiots

Except that we agree with the lawyers and legislators who know a hell of a lot more about constitutional and election law than you do, dive-boy, so you're the outsider looking in - you just don't know which side of the glass is which. the laws will pass. rely on it. Then what excuse will you make up?

1. If legislators were perfect then there would never have been any law overturned by the courts. However, I think that there have been many laws overturned, which shows that when legislators pass laws for political purposes their efforts may no stand.


2. I don't think DiveCon or I have said that there would probably not be one or two states (at least) that would pass a birther law. The question (and I speak for myself) has been the likelihood that they would pass Constitutional review. Personally I think invidious laws targeting one specific person (which if you are honest, most of the attempts do) will fail. Personally I support Maine's proposed law because it applies to all elected officials and specifies candidates must submit proof of eligibility. Maine's law is much more likely to pass judicial review. All MHO of course.


>>>>

The laws apply to all candidates. There's nothing that targets Obama by name or "a sitting president". Done. I also like that you think they won;t pass constitutional review but all those legislators and constitutional authorities and lawyers see a likelihood at least. You must be pretty hot stuff, huh.