Guns bad...case closed

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Not according to the Constitution he's not, never was, and never will be.

I think your Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I suppose that means that they're all marxists...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not according to the Constitution he's not, never was, and never will be.

I think your Supreme Court disagrees with you.

No, it does not.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled, since the beginning of the nation, that the term "natural born citizen" does not apply to anyone OTHER THAN a person born to two citizens of the United States.

There being two classes of "citizen" mentioned in the Constitution, "citizen of the United States" and "natural born citizen of the United States," one can legally only conclude that these two classes apply to different persons. The terms are NOT synonymous. The term "citizen of the United States" and like derivations are used frequently in the Constitution and the law and they apply to the class of persons who are in fact citizens of the United States, which may be by virtue of place of birth, parentage or naturalization. But the other category, that of "natural born citizen" applies to a more limited number of persons who are ALSO "citizens" of the US.

And this sub-set of citizens of the United States (who are eligible to be President) has been consistently limited to only those citizens whose parents (both of them) were or are themselves US citizens, which may be by virtue of the parents place of birth, parentage or even naturalization, by the Supreme Court, which has NEVER ruled that the definition applies to anyone else.

And the term "natural born citizen" is used only ONCE in the entire Constitution, and that is with respect to qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. Therefore, it is not permissible to try to substitute the more general "citizen of the United States" where the Constitution makes it quite absolutely clear that the qualifications for President are MORE STRICT than merely being a "citizen of the United States." But trying to erase that important distinction is precisely what the Marxists and Progressives have been doing and continue to do by lying through their teeth and simply ignoring the dictates of the Constitution by "redefining" words that need no redefinition and which cannot lawfully be redefined.

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to take up Obama's eligibility does not act as a bar to asserting Obama's ineligibility to be President. The silence of the Court is never, ever usable as precedent in arguing for the status quo ante. This is a well-known rule of judicial construction. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in Obama's election for political and practical purposes having to do with its desire not to disrupt the functioning of the country at a critical time, but that does not mean that it could not tomorrow rule that Obama was ineligible to hold the office of President should such a "case or controversy" arise and it chose to review it. Their refusal to consider or rule does not create precedent or impose stare decisis or estoppel on this or a future Court, which could theoretically rule that Obama was NEVER the legitimate President of the United States due to his constitutional incapacity to hold that office and therefore every action taken by him and every administrative rule and act performed under his authority would be instantly null and void.

That's highly unlikely to happen, but legally speaking it could happen if a future Court so rules.

[Hermit]

a "natural born citizen," which requires that both parents be citizens, in order to be President.

That is not what the US Constitution says.

Yes, it is. Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Where is the bit stating "which requires that both parents be citizens, in order to be President"? Quote it. Bet you can't.

[rainbow]

If Seth is correct, it would mean then that Washington was not eligible to be President of the Union.

[Svartalf]

You talk as if the 2nd amendment was holy writ, Seth. It isn't (and neither is the constitution as a whole for that matter). It's just an afterthought that made sense at the time to those in power.

Amendments get repealed. The 18th was. And the 2nd is long overdue.

You know that, to Merkins, you're uttering totes blasphemy, right?

[Hermit]

If Seth is correct, it would mean then that Washington was not eligible to be President of the Union.

Eight of the initial nine US presidents were not natural born citizens of the United States of America by virtue of the fact that they were born before the adoption of the American Constitution. At the time of their birth the USA did not exist. Hence the grandfather clause included in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It does make sense. The US Constitution was ratified by 11 of the then 13 states between 1777 and 1788. The first presidency was filled in 1789.

[Tero]

Since we are doing constitutions, will respond in 2nd Amendment thread.

[Seth]

Gun Nuts TM, have brought up Obama again. Since this is the active thread on the Constitution, the phrase "natural born citizen" is not defined in it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural ... zen_clause

There is some history etc in there. In the 1700s, there was no technology to determine the father of a child. The Americanness could only be defined by the mother.

Correct, the phrase is not defined in the Constitution because at the time the Constitution was adopted it was a phrase of common usage and everybody understood exactly what it meant: it meant that both parents of the candidate had to be citizens of the United States. This was a problem for the first couple of generations of Presidents because at the beginning all of them were British citizens and their parents were British citizens, which is why they inserted the provision, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This highlighted clause dealt with the obvious problem they faced and made explicit exception for those who were citizens of the United States by virtue of the fact that they were alive when the Constitution was adopted. This part makes it perfectly clear that there are two classes of citizen, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" and that after those who were alive at the time the Constitution was adopted died, no person other than a "natural born citizen" could be President.

This distinction proves absolutely that the intent of the Framers was to exclude persons whose parents were not both citizens of the United States from being eligible for the office of President.

And Barack Obama's parents were not both US citizens. Therefore he is not qualified to hold the office of President.

And I'll post this wherever the fuck I choose to post it Tero, so you can fuck off.

[Seth]

If Seth is correct, it would mean then that Washington was not eligible to be President of the Union.

Nope. You have to read the whole section, which says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You see, they were way smarter than you in this respect and they provided a constitutional solution to that very problem...a solution which no longer applies because nobody who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution still lives, and therefore that section is now inoperative.

[Seth]

Since we are doing constitutions, will respond in 2nd Amendment thread.

And I'm going to respond wherever I like.

[Seth]

a "natural born citizen," which requires that both parents be citizens, in order to be President.

That is not what the US Constitution says.

Yes, it is. Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Where is the bit stating "which requires that both parents be citizens, in order to be President"? Quote it. Bet you can't.

Don't have to. The language and interpretation of the Constitution, according to well-know principles of statutory interpretation, depend on the usages and understandings of the people at the time the Constitution was written, not on your knowledge or lack thereof of history.

At the time, it was well understood as a matter of common knowledge that "natural born citizen" meant someone whose parents were both citizens of the nation involved. This applied not just in the newly-minted United States, it was part of the common law of England, upon which the understandings of the Founders is based. In other words, at the time, those who wrote the Constitution (many of whom were lawyers) knew exactly what "natural born citizen" meant and that there was no need to explicitly define that term in the Constitution just as there was no need to define "keep and bear arms" or "exercise of religion" or "coin money" or "raise armies" or any of the other powers granted to Congress. They were, and remain, common knowledge and usage and that is how they must be interpreted even today...as the Framers intended them, not as you want to misinterpret them.

[Hermit]

At the time, it was well understood as a matter of common knowledge that "natural born citizen" meant someone whose parents were both citizens of the nation involved.

Barefaced assertion. Care to substantiate that?

[Seth]

At the time, it was well understood as a matter of common knowledge that "natural born citizen" meant someone whose parents were both citizens of the nation involved.

Barefaced assertion. Care to substantiate that?

Not at the moment, but you can easily find the references if you care to look. I'm not your homework slave.

[Hermit]

At the time, it was well understood as a matter of common knowledge that "natural born citizen" meant someone whose parents were both citizens of the nation involved.

Barefaced assertion. Care to substantiate that?

Not at the moment, but you can easily find the references if you care to look. I'm not your homework slave.

Says he, happily continuing to make barefaced assertions.

[Seth]

At the time, it was well understood as a matter of common knowledge that "natural born citizen" meant someone whose parents were both citizens of the nation involved.

Barefaced assertion. Care to substantiate that?

Not at the moment, but you can easily find the references if you care to look. I'm not your homework slave.

Says he, happily continuing to make barefaced assertions.

I've got better things to do. Suffice it to say that the term has been in use as I've described since at least the 17th century. Your demand is like asking me what the definition if "is" is. Those are Clintonesque pettifoggeries.

If you disbelieve it, then I suggest YOU cite the evidence proving that it has some other definition. Citing the fact that the law was ignored won't do the trick though.