Court: Obama Must Be ‘Constitutionally’ Eligible. Judge Denies President's Motion To Dismiss Georgia Ballot Challenge (soldiers, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes no sense when you take into account why the provision was even put in the Constitution to begin with. If they were afraid that foreigner would become citizens and then become POTUS, what makes you think that they would allow the CHILDREN (if born on US soil) weren't a threat also? This would be too damn easy to exploit if that were the truth. Any foreigner who wanted to usurp the office of POTUS would just have to birth a child on US soil, raise them to usurp the power of the US while remaining loyal to whatever country their parents came from. I couldn't for the life of me see any reason at all that the founders would allow that. That's why the parents being citizens is so damn important.
The child of two American citizens can be born here, raised to hate America in a foreign country, move back for the required number of years, and become POTUS. I don't see how parentage ensures loyalty to a country in any way.
Its been posted in this thread already that according to the consatution any person that was living in this country at the time of its founding was considered legally "natural born" regardless of place of birth.
That makes no sense when you take into account why the provision was even put in the Constitution to begin with.
Ignoring that you have no actual idea why that provision was put into the Constitution since it was never even debated, it actually makes complete sense. When Hamilton spent time in The Federalist Papers discussing the Constitutional protections against foreign influence, he never mentioned the natural born citizenship clause at all. He mentioned only the electoral college. That is how they protected the government from foreign influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
If they were afraid that foreigner would become citizens and then become POTUS, what makes you think that they would allow the CHILDREN (if born on US soil) weren't a threat also?
Because those children are not foreigners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
This would be too damn easy to exploit if that were the truth. Any foreigner who wanted to usurp the office of POTUS would just have to birth a child on US soil, raise them to usurp the power of the US while remaining loyal to whatever country their parents came from.
What planet did you say you were from? Did you forget that they have to also get elected?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
I couldn't for the life of me see any reason at all that the founders would allow that.
Your personal limited vision does not place any similar limitations on the Founders. Heck... the founders not only allowed Jefferson (for example) to become a dual citizen after American independence, they elected him as President twice... even after we had been at undeclared war with his other nation while he was Vice Ppresident.
And don't squawk about him being covered by the grandfather clause, since that did not require the Founders and Framers to vote for him. They chose to anyway. Somehow, split allegiances didn't seem to be a concern of theirs. They never even peeped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
That's why the parents being citizens is so damn important.
But apparently not important enough to chose a common law term of art that actually meant that.
This is one of my personal peeves about the Birthers. They demand that the Framers be friggen idiots.
You are stumped because you insist upon relying on selective quotations.
The paragraph in full:
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 [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Now let me parse the above for you so that perhaps you can at last grasp its meaning;
The Constitution does not...say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens.***Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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.
Wow. Why deliberately omit a defining statement?
I've marked where you've left out SCOTUS's statement with ***.
What you omitted is this: "These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett
Quote:
In short the Court recognized that their is no doubt that those born of citizens are native or natural born, yet recognizes that their are other authorities who include under the definition of natural born children born in this country regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
Ah but that's NOT what they said. Read it again... "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents."
You've made the same mistake HD makes. Citizen does not equal natural born citizen. The latter requires U.S. citizen parents (Minor v. Happersett).
OMFG... where have you been for the last three years?
This is the definition of natural born citizen as offered by 500+ years of Anglo-American common law; established explicitly in Calvin's Case in 1608; expounded on in Blackstone's Commentaries in 1765–1769; recounted in United States v. Rhodes in 1866; and settled as precedent in US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
To whit:
Okay... you've cited the law of England.
I also cited English law earlier: the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Of course it discusses it. It also discusses that his parents were Chinese. These were among the basic facts of the case. Certainly you would not pretend that the decisison applies only to Chinese because that was one of the facts of the case.
Or would you?
The fact that they were Chinese had no relevance to the consideration of domicile. They could have been citizens of any foreign nation. They key determining factor, though was the fact that they were, in fact, domiciled in the U.S.
I don't see how parentage ensures loyalty to a country in any way.
It all comes down to citizenship law. Obama's campaign openly admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama's citizenship status at birth.
Quote:
"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."
Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack (http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate - broken link)
No. I cited a US Supreme Court decision that is explicit that the law of England is the same identical rule as the law of United States.
As it applies to England's subjects. State where it specifically says it applies to U.S. citizens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how parentage ensures loyalty to a country in any way.
