KiffinKiller
We are Delusional
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,448
- Likes
- 2
They both have to be citizens for the child to be natural born, unless the child is born inside the US. Which is the point.
Are you just playing dumb, or are you really dumb?
At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term natural born with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were natural born subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this same rule was applicable in the American colonies and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ... with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, be read in light of British common law since the Constitution is framed in the language of the English common law. In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens at birth or by birth, and are natural born, as opposed to naturalized, U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President. Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term natural born in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth.
And in 1961 Obama only had one American parent. The other was an illegal immigrant America-hater from an illegal immigrant America-hating family.
But win, lose or draw, the fight isnt going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obamas own adopted political network in Illinois.
---------------------
Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obamas home political base.
![]()
Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states
The thing about it with me is this, even thoung may suits have been filed, Obama has not porduced any document in court that would in any way validate his eligibility.
Why not?
So if someone accused you folks of being a convicted child molester, would you give them the satisfaction of proving them wrong?
I say the only people calling for this seem to be nutcases anyway... let them wallow.
If I am running for POTUS and a there are questions about my eligibility to run - then yes I do respond. Any topic that would be raised in a run for POTUS should have been foreseen and a response planned. Barry knew this would be an issue before he kicked off his campaign and should have been ready to address it head on. His continued refusal to do so only serves to deepen the question of what is he hiding.
It always amazes me when candidates seem to be taken off guard when scandals break on their presidential campaigns. If they have had affairs, hired illegals to work in their homes, had problems with sexual harassment claims, tax issues, or eligibility problems; they knew about it before the rest of us.
This in no way compares to hiring illegal workers you would give no amnesty to or getting a solid BJ from your intern and lying under oath about it.
It's why it hasn't escalated beyond the aforementioned nutcases. The birther movement is taken about as seriously as bigfoot hunters.
It certainly is important. If he will ignore the constitutional requirements for the office, why should we believe he will take the constraints of the constitution any more seriously on other matters. In fact we now have enough track record to see that he doesn't really care what the constitution says if it is in his way.
Note that de Vattel defines "natural born citizen" as the purest form of citizenship, requiring both jus soli ("law of the soil") citizenship and jus sanguinis ("law of the blood") citizenshipwith BOTH parents being citizens.
Where in the constitution does it say the POTUS has to show his personal information to the people just because they ask?
The constitution calls for the president to meet certain qualifications. When these qualifications are called into doubt, then yes, the candidate should produce the appropriate documentation to prove eligibility.
This is the best in depth piece I've seen written on the question.
Some of the replies are also interesting.
The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"