obama birth certificate: yes or no

[KenyanBornObama]

That birth certificate you posted is a proven forgery and even if it wasn't and he was born here, he's still not a natural born citizen!

The State of Hawaii disagrees with Birther lies.

The state of Hawaii does not have the power to change the definition of a natural born citizen as it is natural law and immutable! SORRY!

LOL- natural law........LOL.......

Birthers are such idiots.

Anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions(children born to diplomats, invading armies) is a natural born citizen.

Ankeny v. Daniels

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAHAHA, Ankeny. You are aware that Ankeny based it's case on Wong Kim Ark, that did not deal with natural born citizenship as Kim was only pronounced a citizen and not natural born. Ankeny clearly confirms this in footnote 14...DOH

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."


Moreover, state court do not have the power to override the Supreme Court and they've already defined a natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, Elk v. Wilkins, The Venus, etc.


SORRY, TRY AGAIN!

 

[Syriusly]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

doesn't matter at this point you single-issue 'tard

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

 

[Syriusly]

That birth certificate you posted is a proven forgery and even if it wasn't and he was born here, he's still not a natural born citizen!

The State of Hawaii disagrees with Birther lies.

The state of Hawaii does not have the power to change the definition of a natural born citizen as it is natural law and immutable! SORRY!

LOL- natural law........LOL.......

Birthers are such idiots.

Anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions(children born to diplomats, invading armies) is a natural born citizen.

Ankeny v. Daniels

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAHAHA, Ankeny. You are aware that Ankeny based it's case on Wong Kim Ark, that did not deal with natural born citizenship as Kim was only pronounced a citizen and not natural born. Ankeny clearly confirms this in footnote 14...DOH

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."


Moreover, state court do not have the power to override the Supreme Court and they've already defined a natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, Elk v. Wilkins, The Venus, etc.


SORRY, TRY AGAIN!

The Supreme Court never defined natural born citizen. That was discussed by the court in Ankeny v. Daniel.

Ankeny v. Daniel is the only court which has definitively ruled on the issue of natural born citizenship and parental citizenship- and as they noted- Obama is a natural born citizen.

Which is why Chief Justice Roberts- knowing who a natural born citizen is- swore Barack Obama in as President three times.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Nope. Wrong. She was to young to confer citizenship to him due to the naturalization laws in 1961.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

That birth certificate you posted is a proven forgery and even if it wasn't and he was born here, he's still not a natural born citizen!

The State of Hawaii disagrees with Birther lies.

The state of Hawaii does not have the power to change the definition of a natural born citizen as it is natural law and immutable! SORRY!

LOL- natural law........LOL.......

Birthers are such idiots.

Anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions(children born to diplomats, invading armies) is a natural born citizen.

Ankeny v. Daniels

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAHAHA, Ankeny. You are aware that Ankeny based it's case on Wong Kim Ark, that did not deal with natural born citizenship as Kim was only pronounced a citizen and not natural born. Ankeny clearly confirms this in footnote 14...DOH

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."


Moreover, state court do not have the power to override the Supreme Court and they've already defined a natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, Elk v. Wilkins, The Venus, etc.


SORRY, TRY AGAIN!

The Supreme Court never defined natural born citizen. That was discussed by the court in Ankeny v. Daniel.

Ankeny v. Daniel is the only court which has definitively ruled on the issue of natural born citizenship and parental citizenship- and as they noted- Obama is a natural born citizen.

Which is why Chief Justice Roberts- knowing who a natural born citizen is- swore Barack Obama in as President three times.

It's not Roberts duty to vet a president elect.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Nope. Wrong. She was to young to confer citizenship to him due to the naturalization laws in 1961.

Not true. The laws on that were no different then than now

 

[Syriusly]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

The State of Hawaii disagrees with Birther lies.

The state of Hawaii does not have the power to change the definition of a natural born citizen as it is natural law and immutable! SORRY!

LOL- natural law........LOL.......

Birthers are such idiots.

Anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions(children born to diplomats, invading armies) is a natural born citizen.

Ankeny v. Daniels

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

HAHAHA, Ankeny. You are aware that Ankeny based it's case on Wong Kim Ark, that did not deal with natural born citizenship as Kim was only pronounced a citizen and not natural born. Ankeny clearly confirms this in footnote 14...DOH

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."


Moreover, state court do not have the power to override the Supreme Court and they've already defined a natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, Elk v. Wilkins, The Venus, etc.


SORRY, TRY AGAIN!

The Supreme Court never defined natural born citizen. That was discussed by the court in Ankeny v. Daniel.

Ankeny v. Daniel is the only court which has definitively ruled on the issue of natural born citizenship and parental citizenship- and as they noted- Obama is a natural born citizen.

Which is why Chief Justice Roberts- knowing who a natural born citizen is- swore Barack Obama in as President three times.

It's not Roberts duty to vet a president elect.

Nor is it Robert's duty to swear in an ineligible President.

Do you think
a) That Roberts just doesn't know as much about the Constitution as the fine Birther lawyers who make their money chasing ambulences and pulling teeth or
b) That Roberts knew Obama was ineligible but just was too much of a coward not to swear him in?

 

[KenyanBornObama]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

doesn't matter at this point you single-issue 'tard

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Alrighty, lemme prove who has the mental deficiency...ready

How bout we start with the Declaration of Independence where it clearly states that we broke the political ties with England to ASSUME NATURAL LAW!

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Got that one down? LET IT SINK IN A MINUTE!

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books

and here:

Continued

 

[Syriusly]

doesn't matter at this point you single-issue 'tard

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Alrighty, lemme prove who has the mental deficiency...ready

How bout we start with the Declaration of Independence where it clearly states that we broke the political ties with England to ASSUME NATURAL LAW!

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Got that one down? LET IT SINK IN A MINUTE!

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books

and here:

Continued

I look forward- anyone who wants to lecture on how Natural Law is the law of the United States is always amusing.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

 

[Syriusly]

doesn't matter at this point you single-issue 'tard

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books
d

Class of National Law?

You trying to bring Vattel in eh?

Vattel which prior to the writing of the Constitution- never mentioned 'natural born citizen'?

 

[Syriusly]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL
.

You are a Birther of course you bring lots of bullshit.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

Your point is moot because he was born in Hawaii. The evidence is overwhelming which is why every legal challenge to the contrary has been rebuffed by the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

And the same people who ask this don't give a damn about where Ted Cruz was born. By the way even if Obama were not born here he would still be a natural citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”.

Minor itself says that

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. citizenship of their parents

Birthers always want to ignore the part of Minor which specifically says it was not addressing the issue of parents citizenship.

The court here is saying specifically that any child born in the United States AND born of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

The court not only does not say that a Natural Born citizen MUST have two citizen parents- Minor points out that a Natural Born Citizen may not require citizen parents.

And of course the Courts disagree with you also

Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon in Arizona wrote in his order in the case of Allen v. Obama:

…this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 99 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Alrighty, lemme prove who has the mental deficiency...ready

How bout we start with the Declaration of Independence where it clearly states that we broke the political ties with England to ASSUME NATURAL LAW!

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Got that one down? LET IT SINK IN A MINUTE!

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books

and here:

Continued

I look forward- anyone who wants to lecture on how Natural Law is the law of the United States is always amusing.

You are aware that our Treaties are the Law of the Land, right? Well, all of our Peace treaties are written on Vattel's Law of nations, as shown here in our Diplomatic Code:
The American Diplomatic Code Embracing a Collection of Treaties and ... - Google Books

Not to mention Article 1 Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution which states:

"The Congress shall have power...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;"

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

Your point is moot because he was born in Hawaii. The evidence is overwhelming which is why every legal challenge to the contrary has been rebuffed by the courts.

LOLOL, read the evidence libtard, it doesn't matter if he WAS born in hawaii, his father was never a citizen so it is impossible for Obama to be natural born as both parents must be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen. I've just proven that!

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

 

[washamericom]

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water either. Barry's father was Kenyan, which made him British, which in turn gave Barry DUAL CITIZENSHIP at birth, Kenyan and British, which under the constitution makes him ineligible to be president. No matter how you look at it, Barry at best would have been a NATIVE born American, not a NATURAL born, and you have to be NATURAL BORN, which means TWO LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS, to be president.

Get a clue, idiot.

No requirement at all for two citizen parents- just a fake theory made up by idiot Birthers trying to argue that President Obama was ineligible.

Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- except the children of diplomats.

Your 'argument' has been shot down by every court that looked at it- like this one

Ankeny v. Daniels
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Just more BS from Birthers.

Thats a flawed state appeals decision that didn't address natural born citizenship. It doesnt trump federal law.

That is the educated and legal opinion of 3 actual judges- as opposed to the half assed opinion of a racist like you.

Backed up by the Congressional Research Service and by everyone who took a civics class in the United States.

The congressional research memo was cover for Obama. It's highly deceptive.

Requested by Congress and the only ones who think it is 'deceptive' are Birthers who created the whole new 'two citizen parent theory' just to attack Barack Obama.

We all grew up learning- me from my very Conservative civics teacher- that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President. There was never any mention of the Birthers BS two citizen parent definition, and in all of these years- you idiots have yet to find a single civics book that agrees with your definition.

rarely do you post anything of content or new, but this time you did. but you forgot to mention jj that the supreme court hasn't defined natural born. or that you obots invented the one parent or no parent fiat...

you can aspire to what ever you want... that doesn't make it law..