Birthers officially dispute eligibility of four GOP candidates

[YesI'mALiberal]

"Official notice of Dispute" was filed with New Hampshire attorney general today contesting eligibility of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum.

Here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11...-on-four-presidential-candidates-eligibility/

(you'll have to click the link if interested - cut-and-paste is disabled there)

 

[Ronin Truth]

Take 'em to court.

 

[KEEF]

Hopefully this will get better traction than what the Obama Birther push did.

 

[HVACTech]

clearly, the founders included the word "Natural" to differentiate from a cesarean section. duh.

 

[sparebulb]

Not only is Marco Rubio ineligible, he is insufferable and unbearable.

 

[TheTexan]

clearly, the founders included the word "Natural" to differentiate from a cesarean section. duh.

And test tube babies, conceived through unnatural process.

Going forward, I think we need, in addition to a birth certificate, also a conception certificate.

The application must include supporting documentation proving natural conception.

Video should suffice.

 

[Dr. Dog]

Rick Santorum most definitely is a natural born citizen. His father was born in Italy but became a citizen in 1930 and his mother is American-born. Santorum was born in the US. There is no definition of natural born citizen he does not meet.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Thing is- the Constitution doesn't have any definition. It only refers to citizens by birth or by naturalization without saying what the differences may be.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The persistence of birther disputes across several individual cases, disproves the slander that it was all just disguised racism against Obarry. The practical political result originally sought by the effort (circa 2010-11) was to get states to simply pass a law or regulation requiring candidates for President to file a certified copy of their BC in order to run in the primary or caucus. This was a simple, clean, routine paperwork solution that would have put most of the controversies to bed, and Arizona was on its way to passing such a law.

Instead, the establishment had to flex its authoritarian bully muscles and declare the matter was silly, Just Trust Us, everybody who runs is constitutionally eligible, the end, move along. I believe Obarry's putting out that UNofficial, photoshopped BC (that he earlier said he didn't have) was meant to kill momentum for the Arizona et al measure, and permit him to get reelected in 2012 again without submitting a vettable, certified BC.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Thing is- the Constitution doesn't have any definition. It only refers to citizens by birth or by naturalization without saying what the differences may be.

The Constitution internally doesn't have one, but the known original intent of 'natural born' definitely meant both parents had to be American citizens (the original generation of Founding Americans excepted or grandfathered). The way to properly clarify the issue is to amend the Constitution to either add the definition, or to declare the statutory definition of citizen to be acceptable. Until then, the known original intent behind the 'natural born' citizenship clause must be honored.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Constitution internally doesn't have one, but the known original intent of 'natural born' definitely meant both parents had to be American citizens (the original generation of Founding Americans excepted or grandfathered). The way to properly clarify the issue is to amend the Constitution to either add the definition, or to declare the statutory definition of citizen to be acceptable. Until then, the known original intent behind the 'natural born' citizenship clause must be honored.

Where is this standard codified in US law?

 

[Dr. Dog]

Where is this standard codified in US law?

No where. And there's no court precedent supporting it either.

 

[dude58677]

No where. And there's no court precedent supporting it either.

The founders intent never stated what you typed. Who cares if the Feds make up what it means?!?!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Where is this standard codified in US law?

To repeat, the Constitutional criteria for Presidential eligibility is the Constitutional criteria, and that supercedes statutory US law. The criteria includes the "natural born" citizen phrase, so one has to deal with it, or amend the Constitution to clarify the phrase at that level, not seek clarification by referencing the subordinant law.

 

[Zippyjuan]

To repeat, the Constitution does use the term "Naturalization" but left it to Congress (as one of their powers) to decide what it means and how it differs from "natural born" which is also not defined though it says a president must have that trait. So we have to look at what laws have been written since then along with court rulings for clarification of just what "Natural born" really means.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To repeat, the Constitutional criteria for Presidential eligibility is the Constitutional criteria, and that supercedes statutory US law. The criteria includes the "natural born" citizen phrase, so one has to deal with it, or amend the Constitution to clarify the phrase at that level, not seek clarification by referencing the subordinant law.

Your logic is impeccable, sir.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

To repeat, the Constitution does use the term "Naturalization" but left it to Congress (as one of their powers) to decide what it means and how it differs from "natural born" which is also not defined though it says a president must have that trait. So we have to look at what laws have been written since then along with court rulings for clarification of just what "Natural born" really means.

By such non-reasoning, every Constitutional clause can be circumvented by lower law "clarifications" and precedents of Congress or the courts. We look to the meaning of the Constitution by studying the text itself, and the original intent as evidenced by the well-documented written or historical record from the Founding era.

The rest of the laws are interpreted in light of what the Constitution says, not the reverse. One clarifies the Constitution in the manner provided by the Constitution, namely the amendment process, not the "let's write a law or decision to get us around what the Constitution says" routine, that has given us unrelentingly unconstitutional massive government, and at least one sitting President who is not a natural born citizen as per the original intent of the Founders.

 

[Feelgood]

“A REPEAT OF WHAT BARACK OBAMA DID”

by Robert Laity, ©2015


New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster took office in May 2013. New Hampshire’s attorney general is appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people.
(Nov. 13, 2015) — [Editor's Note: The following email was sent to Attorney General Joseph Foster on November 13, 2015.]

From: Robert Laity
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:17 AM
To: New Hampshire Board of Elections ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: Fw: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America

From: Robert Laity
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:13 AM
To: [email protected] ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America

Joseph Foster
Attorney General
State of New Hampshire

OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE AS TO THE
NON BONA FIDES OF FOUR REPUBLICAN
CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT

Dear Attorney General Foster,

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a “Natural-Born Citizen” in order to be President under Article II,Sec.1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett,U.S.Supreme Court 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ruled that:

“The Constitution does not,in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that….It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [Emphasis added] who are citizens became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also….these were natural born citizens”

The court went on to make reference to the citizenship status of those citizens who derived their citizenship from parents who were not citizens themselves, saying “as to this class there have been doubts”.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. However his Parents were un-naturalized “Permanent resident” Cuban citizens when he was born

Ted Cruz-NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban Father and American Mother who may have naturalized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal- NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to Parents who were un-naturalized Citizens of India at the time of Bob Jindal’s birth.

Rick Santorum-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a Father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick’s birth.
This is a repeat of what Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and John McCain did in 2008. Both of them are ineligible.

See: There is NO “President” Obama:

http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17//2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

Submitted,

Robert C. Laity
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of
our American Republic
43 Mosher Drive
Tonawanda, NY 14150

I understand that State of New Hampshire law provides that this complaint be addressed within (90) days. Date of Complaint is 11/13/2015.

Disable java and voila.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Marco Rubio-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. However his Parents were un-naturalized “Permanent resident” Cuban citizens when he was born

Ted Cruz-NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban Father and American Mother who may have naturalized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal- NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to Parents who were un-naturalized Citizens of India at the time of Bob Jindal’s birth.

Rick Santorum-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a Father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick’s birth.
This is a repeat of what Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and John McCain did in 2008. Both of them are ineligible.

John McCain was born to US Citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone- at the time, a US possession- on a US military base.

Barack Obama was born in the United States (Hawaii which had become a state two years earlier) to one US citizen (mother) and one non-citizen (father).

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was not a state but just a possession. His case went to (but was not ruled on by) the Supreme Court.

(just noting that it seems Conservative candidates have more questions about their "citizenship" status than Liberals and are also the ones more likely to complain about it).

 

[Dr. Dog]

By such non-reasoning, every Constitutional clause can be circumvented by lower law "clarifications" and precedents of Congress or the courts.

Yes, that's exactly what been going on since 1803.