Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

I really hate when people pretend they understand a law when they don't have a clue. There isn't a constitutional scholar or immigration attorney who would even come close to agreeing with you.

So, my advice? GET A GRIP... take your conspiracy theories and play them where there are stupid people who might believe them...

but anyone with half a brain knows that you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
You can be deemed, by Law, to be a Citizen but that does NOT constitute Natural Born...

The Government itself states just that.

Seems some don't understand such simple things, and need to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

If the Government admits it, I am not sure why others don't?

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

But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[4]

It is thought the origin of the natural born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787, from John Jay (who was born in New York) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable 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."[5] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
 
Wow, you definitely have stupid on lock. :lol:

Once again, all you present is BS, please post any proof you have. I have a multitude of sources clearly defining the law and what is defined as natural born. But I do feel like being entertained
The Government even admits it...

Not sure why you don't?
 
You can be deemed, by Law, to be a Citizen but that does NOT constitute Natural Born...

The Government itself states just that.

Seems some don't understand such simple things, and need to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

If the Government admits it, I am not sure why others don't?

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

But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[4]

It is thought the origin of the natural born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787, from John Jay (who was born in New York) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable 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."[5] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

and the rest? history or precedence doesn't stop with one quote does it? or without knowing the circumstances surrounding it....?

that's taking things out of context imo.
 
and the rest? history or precedence doesn't stop with one quote does it? or without knowing the circumstances surrounding it....?

that's taking things out of context imo.
its immaterial, since Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the STATE of Hawaii
 
its immaterial, since Obama was born in Hawaii as certified by the STATE of Hawaii

i know....!

this particular case is being heard...because the person filing was a candidate of some sort it said....so, since that gives it merit...the SC needs to review it i suppose?
 
i know....!

this particular case is being heard...because the person filing was a candidate of some sort it said....so, since that gives it merit...the SC needs to review it i suppose?
i hope they do finally hear it, and throw it out with extreme prejudice and fine the plaintiffs all court costs for wasting the courts time
 
Last edited:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

The fact Obama was born in Hawaii, which became the 50th state in 1959 ends all argument.
 
No they don't.

They create "Citizens", that is all.

No where does the Law say Natural Born, as it does in every other place they refer to such a thing.

A Law cannot change Nature, and our Founding Fathers understood this, and hence the Language.

And yet all you can provide for the definition of Natural Born is a law. Go figure.
 
What hole do these people crawl out of and will they slither back there Tuesday afternoon?
 
What hole do these people crawl out of and will they slither back there Tuesday afternoon?

Well not to encourage them but after 8 years we still hear the Liberals claim Bush was a draft Dodgers and that he had favoritism in the Guard, all with out a shred of evidence except a forged document.
 
Well not to encourage them but after 8 years we still hear the Liberals claim Bush was a draft Dodgers and that he had favoritism in the Guard, all with out a shred of evidence except a forged document.

Actually, reading Kitty Kelly's book on the Bush trbe. He abosolutely, without a shadow of a doubt was given favourtism. In fact, in his OWN WORDS IN THE BOOK he says as much.Go figure...
 
kitty kelly?

:rofl:

i take it danielle steele was busy.

kitty :rofl: kelly
:eusa_whistle:

1) She has never been sued.
2) She has extensive notes at the back of her book.
3) I know people try and dis her because they think she is a lightweight, however having read A Berg's Pulitzer bio on Lindburgh, I can categorically say that his notes are nowhere near as extensive as hers.
4) Before dissing her, read the book. If you can find out where she is wrong and prove it, be my guest...:cool:
 
1) She has never been sued.
2) She has extensive notes at the back of her book.
3) I know people try and dis her because they think she is a lightweight, however having read A Berg's Pulitzer bio on Lindburgh, I can categorically say that his notes are nowhere near as extensive as hers.
4) Before dissing her, read the book. If you can find out where she is wrong and prove it, be my guest...:cool:
to sue, you would need to prove damages, and since so few actually take her seriously, there would be no damage
LOL
 
And yet all you can provide for the definition of Natural Born is a law. Go figure.
A Law where they simply explain what it means, and do not attempt to change it through Legislation.

It seems they understood that they could not do such a thing.

Seems some here lack that understanding...

George Washington was even party to this "Legislation".

Are you saying George was wrong?
 

Forum List

Back
Top