jerry_r60 wrote:I dont' care to prolong the Obama citizenship discussion however, what i do find interesting is the constitutional questions around citizenship. As you know, the constitution itself has two different citizenship requirements for senators and president. The later being the "naturl born citizen". This thread had some discussion on that topic and some debate on how to define it. I took interest in this due to the question around John McCain and. being from the Canal Zone myself, the theoretical question of others being born in the Zone qualifying for President.
This article lays out the current law on the topic along with citations. I found it interesting and worth sharing: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I use this website for constitutional questions all the time. I've found it to be a thorough and impartial examination of constitutional issues. Your link says:
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
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.
According to these guidelines, I am eligible to be president.....as is Obama. But as I said earlier, y'all don't want me for president. I used to smoke a lot of do.........look! Cookies and milk!
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I read it the same way. I didn't paste in the text from the link, I wasn't sure about rules and putting in a big quote from another site. Thanks for sticking it in there.
Standard procedure is for him to approve the bio if he didn't write it. I don't think this has much to do with the birther movement, and I'm guessing those railing against birthers didn't read the whole article.
Regardless, one of two things is most likely true:
1. Obama claimed (or allowed it to be claimed on his behalf) to be born in Kenya and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia to obtain some sort of advantage in the same vein as Democrat Elizabeth Warren's current claims to be Cherokee. . .
OR
2. He was born in Kenya and doctored up a birth certificate.
The truth won't change the 2008 election. It shouldn't be harped on in the hope that the military or some other entity forcibly removes him.
It should be highlighted to show that he will intentionally lie, deceive, and embellish even something as non-trivial as where he was born based on the prevailing winds and what leverage he can gain from it.
fickman wrote:
The truth won't change the 2008 election. It shouldn't be harped on in the hope that the military or some other entity forcibly removes him.
So you're calling for a military coup?
American by birth Texan by the grace of God
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
No, he's saying you shouldn't sit around and HOPE for a military coup. It's really not an issue with the military though. About everyone with a weapon is still in Afghanistan.
fickman wrote:
The truth won't change the 2008 election. It shouldn't be harped on in the hope that the military or some other entity forcibly removes him.
So you're calling for a military coup?
Jesus wept! How on earth can a sentient human being draw that conclusion out of fickman's statement—which was itself a call for rationalism?
Your screen name is a misnomer. You're not a moderate. Moderates don't deliberately twist the words of another person into something other than their obvious face value. Aren't you even remotely ashamed of what you say sometimes?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
He's a keynesian Kenyan. Really, I call him a lot of things. But that shouldn't matter, his policies and leadership have been complete failures. The birther issue is questionable. His failure to understand America and the American way of life is plain to see. Vote him out let historians debate the birther issue.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I agree that pursuing the birther angle is a waste of time, and I have my own opinions about it, but whether he is or is not a "real" American, he IS the president......no matter how much I hate that fact. We have two fundamental choices, particularly this late in his first term, and those are: A) dig deep into conspiracy theories, wasting our time there, and let the election pass us by; or B) get the sonuvagun tossed out of office in November and elect his replacement.
For the record, I was born outside the U.S. also, of a native born American father and a French born mother. But you guys don't want me for president. I used to smoke a lot of dope.
And since when is that a disqualification? Even Clinton admitted to smoking dope, although he didn't inhale. Oh wait, he also said that he did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...
CHL holder since 5/2012
Taurus Public Defender
Ruger P89
Taurus TCP w/ Laserguard
Sig 1911 Desert
S&W Mod 29
and looking for more...
Slowplay wrote:I agree w/ you, HP. Obama supporters are quick to attack the Breitbart release as another "crazy birther" story. They're not capable of being objective.
Far from a "birther" angle (let's forget about where he was born, it's not important for this question), I'll repeat: How does such a "mistake" in his bio occur. Was it just a simple editor error (quite a mistake!!) or as others have pointed out, is this another case of Obama being who he needs to be to take maximum advantage of his current situation?
Since Obama is always cool, maybe it was cool to be born in Kenya in academia (or maybe there were other advantages for someone that wasn't "born with a silver spoon," looking to attend Columbia and Harvard...).
CHL holder since 5/2012
Taurus Public Defender
Ruger P89
Taurus TCP w/ Laserguard
Sig 1911 Desert
S&W Mod 29
and looking for more...
gdanaher wrote:No, he's saying you shouldn't sit around and HOPE for a military coup. It's really not an issue with the military though. About everyone with a weapon is still in Afghanistan.
So that's the only reason in your mind not to have to worry about our Armed Services not participating in a coup? Not because they took an oath, or have integrity, or follow the law...nope, only because they are in Afghanistan.
I attempted to clarify it to speedsix. Read the thread. As for me, I mean no disrespect to you. I too have seen the business end of the military, though in my case it involved at Uzi at the time.
I invoked the imagery of a military coup to reference the futility of those who are hanging their hat on the birther movement.
As one Constitutional scholar on Fox News said a few years ago, even if he doesn't fit the criteria for the natural-born citizen, there is no provision on how that clause would be enforced. So, I jumped past B-Y in the logic train and basically said, "Even IF he wasn't born in the U.S. - who's going to remove him? The Secret Service? The military? Armed Congressmen?"
I was drawing a stronger parallel to Elizabeth Warren, who lied about her heritage to gain advantages in school and during her early career.
The point was that this article is NOT intended to bolster evidence for birthers. It's to show the disingenuous nature of BHO, his handlers, and his marketing engine.
