Yes, Virginia, There Is NO Two Citizen-Parents Clause

No, Mario. I'm Only Asking About Santa Claus. Everybody Knows The Two Citizen-Parents Requirement Is Just A Childish Fantasy.

Now, in a short and sweet decision, a Federal court in the State of Virginia has pricked another Birther Balloon. One, Charles Tisdale, filed a complaint alleging:

Mr. Tisdale seeks an injunction enjoining the Virginia State Board of Elections from certifying any candidate who lacks standing as a “natural born citizen” from appearing on the ballot for the upcoming presidential general election on November 6, 2012.Specifically, Mr. Tisdale cites Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as ineligible to appear on the ballot, on the grounds that each had at least one parent who was not a citizen of the United States. The Court rules that the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Federal Judge slapped the suit down holding:

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

And, the ruling was “with prejudice” which means the Plaintiff can’t come back with an Amended suit:

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint for failure to state a claim. This dismissal is with prejudice, as the Court finds that allowing leave to refile would yield the same result, given the underlying premise of Mr. Tisdale’s claim.

This is about the same thing as coming right out and calling the suit frivolous. Where, O Where is all that legal jargon that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and Leo Donofrio, Esq. like to bandy about??? Court after court is simply chucking the imaginary two citizen-parents requirement in the garbage can where it belongs.  Here is where you can read the whole 3 page decision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

About these ads