RE: Georgia case

RE: Georgia case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> RE: Georgia case (1/25/2012 4:54:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xXLithiumXx quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Could they impeach on those grounds? Im sorta browsing through other political forums and getting ideas. 1. Obama is legal to be President. 2. If he were no longer President, he could not be impeached. Impeachment is the beginning of an action to remove an officeholder from office. So....wait...If the "what if" were a real situation, they couldn't impeach him, because he had never held office? SO...he would be what? Stuck being president? In tazzy's hypothetical situation, she asked about impeaching Obama AFTER his Presidency was over. My response addressed that. Your question concerns impeaching him WHILE he's in office. Totally different. The answer to that is that Congress can impeach for anything they want. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the grounds for impeachment and it's deliberately left vague. For the sake of argument about a fictional situation, if Obama was found to be ineligible for the office which he's been thoroughly vetted for and declared eligible, then impeachment would be a likely outcome. Please note that impeachment is NOT removal from office, but simply the bringing of charges - removal would be a logical result of impeachment. Even without removal, Obama's legislation would be called into question and he'd never get new legislation looked at. As I said earlier, all of his legislation would be attacked by those opposed to it.

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/25/2012 7:52:23 AM)
It would traverse up-court, finally go to SCOTUS, if it was upheld as Obama not a natural born citizen AND a citizen of the United States. Look for that to happen about 2024. If it were earlier, then Obama steps down, dealing in civil and perhaps criminal aftermath, Biden is President, Hillary VP,and who knows who is Secy of State.

xXLithiumXx -> RE: Georgia case (1/25/2012 10:30:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It would traverse up-court, finally go to SCOTUS, if it was upheld as Obama not a natural born citizen AND a citizen of the United States. Look for that to happen about 2024. I do not understand what any of that means?

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/25/2012 10:39:08 AM)
lets say georgia found that obama is not a citizen of the us, nor a natural born citizen. It would go to a state appellate court, possibly state supreme court on a fast track. Maybe even right to the US Supreme court. (real doubtful, given their alacrity in ruling on this aforetimes). At the point of the US Supreme court decision (in the negative for) Obama would then be found ineligible to be President (and civil lawsuits would commence fast and furiously against him), and the next in line is the Vice President, who would become president. Who would he nod as his Vice President? I think Hillary Clinton, (thats my take in this farsical bit of what if) and then the Secretary of State position would need to be filled, and I have no idea who would be tapped for that.

blacksword404 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 12:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets take the supposition that he is lying. That he is found to have been not a natural citizen. Play what if... What happens? Then everyone who ever opposed any Obama bills (think health care) launch furious suits to overturn those laws since his Presidency was invalid. They likely will all be denied. (Think of a sports game. No matter how many wrong calls the refs made, once it's over, it's over.) The challenges will get appealed to the SCOTUS, which will refuse to hear them, affirming the decisions at the state SC level. The way I se it is if he is not natural born it would invalidate everything he put his signature on. Basicly the same as if a person was falsely taking on another's identity. Every legal document that person signed is invalid and unenforceable. In the case of the president that would include all bills and treaties. Even if its true that he is not natural born, it doesn't matter to me. Not because I support him. I hope he doesn't get another term. But the country couldn't take the turmoil that would come about both in the country and internationally. Too many unseen repercussions to even imagine.

tazzygirl -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 12:17:23 AM)
quote: Even if its true that he is not natural born, it doesn't matter to me. Not because I support him. I hope he doesn't get another term. But the country couldn't take the turmoil that would come about both in the country and internationally. Too many unseen repercussions to even imagine. Its a moot point as he was born in Hawaii... but yes, I agree. I would love someone to try and get back the Tarp money... [:D]

blacksword404 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 12:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Even if its true that he is not natural born, it doesn't matter to me. Not because I support him. I hope he doesn't get another term. But the country couldn't take the turmoil that would come about both in the country and internationally. Too many unseen repercussions to even imagine. Its a moot point as he was born in Hawaii... but yes, I agree. I would love someone to try and get back the Tarp money... [:D] Yeah good luck with that. From what I have seen the problem is that part of the requirements for being natural born is that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. His father never was an american citizen. He was either kenyan or British.

Owner59 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 6:14:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Even if its true that he is not natural born, it doesn't matter to me. Not because I support him. I hope he doesn't get another term. But the country couldn't take the turmoil that would come about both in the country and internationally. Too many unseen repercussions to even imagine. Its a moot point as he was born in Hawaii... but yes, I agree. I would love someone to try and get back the Tarp money... [:D] Yeah good luck with that. From what I have seen the problem is that part of the requirements for being natural born is that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. His father never was an american citizen. He was either kenyan or British. Then how is it someone born in the US to two illegal imagrants is granted US citicenship? I think the offencive term of the week is "anchor baby". The patheticons are trying to change the US constitution.......... over anchor babies. You may have read about it. You never read anywhere tho that US citizebship requires both parents be citizens also.You`re imagining that.

kalikshama -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 6:24:04 AM)
quote: From what I have seen the problem is that part of the requirements for being natural born is that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. His father never was an american citizen. He was either kenyan or British. That only comes into play if one is born outside the US. Hawaii WAS part of the US at the time of President Obama's birth. See Tazzy's post below for details.

tazzygirl -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 6:24:04 AM)
quote: From what I have seen the problem is that part of the requirements for being natural born is that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. His father never was an american citizen. He was either kenyan or British. Because that is not the requirement. And you fall into the trap that many of the birthers fall into. The rules for citizenship when born abroad for the time line that Obama was born into... What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986? Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child. When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US. While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21. http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html But, since he was born in Hawaii..... quote: Then how is it someone born in the US to two illegal imagrants is granted US citicenship? Because that child was born on US soil. The US used both ways to grant citizenship.

truckinslave -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 6:25:11 AM)
Actually, TG, there are three hearings scheduled to commence and proceed sequentially as I write this. Contrary to some opinions posted earlier, the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined by a federal court. Minor v. Hapersett alludes to competing definitions, but that's about it. No one can say with certainty what SCOTUS might say it means. We do know that it cannot mean the same thing as "citizen". (Marbury v. Madison: "No phrase in the Constitution can be presumed to be without effect" That quote is from memory, but it's close). The only man who defined the phrase before the writing of the Constitution (and possibly the man who coined the term) was M. de Vattell, in Law of Nations. Several of the Founding Fathers have known to have studied this tome and referenced it. Vattell said a NBC had to meet 4 distinct criteria: 1. Mother a citizen at the time of the birth of the NBC. 2. Father a citizen at the time of the birth of the NBC. 3. Born in-country. 4. Not beholden to any foreign power at the time of his birth. Note that Obama presumably meets 2 of those, definitely fails one, and may fail another (#4. He says in his book that he was a British subject at the time of his birth; but again.... SCOTUS has not opined, so no one knows. Note also that Marco Rubio, junior Sen from Fla and a seeming dream pick for VP, definitely fails two criteria (his parents became naturalized citizens some years after he was born), and possibly has a weaker claim on meeting #4 than Obamao (I assume Rubio was a dual citizen at birth). As to what would happen if SCOTUS ruled Obamao ineligible, again, no one knows. They could, I suppose, invalidate everything he signed as President. They could, I suppose, leave it to Congress to straighten out. My position has always been that SCOTUS should hear one of these cases (there is some small reason to believe that at least Scalia is open to the idea) and settle the matter, now and for future generations. From the viewpoint of an Obamao supporter... now might be the friendliest hearing Obamao would get... Many will attack the above. None will produce a different definition available to the Founding Fathers prior to the writing of the Constitution. None will produce a definition from any US federal court, much less SCOTUS, of "natural born citizen". The beat goes on until SCOTUS defines the term. Selah.

tazzygirl -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 6:30:31 AM)
quote: Note that Obama presumably meets 2 of those, definitely fails one, and may fail another (#4. He says in his book that he was a British subject at the time of his birth; but again.... SCOTUS has not opined, so no one knows. I was with you until this point. The rules are quite spelled out, as I posted above this. And what if the mother is unwed? As far as being beholden to another country, just because citizenship is conferred at the age of birth doesnt mean it lasts... and in Obama's case, it did not. He was never beholden to the British Empire. As far as SCOTUS defining the term... I dont believe they ever will.

truckinslave -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 7:27:16 AM)
quote: He was never beholden to the British Empire. You posit that someone born a British subject is not beholden to England. England and, more importantly, SCOTUS, might hold otherwise. As far as the question you asked regarding male parentage- again no one knows; but it does not seem unreasonable to me to think Vattel and the Founding Fathers might not have held bastards to be eligible for NBC status.

DomKen -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 7:31:10 AM)
This is quite simple. Has there ever been a law including a definition of "natural born citizen"? No. Then common law governs and common law works by the way a term is generally understood and NBC is commonly understood to mean born in the US period.

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 7:41:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Contrary to some opinions posted earlier, the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined by a federal court. Minor v. Hapersett alludes to competing definitions, but that's about it. No one can say with certainty what SCOTUS might say it means. We do know that it cannot mean the same thing as "citizen". (Marbury v. Madison: "No phrase in the Constitution can be presumed to be without effect" That quote is from memory, but it's close). The only man who defined the phrase before the writing of the Constitution (and possibly the man who coined the term) was M. de Vattell, in Law of Nations. Several of the Founding Fathers have known to have studied this tome and referenced it. Vattell said a NBC had to meet 4 distinct criteria: 1. Mother a citizen at the time of the birth of the NBC. 2. Father a citizen at the time of the birth of the NBC. 3. Born in-country. 4. Not beholden to any foreign power at the time of his birth. Note that Obama presumably meets 2 of those, definitely fails one, and may fail another (#4. He says in his book that he was a British subject at the time of his birth; but again.... SCOTUS has not opined, so no one knows. I don't know who said that the term had been defined earlier in this thread, nevertheless, I know, as does most of europe what natural born meant at the time it was written, and I am astonished that nobody has mentioned it. And Vattell would have the definition wrong, at two and four. number four would take out everybody up to about van Buren or Harrison. here is a hint, the only reason that Alexander Hamilton could not become a president of the united states under that language was because his mother was not a citizen of the US. need more hints? ask an englishman, they are thought to be of polite society. Who knows what scotus would rule? I dont think they will touch it, frankly...

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 7:48:06 AM)
A constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen happens. Every single law he has signed is called into question. I suppose they would have to be re signed by the next constitutionally elected president, or vetoed, or pocket vetoed. The Feds spend the next 20 years digging out from the rubble. Good thing it ain't gonna happen quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets take the supposition that he is lying. That he is found to have been not a natural citizen. Play what if... What happens?

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 7:51:08 AM)
Ah, but the next constitutionally elected president would be Biden if we are talking now, or sometime in Obamas next term.

truckinslave -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:00:59 AM)
quote: here is a hint, the only reason that Alexander Hamilton could not become a president of the united states under that language was because his mother was not a citizen of the US. Here is a better hint: read the 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

Owner59 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:05:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: here is a hint, the only reason that Alexander Hamilton could not become a president of the united states under that language was because his mother was not a citizen of the US. Here is a better hint: read the 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 Food for thought.........[8\|]

truckinslave -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:05:11 AM)
Actually, the Congressional Research Service based the bulk of their finding on the idea of English common law. They erred on several fronts, imo, including the simplest. "citizen" and "natural born citizen" do not and cannot mean the same thing in the Constitution, even if they do so elsewhere.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125