Glenn Beck may get crazy about President Obama on other issues but Beck is not a birther.
Beck has repeatedly asserted that Obama is a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
Within hours of the article’s posting, a huge number of comments followed, with at least 45 people questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. It must have stung that less than 10 commenters supported Beck’s position and rejected Birtherism.
WorldNetDaily (WND), in its commentary on the issue asserts: “Several readers pointed out that the biggest issue regarding Obama’s eligibility is not his birthplace, but whether any child of a non-citizen parent could possibly satisfy the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” At the time the Constitution was written, the phrase “natural born citizen” was understand ordinarily to mean a child born of two citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, and, in fact, never was a U.S. citizen.” (A)
WND’s assertion that two parents are required to be a “natural born citizen” seems to have no historical basis nor source of reference. Since President’s Obama birth eligibility has been challenged twice before the Supreme Court then there would appear to be no basis for a constitutional challenge on the ‘two parent’ interpretation.
There have been several historical Supreme Court challenges as to the definition of “natural born citizen”.
In 1857′s Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote is his dissenting opinion (C):
– First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
– Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
– Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
– Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
Of course, dissenting opinions do not set precedent, but it was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed this particular issue.
TRUMP CARD
Perhaps most importantly is that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution trumps all definitions of “natural born citizen” as it provides an explicit description of who shall be citizens: “making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”.
The Fourteenth Amendment definition was used in 1872′s Supreme Court case of SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) 83 U.S. 36 (Wall) with the outcome that the Constitution has settled this issue is plain English. (D)
READ MORE:
(A) http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=208961
(B) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-dem-warns-gop-poised-to-take-up-birther-a…
(C) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
(D) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=83&invol=36
