tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post7272951565686091175..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-60257589267679974832008-12-06T12:50:00.000-05:002008-12-06T12:50:00.000-05:00I agree, Joshua. It is a novel argument that has no basis in 220 years of law under the Constitution. Natural born rather obviously means those born in the USA. Moreover, Federal Courts have said that only other candidates have standing in Court to challenge the qualifications of their opponents. Even if their had been any question as to Mr. Obama's qualification, Mr. McCain was hardly in a position to challenge them, having been born in the Canal Zone, which was never explicitly recognized as a part of the United States. Finally, New Jersey appoints electors to vote for president, so it seems that a suit against the Secretary of State could address the qualifications of those electors, but not the person for whom the electors vote. <BR/><BR/>Even though it has no relation to the qualifications of a president, I find the question regarding the presidents' parents interesting as an academic exercise. Donfrio's piece hardly confirms that former presidents' were all born on U.S. soil to parents who were both U.S. citizens. His article with regard to Arthur and Johnson are pure conjecture: "I can find no allegations that Jacob [Johnson] wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born." "So if William [Arthur] had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born." He also raises the possibility that Chester lied about his date of birth in order to fix a problem with his father's naturalization date, though he cites to no evidence whatever that William was ever naturalized.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, Donfrio argues that Buchanan's father was a citizen by virtue of the 'Treaty of 1783', also known as the Treaty of Paris, which ended the revolutionary War, when 'colonists chose to be United States citizens'. Of course there was no such thing as a 'United States citizen' yet - only citizens of individual states. Moreover, Donfrio cites no evidence that Buchanan's father himself so chose Pennsylvania citizenship or retained his Irish citizenship (Ireland was still independent in 1783). The most revealing fact of this discussion is that despite the unanswered questions regarding the citizenship of these presidents' fathers, there is no indication that there was any concern whatever raised abouth these questions at the time of each president's election.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Turley points out that "it was reported today that the [original birth] certificate [of Obama] was reviewed by an independent group and a conservative organization, which accepted its authenticity." As if verification from the State of Hawaii was not enough.IndyPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15940502801797040457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-73689039751509223222008-12-05T16:35:00.000-05:002008-12-05T16:35:00.000-05:00This case has no legs. I suspect the writ of certiorari will be denied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com