PDA

View Full Version : Justice Clarence Thomas: We're 'evading' eligibility




lynnf
04-17-2010, 09:42 PM
maybe if the screws get turned just a little tighter.... they will have to stop
evading.....



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142101

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is "evading" the issue.

The comments came as part of Thomas' testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court's budget earlier this week.

RileyE104
04-17-2010, 09:57 PM
"determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president"

Seriously? I'm pretty sure the Constitution already says something about that...

specsaregood
04-17-2010, 10:03 PM
"determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president"

Seriously? I'm pretty sure the Constitution already says something about that...

It is up for debate. Depends on the definition of "natural born".

foofighter20x
04-17-2010, 10:03 PM
Does it, Riley?

What if the person was born in Washington, D.C. or Guam... would they be eligible then? They were born outside the 50 states.

Noob
04-17-2010, 10:09 PM
What if they were born in America, who nither his mom or father were never American citizens? What if they just come over so thier kid could be born here, get citizenship and just leave back to were ever they were from, and rise the kid in that country, and that kid than cames back to America, expecting to become President and never live in America? And was rise and grow up with beliveing that America is the most evil nation on earth?

nate895
04-18-2010, 12:29 AM
There are two ways, traditionally, to be granted citizenship by birth: Jus soli and jus sanguis. It would seem to me to be any person who is a "natural-born citizen" would be someone who has citizenship at birth either by virtue of the fact of being born in the United States, or by being born to US Citizens abroad. I don't think it matters whether or not a person was born specifically in the territory that constitutes the USA, but rather that, for any reason, they had US citizenship at birth.

demolama
04-18-2010, 11:05 AM
Thus proving why the Supreme court can not be the only say on constitutionality. They take a limited amount of cases each year giving them plenty of time to sidestep anything of any importance.

marc1888
04-18-2010, 11:13 AM
Does it really matter if someone is natural born or not, really. Where the founders all natural born Americans?

Spider-Man
04-18-2010, 11:14 AM
I'm of the opinion that if someone is born a citizen, that qualifies as "natural born."

I think that, taken to the extreme, it would be kind of silly to interpret natural born as meaning only born on American soil. For example, what if we start colonizing space, and children start being born on space ships or on extra-planetary bases? I don't think they should be disqualified on a technicality. If they are legally recognized as Ameican citizens the moment they are born, in my view, that is enough.

Unless someone can prove me wrong.

fedup100
04-18-2010, 11:31 AM
Does it really matter if someone is natural born or not, really. Where the founders all natural born Americans?

" Blood is thicker than water, all the rest are just strangers" Wyatt Earps Father.

They, the strangers will make sure you and yours are raped, robed and murdered, and the current usurper is working on that as we communicate.

The greater danger to this nation now, is the persons who reside here now such as this poster that either voted for and support this enemy within the gates or will vote for him and those like him in the future.

I do not believe you can educate those who have been brainwashed from birth and who are now on a path to self destruction, they will take their country and their families down with them for they have no choice.

They were brought up to despise freedom and liberty and when they are old, they will not depart from it.

I am sad to say that only a bloody revolution will save this country now. I do not condone it, I can see clearly though the tea leaves in the cup.

Take back the education of your children or give up on the idea of freedom and prosperity!

Carole
04-18-2010, 12:49 PM
Since the subject has come up, why do we still have these territories? Why are Puerto Rico (commonwealth, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth), and United States Virgin Islands still territories of U.S.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

Territories of the United States are one type of political division of the United States, administered directly by the federal government of the United States and not any part of a U.S. state. These territories were created to govern newly acquired land while the borders of the United States were still evolving. Territories can be classified by whether they are incorporated (part of the United States proper) and whether they have an organized government (through an Organic Act or constitution passed by the U.S. Congress). The organized incorporated territories of the United States existed from 1789 to 1959, through which 31 territories applied for and achieved statehood. The U.S. had no unincorporated territories (also called "overseas possessions" or "insular areas") until 1856 but continues to control several of them today.

Incorporated and unincorporated territories

An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e.g., citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions.[1]

All territory under the control of the federal government is considered part of the "United States" for purposes of law.[2] From 1901 - 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation. Under the same, the Constitution only applied fully in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, whereas it only applied partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.[3][4]

In the contemporary sense, the term "unincorporated territory" refers primarily to insular areas. There is currently only one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is not an organized territory. Conversely, a territory can be organized without being an incorporated territory, a contemporary example being Puerto Rico.

See organized incorporated territories of the United States and unincorporated territories of the United States for timelines.

Incorporated unorganized territories

Location of the insular areas:
The USA

incorporated unorganized Territory

unincorporated organized territory

Commonwealth status

unincorporated unorganized territory

Palmyra Atoll is privately owned by the Nature Conservancy and administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It is an archipelago of about 50 small islands about 1.56 square miles (4 kmē) in area that lies about 1,000 miles (1,600 km) south of Honolulu. The atoll was acquired by the United States in the 1898 annexation of the Republic of Hawaii. When the Territory of Hawaii was incorporated on April 30, 1900, Palmyra Atoll was incorporated as part of that territory. However, when Hawaii became a state in 1959, Palmyra Atoll was explicitly separated from the state, remaining an incorporated territory but receiving no new organized government.
There are in addition also "territories" that have the status of being incorporated but that are not organized:

U.S. coastal waters out to 12 nautical miles
U.S. flag vessels at sea.

Why the hell is Palmyra Atoll a territory privately owned by the Nature Conservancy not paying its own way? Why is our Dept of Interior even involved?

Should not these other territories be on their own also?

Pericles
04-18-2010, 01:40 PM
What if the person was born in Washington, D.C. .......... would they be eligible then? They were born outside the 50 states.

Al Gore

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:49 PM
If Ron Paul was born in Kenya with a foreign national father and an underage mother I would still want him to be President. I would be screwed however as he would recuse himself while pursuing a Constitutional Amendment.

erowe1
04-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Unless somebody can prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, it's a moot point. So far, it doesn't look to me like anybody can.

specsaregood
04-18-2010, 02:03 PM
//

dude58677
04-18-2010, 02:19 PM
Unless somebody can prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, it's a moot point. So far, it doesn't look to me like anybody can.

The burden of Proof is on Obama and he hasn't proven his citizenship.

Pepsi
04-18-2010, 11:33 PM
Should those born from 'Birth Tourists' be considerd as Natural Born citizens?


A New Baby Boom? Foreign 'Birth Tourists' Seek U.S. Citizenship for Children.More Foreign Mothers Live Abroad to Give Birth on U.S. Soil, Debate Over 14th Amendment

Millions of foreign tourists visit the United States every year, and a growing number return home with a brand new U.S. citizen in tow.

Thousands of legal immigrants, who do not permanently reside in the United States but give birth here, have given their children the gift of citizenship, which the U.S. grants to anyone born on its soil.

The number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Total births rose 5 percent in the same period.

Among the foreigners who have given birth here, including international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities, are "birth tourists," women who travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child.

Catering to the women is a nascent industry of travel agencies and hotel chains seeking to profit from the business.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956