Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert F Kennedy Jr: Mitt Romney's Test of Moral Fiber

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-12 11:45 AM
Original message
Robert F Kennedy Jr: Mitt Romney's Test of Moral Fiber
Edited on Tue Jan-10-12 11:51 AM by Divine Discontent
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Mitt
Romney's Test of Moral Fiber
snip of longer article

January 9, 2012 08:42:03
I was surprised when Mitt Romney's son,
Matt, resuscitated the "birther" issue in New
Hampshire on December 29. Speaking at a
campaign event, the young Romney
deflected a question about his father's
refusal to release his income tax return by
citing a proposal that President Barack
Obama should first release his own birth
certificate. Mr. Romney, who has since
retracted his statement, apparently did not
realize that, at White House urging, the state
of Hawaii released the president's long form
birth certificate on April 25, 2011.
The White House deemed that action
necessary to quiet a noisy debate that was
distracting the country and damaging the
national interest. The basis of the tempest
was the Constitution's Article II Section 1,
which seems to prohibit anyone except
"naturalized American citizens" born in the
USA from serving as president. A small
group of conspiracy crackpots, theorizing
that the president was lying about having
been born in Hawaii, found a bullhorn for
their quackery on Fox News and hate radio.
Like milk on a hot stove, the bizarre
obsession of a lunatic fringe suddenly grew
to envelop even the rational remnants of the
Republican Party, drowning sane discourse
on vital issues of public import. It was
apparent from the outset that the topic's
steroidal appeal was its dog whistle
usefulness in highlighting the "otherness" of
America's first African American president;
there was no appetite among these
conservative cohorts for applying the Article
II Section 1 prohibition against the GOP's
2008 candidate, John McCain, a white man
born in Panama .

www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1193612
Refresh | +5 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not fer nuttin, but that article misquotes the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require that the President be a "naturalized American citizen," which would be someone who became a citizen through naturalization.

(One definition of "naturalization" is "the process of assuming or being granted citizenship of a country, usually a country other than that of the persons origin."



The Constitution requires the opposite.

Article II, Section I provides, in pertinent part:

"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."

FWIW:

While the SCCOTUS never made a direct holding on that language, there is dicta in a SCOTUS case to the effect that, when the Constitution was written, it was understood that someone born within a country was a "natural born citizen" of that country. The SCOTUS never said, even in dicta, that being born within a country was the ONLY way to be a "natural born citizen," though.


McCain was born to two American citizens. Nothing says he cannot be a "natural born citizen" of the United States, within the meaning of the above-quoted language of Article II.

And, even IF Obama had been born to an American mother in Kenya, nothing says he could not be "a natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II.

This whole issue has been smoke and mirrors from Day One and Romney's son is disgusting to attempt to resurrect it.

All that said, what the hell does it have to do with Romney's refusal to release his income taxes?

We in Massachusetts know he has fudged his taxes in the past. Maybe that is what he is hiding, since everyone knows he's freaking rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC