Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

[Gaar]

Naturalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between Naturalized and Natural Born.

 

[DiveCon]

it's called a circle jerk.

Obama is a citizen of the USA. Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA.

Obama will legally be sworn in as President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2008.

nothing you do or say will change any of the above.

fixed

to be naturalized means he wanst born one, but was later made one

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Standing in eligibility challenges

Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)[17].

In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method,[18] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.

A small minority of people outside mainstream legal thought[3] dispute whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are natural born citizens.[19]

A minority view interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen.[20] According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[19]

Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I haven't said it would stop him.

But that doesn't make him any more eligible.

And the Suits will go on, until it is addressed.

So you are saying people who are ineligible get sworn into the Office of the President of the United States of America?

Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2008) is widely believed to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, or else born in the United States, there have been some presidential candidates who were either born or suspected of having been born outside the U.S. states.[21] This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.[22]

* Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, might have been born in Canada.[23] This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. He was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

* George Romney (1907-1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[24]

* Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the Arizona Territory. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[23]

* Lowell Weicker (1931-), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[25]

* Róger Calero (1969-) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party Presidential Candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.[26]

* John McCain (1936-), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents.[27] In March 2008 McCain was held eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.[28] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[29] In September 2008 a Federal District judge said obiter that it was "highly probable" that McCain was a natural born citizen of the United States owing to the citizenship legislation existing at the time.[30][31] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who claims that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[32]

* Barack Obama (1961-) was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Kenya who was not a U.S. citizen. Before and after the 2008 presidential election, which Obama won, the argument was made that he was not a natural-born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents[33][34], including these challenges to his eligibility. The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the assertion that he was not actually born in Hawaii. At least one lawsuit conceded that he was a citizen by virtue of birth in Hawaii, but argued that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because of his entitlement to dual citizenship (through his father) at birth. As of December 26, 2008 no court has agreed with these challenges; some (but not all) of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.

 

[Gaar]

Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not being able to challenge a "Candidate" and challenging a sitting President are two very different things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is a difference between Naturalized and Natural Born.

yes.


and it people like you who keep insinuating that Obama is at best a naturalized citizen of the USA and therefore ineligible for the office of the Presidency

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not being able to challenge a "Candidate" and challenging a sitting President are two very different things.

you can state the obvious all day long and it will add nothing.

Obama is a natural born citizen and people keep asking him to prove it. No proof will suffice. If the courts ever did hear the case(s) and the end result were to favor my position it would not shut you up.

You have a conspiracy based on a conclusion in search of a false premise or two. You are convinced Obama or his family and the state of Hawaii have lied about the circumstances of his birth. Nothing will change that view. No evidence will dissuade you because you somehow know the 'truth'

 

[Gaar]

So you are saying people who are ineligible get sworn into the Office of the President of the United States of America?

Obviously they can be...

There were several non-Citizens on the Presidential Ballot in many States.

Had any one of them Won, do you suppose we would be checking?

 

[Gaar]

you can state the obvious all day long and it will add nothing.

Obama is a natural born citizen and people keep asking him to prove it. No proof will suffice. If the courts ever did hear the case(s) and the end result were to favor my position it would not shut you up.

You have a conspiracy based on a conclusion in search of a false premise or two. You are convinced Obama or his family and the state of Hawaii have lied about the circumstances of his birth. Nothing will change that view. No evidence will dissuade you because you somehow know the 'truth'

It is not up to Obama to "prove".

He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.

His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Haven't we done this one already?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obviously they can be...

There were several non-Citizens on the Presidential Ballot in many States.

Had any one of them Won, do you suppose we would be checking?

getting on a state ballot and winning and being sworn in are entirely different things. lots of fringe weirdos on state ballots

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is not up to Obama to "prove".

He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.

His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.

I was correct. No proof will suffice because you already have the truth.

Why bother?

It is generally agreed [1] that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president,..


...whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.[2]

In between these extremes lie gray areas, some controversy, and various settled precedents.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born

so you are saying Obama is a naturalized citizen. prove it.

 

[DiveCon]

It is not up to Obama to "prove".

He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.

His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.

dude, the STATE of Hawaii says he was born there
thus, he(Obama) is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dude, the STATE of Hawaii says he was born there
thus, he(Obama) is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

and all the below quote is from his post...

The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

“This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.”

fter the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.”

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

it all hinges on the idea that Obama is a naturalized citizen who at one time had allegiance to a foreign power.

make him answer....what foreign power and when was Obama naturalized...there has to be documentation that Obama was naturalized.

until he answers both---why bother with the circle jerk?
\
where is ravi when you need a circle master?

 

[DiveCon]

and all the below quote is from his post...




it all hinges on the idea that Obama is a naturalized citizen who at one time had allegiance to a foreign power.

make him answer....what foreign power and when was Obama naturalized...there has to be documentation that Obama was naturalized.

until he answers both---why bother with the circle jerk?
\
where is ravi when you need a circle master?

LOL i think shes posting something moronic somewhere else

 

[Care4all]

It is not up to Obama to "prove".

He either is or he is not, because of the conditions present when he was Born.

His Father was NOT a Citizen, so he is NOT Natural Born, period.

My Dear Gaar,

I mentioned earlier, that you were taking things out of context and that you needed to read FURTHER through the wiki quote you have used....but i can see that you did not and now i know where you have become confused and why you think that Obama is not a citizen due to his british citizen father....but, as mentioned, you are wrong.

Here is why:

The phrase you used about loyalty to another nation was regarding people here on Diplomatic status from another nation, or on a Diplomatic Duty, with a job to do...These people have loyalty to another Nation and are here on behalf of their Nation, and even if they break the law here, we can not even prosecute them because they have what is known as Diplomatic Status....their loyalty is to their Nation and their Nation has ruling protection over them....through agreement with us.

The same goes with our Diplomats overseas working for us, and with CIA agents that are not undercover on official status, and other civilians serving us for some diplomatic matter...

ALSO, the Supreme Court RULED on this already...they had a case where this was challenged and the Supreme court, along with letters from our founding fathers, showed that this stipulation was specifically about Diplomats and NOT civilians here....

If you would continue to read the link from wiki that you posted earlier, it lists the SC rulings that relate to Natural Born citizens...

So, you have assumed incorrectly.

Care

 

[Gaar]

I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....

Natural Born Citizen Chart

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book Law of Nations. That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the US Constitution, derived from the Law of Nations. See this chart as to which type of citizenship a person holds based on the facts as to WHERE he was born and WHO WERE BOTH HIS PARENTS, based on the Constitution and prior court rulings.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (America Must Know)

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

” ‘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 v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

An attorney, who practices in Missouri and the federal courts system and is also an accountant, observes that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.

 

[jillian]

bummer you don't have a legit source

again why are you ignoring the lawyers and judges on this subject. are you being intentionally obtuse or just a troll?

 

[bk1983]

I do not simply use any "wiki quote", please....

Natural Born Citizen Chart

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book Law of Nations. That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the US Constitution, derived from the Law of Nations. See this chart as to which type of citizenship a person holds based on the facts as to WHERE he was born and WHO WERE BOTH HIS PARENTS, based on the Constitution and prior court rulings.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (America Must Know)

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

” ‘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 v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

An attorney, who practices in Missouri and the federal courts system and is also an accountant, observes that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.

So according to your argument, Martin Van Buren was the first legitimate president? I ask this, because no president prior fits your criteria for 'natural born'

 

[Gaar]

So according to your argument, Martin Van Buren was the first legitimate president? I ask this, because no president prior fits your criteria for 'natural born'

Why do you suppose they gave themself an exception, for those who were simply "Citizens" when the Document was ratified?