Posted by
Mike on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:51:24 PM
Good question.
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Think about it a minute. Everyone knows that most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers were here in America
legally.
Let's just suppose hypothetically that one of these hijackers, say
Mohammad Atta, was instrumental in conceiving a child later born in
Florida. Would the mere fact that the child was born
on US soil
give that illegitimate child an entitlement of eligibility to one day
occupy the highest office in the land, that of President of the United
States? Same situation as Obama. Father being a Muslim foreigner,
enters the US legally, gets his girlfriend pregnant. (Remember, Barry's
father was still married to the woman in Kenya at the time).
The
short answer is no. Merely being born on US soil does not confer an
entitlement to someday being eligible to be President. That was the reason
why the Framers put in the words "natural born" before "citizen" in
reference to qualifications for the office of President, whereas they
just specify that Senators and Congressional Representatives be
ordinary citizens. Likewise, a mere congressional resolution that someone
who was not born on US soil but whose parents are US citizens is henceforth a natural born citizen does not
confer on that person any entitlement to eligibility to be President.
Confusion
may arise because at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789,
there was no Fourteenth Amendment, so all future citizens born after
1789 were either natural born citizens following the English common law
criteria, or became citizens through the process of naturalization. The
Fourteenth Amendment to protect the Negroid extended citizenship to all
those born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, whether or not their parents were citizens. This leaves open
the question of whether a child, one or both of whose parents are here
illegally, who happens to be born in the United States, is or is not a
citizen, which depends on whether the child falls within the
jurisdiction of the United States or that of a foreign power. If we use
the same criteria that all citizens are either those that are natural
born citizens or those that are naturalized, we run into problems
because the Framers clearly never intended that all persons born on
American soil would be natural born citizens and so eligible to hold
the office of President.
The court is asked to decide whether
the Fourteenth Amendment is an assertion that all those who are now
citizens by virtue of being born on US soil, but who would not have
been natural born citizens in 1789 by virtue of either one or both
parents not being US citizens at the time of their birth, but rather
subjects of a foreign power, automatically acquire eligibility to hold
the office of President, which would not have been the case had they
been born in 1789 as they would not have been natural born citizens at
that time as required in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. This may be a case of first impression.
This
case will probably reach the US Supreme Court. Obama is too arrogant to
do the right thing and resign like Nixon did in 1974.