Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her ageTrue. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.
yupof course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her ageTrue. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.
They might. But it would be irrelevant because he was born in the US, which brings us back full circle to them demanding a hand written letter from God proving his citizenship.
You say
1. Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship.
Based on what facts?
2. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.
What do you base this on?
You are the one who made the claims that such disbars a person from serving as President. You have to provide the evidence to support your claim.
The are differing opinions on this. As far as I know there has never been a SCOTUS case involving eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. (As far as I know, all prior cases have dealt with citizenship, not POTUS eligibility).
Everyone claims the high ground on the issue, the truth is it is not likely to be settled until the SCOTUS answers the question as it pertains to POTUS eligibility. The birther laws being proposed are probably the best way to get the question to the SCOTUS as a candidate would definitely have "standing" to address the issue to the courts.
The issue is plainly laid out in the constitution regarding the natural born citizen requirement for Presidency. No requirement relating to one's parents is required. Indeed, such a requirement would be akin to British peerage titles of which the infant USA would have been especially adverse.
So the issue becomes relatively simple: Is Obama a natural born citizen? The answer is yes. He was born in the United States. The Supreme Court has been clear when the questions have been presented to them that dual citizenship does not deprive a US citizen of any rights as a US citizen, and that natural born citizenship does not require that a person's parents be a citizen. Being born in the US makes a person a citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents.
Therefore, there is no reason to appeal to a theoretical hearing by the SCOTUS of the question. It is a plain question that is more than answered already. Any other answer contrary to this would require an extraordinary reading of the constitution which is not supported by either a record of historical application. Without such history to support such a radical reading of the constitution, positive case law becomes necessary to support the question, which does not exist.
Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?
Some feel it is contained in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", there are others who do not - they interpret it to mean "born a citizen". Still others think it means born to citizens on US soil by those willing to throw the children of military born in foreign lands under the bus. Ultimately it will have to be answered by the SCOTUS in a case involving Presidential eligibility and not just citizenship status.
>>>>
It only requires you be born in the US
True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.
yup i knowof course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her ageTrue. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.
Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).
>>>>
When you are born with dual citizenship, you are bound by allegiances to the other foreign country or government. The founders when drafting the constitution put natural born citizen in the presidential clause to be a safeguard to having the commander in chief of the armed forces.....
Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.
1. The Constitution does not define NBC.
2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.
3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.
When you are born with dual citizenship, you are bound by allegiances to the other foreign country or government. The founders when drafting the constitution put natural born citizen in the presidential clause to be a safeguard to having the commander in chief of the armed forces.....
All you've done here is present a theory that you wish were valid and accurate. However, it is not. There is nothing that preempts any person having dual citizenship from serving as President. There is nothing that preempts a person from being a natural born citizen if one of your parents is a citizen of another country.
Show me in Wong Kim Ark where the term 'natural born citizen' is used? Wong was found to be a 'citizen', not 'natural born citizen'.Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.
Maybe you need to read the constitution. Show me where it says that one's parents must be a citizen in order for one to be a natural born citizen. It does not so say.
1. The Constitution does not define NBC.
True. But the Supreme Court has established long ago that all people born within the US are natural born citizens under the constitution.
2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.
And the Supreme Court has addressed that in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it has been established that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen under the constitution.
3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.
No, it did not address that question at all. But the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did, and it was unambiguous about the matter. The citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant when a child is born in the United States. Both parents can be illegally present in the United States, and the child is still a natural born citizen.
yup i knowof course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age
Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).
>>>>
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt
You refuse to look at why the founders added NBC in Article 2 Section 1 instead of Citizen. Why is that and why do you think the founders made that move?
Which is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to believe it.
Maybe you need to read the constitution.
Show me where it says that one's parents must be a citizen in order for one to be a natural born citizen. It does not so say.
1. The Constitution does not define NBC.
True. But the Supreme Court has established long ago that all people born within the US are natural born citizens under the constitution.
2. The definitional would have to be found external to the Constitution to weigh it's meaning.
And the Supreme Court has addressed that in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it has been established that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen under the constitution.
3. Minor does not establish NBC status for those born on soil not of citizen parents (notice the use of the plural "parents" in the third sentence.
No, it did not address that question at all. But the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did, and it was unambiguous about the matter. The citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant when a child is born in the United States. Both parents can be illegally present in the United States, and the child is still a natural born citizen.
yup i knowof course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age
Which would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).
>>>>
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt
no, its you and he that are the idiotsyup i knowWhich would only apply if Obama were born outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States as there is no age restriction to confer citizenship on U.S. soil because biirth in the United States is based on jus soli (soil) while birth overseas is based on jus sanguinis (blood).
>>>>
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt
You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?
There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).
Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.
And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!
All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!
Fucking pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.
Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.
no, its you and he that are the idiotsyup i know
but i was referring to the remote possibility that even if he had been born in Kenya, which he wasnt
You guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?
There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).
Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.
And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!
All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!
Fucking pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.
Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.
no, its you and he that are the idiotsYou guys are true idiots, seriously. Did you not read a single thing that US Army Retired wrote?
There is extreme reason to doubt that a person can be a natural born US citizen if one parent is not a citizen, especially if born out the USA. The reason McCain was allowed to run is because both parents were citizens and it was on a US Military base (and even that is highly questionable, and I, for one, never defended his qualification to seek the office).
Of course, all those profound, absolute assertions you dorks have made in this surreal circle jerk you have devised would be unnecessary if Obama would simply stop paying lawyers on taxpayer money to keep his records hidden from the taxpayers who are paying for those lawyers and simply show the records, but I suppose you dorks never heard of "probable cause", either.
And of course, you three know better than all the legislators in several states, some of whom are lawyers, all of whom are being guided by lawyers, passing laws demanding Obama produce his long form birth certificate, because you know constitutional eligibility, where he was born - for a fact - the exact details which would govern the mother's right to confer, etc, all of which are issues that those dozens upon dozens of lawyers and legislators have concluded need to be addressed and ascertained by seeking the original records, and you know all that better than they do because you're INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD PARTICIPANTS!!!!
All this to justify why Obama should not stop paying his lawyers with our money to keep his records hidden!
Fucking pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.... When you idiots wake up in the real world, drop us a line.
Anyway, at least one state will pass a law and very probably several, and if Obama doesn't have what he needs or continues to hide it, he may very well get away with keeping it hidden, but not on the taxpayer dime because he won;t be president because without the records the new laws will stop him from getting on the ballot in those states. So that's that.
Except that we agree with the lawyers and legislators who know a hell of a lot more about constitutional and election law than you do, dive-boy, so you're the outsider looking in - you just don't know which side of the glass is which. the laws will pass. rely on it. Then what excuse will you make up?
Show me in Wong Kim Ark where the term 'natural born citizen' is used? Wong was found to be a 'citizen', not 'natural born citizen'.
In 1869, Attorney General Hoar gave to Mr. Fish, the secretary of state, an opinion that children born and domiciled abroad, whose fathers were native-born citizens of the United States, and had at some time resided therein, were, under the statute of February 10, 1855 (chapter 71), citizens of the United States, and 'entitled to all the privileges of citizenship which it is in the power of the United States government to confer.
The same rule must be applied to both races; and, unless the general rule that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the fourteenth amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
no, its you and he that are the idiots
Except that we agree with the lawyers and legislators who know a hell of a lot more about constitutional and election law than you do, dive-boy, so you're the outsider looking in - you just don't know which side of the glass is which. the laws will pass. rely on it. Then what excuse will you make up?
1. If legislators were perfect then there would never have been any law overturned by the courts. However, I think that there have been many laws overturned, which shows that when legislators pass laws for political purposes their efforts may no stand.
2. I don't think DiveCon or I have said that there would probably not be one or two states (at least) that would pass a birther law. The question (and I speak for myself) has been the likelihood that they would pass Constitutional review. Personally I think invidious laws targeting one specific person (which if you are honest, most of the attempts do) will fail. Personally I support Maine's proposed law because it applies to all elected officials and specifies candidates must submit proof of eligibility. Maine's law is much more likely to pass judicial review. All MHO of course.
>>>>
