promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
? asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 10 years ago

Even Obama says 2 US citizen parents are required for presidental eligibility (SR511) so why is the usurper st?

still there destroying America fiber by fiber every day?

Even Obama himself in Senate Resolution 511 attested to the requirement of 2 US citizen parents, in this case the resolution labeled McCain a natural born citizen specifically because both his parents were US citizens and he was born while his father was active duty, in accordance with Vattel's definition of natural born citizen (the other being a child born of 2 US citizen parents on US soil).

Update:

Penny Lee, You're making stuff up totally!!

Minor v. Happersett

"It was never doubted (that)...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves... natural-born citizens"

"...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the

language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…." . .John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    SR 511 was specifically about McCain's unique circumstances. Just because McCain had 2 citizen parents doesn't mean that's the rule. It's actually EITHER 1) One citizen parent and born outside the USA, or 2) born in the USA, citizenship doesn't matter. Think about it -- if birth to two citizen parents outside the USA AND birth to two citizen parents inside the USA were the rules, why even put the part about birth location in? We'd be just birth to two citizen parents. And we're not. Primary way to be a natural born citizen is and has always been, for more than 200 years, born in the USA. In Obama's case, that's all that matters. In McCain's case, you have to look at other circumstances.

    Has nothing whatsoever to do with de Vattel. (de Vattel also said that only noblemen should bear arms, and monarchy was the way to go. Do you subscribe to those theories too?)

    ADDED: I'm not making things up. Minor, which isn't a citizenship case at all, was superceded by Wong Kim Ark (1898). As applied in Ankeny v. Daniels in 2009 http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/...

    "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”"

    As for de Vattel, the Framers of the Constitution never had a translation that contained the phrase "natural born citizen", and the french doesn't say that either. Plus only nobleman (and military) get to carry arms:

    "Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only."

    "Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms"

    "It should be the same with respect to any quarrel that might arise between a commoner and a man entitled to carry arms"

    Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 13

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    I'm not really a big Obama fan, but it seems like you have misunderstood something

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.