Yes.
“nor does the constitution define ‘natural-born’”
It doesn’t define “and” either.
Fox has talked about McCain & Arthur insofar as place of birth was concerned but never addressed citizenship of parents as a qualifier in itself. Further, Fox has failed to address (or even to pan or focus the camera on) father’s race which is listed as African, a nonrace. These “anomalies” are newsworthy. What are we all missing?
Obama’s playing coy with his birth certificate wasted millions of Conservative-hours on a false trail, while all the while he is wide open for impeachment for his proven (from his own Web site and video) involvement in an illegal—and that assessment is from Minnesota law enforcement—Internet gambling operation, specifically the “Dinner with Barack” and “Backstage with Barack” lotteries. An AFSCME counsel said there is no way to run an interstate raffle legally and that it constitutes racketeering.
I have been saying this for years only to be blown off with wet-blanket remarks about “Who is going to enforce the law against the Chosen One?” If the court of public opinion had given this a tenth of the publicity it gave to the birther wild goose chase, Obama would have had to clean out his desk long ago.
When people listened to me in 2000 (specifically ONE columnist with national syndication), the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March turned into a ruined heap of smoking rubble (figuratively speaking). How about listening to me now and helping take down the Disaster in Chief for a genuine reason that is a matter of proven record? All we need is one Republican member of Congress to put impeachment into motion.
Juror number 9 votes he does not qualify as a natural born citizen and should be impeached.
The play has ended, the audience has exited the theater, and the cleaning crew is sweeping the aisles. The thespian who thinks there is any point in taking an encore now is probably too drunk to understand anyhow.
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
Parent's is PLURAL, not one BOTH. Obama's father was NOT a US citizen, so no, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Obama's father's allegience was to a foreign country.
| Office | Citizenship | Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| Commander in Chief | natural born Citizen | 35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator | Citizen | 30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative | Citizen | 25 | 7 years a Citizen |
A good case can be made that the intent of the original framers was that “natural born citizen” described someone born on U.S. soil of U.S. parents. But, since no definitive ruling on this point has ever been made by the U.S. Supreme Court, predicting how the court would rule is a bit problematic.
Did the framers intend that prayer in public schools should be prohibited? Did the framers believe that their document would lead to the indictment on hate crime charges of those professing faithfulness to Christian scripture? Did they believe that the Commerce Clause would allow the Federal Government to regulate any activity that struck their fancy?
I will be so bold as to state that the courts will not touch this issue, and if they do, they will cling to the 14th Amendment to proclaim that Obama is eligible. And dont’ expect the politicians to step up to the plate on this issue, including all of the Republican politicians. They will all circle the wagons on any attack against one of their own, an elitist politician.
Actually, the time to turn to that issue was three years ago, when Premier Hussein first proposed running for office.
And the answer is clearly, “No!”
When Obama went to Indonesia did he not become a citizen of that country? If so he could not have dual citizenship under US law and would have relinquished US citizenship by default. Then did he ever re-apply for Us citizenship? Still a lot of questions to be answered.
Focusing on this birth certificate issue will be nothing but a distraction...and will NEVER NEVER NEVER lead to getting this guy out of office. Should it? Probably. But it NEVER WILL. It is a LOSER issue. The average American has the attention span of a gnat and will not follow the argument.
You can be right as rain...but if you are not focusing on an issue that the people care about...they will tun you out...and 1) stay home in 2012...or 2) Vote for BHO again.
Doubt me? Let the GOP keep this up and BHO will walk into another term with ease. There is a smart way to fight a war...and a dumb way...and this is the dumb way. HEck...if I was BHO...I would have NOT released my long form BC. I would have PRAYED for a birther to get the GOP nomination then rope-a-doped him into this being the main issue. Then...2 weeks out...BAM.
Again....this is a loser issue. You might get worked up about it...but it will NEVER get BHO out of office. NEVER. What will is revealing what he has done to this country...and you can't do both...the American Public doesn't have the capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time anymore ;-)
Here is my question for the sake of comparisons: My DH’s parents were born in Mexico, one in 1906 and the other in 1910. They came here in about 1923 to escape the revolutions going on in Mexico. They did not know each other until later. They were from different states in Mexico. They married in the US and had 10 kids, 2 of whom served in the military and retired from the military. Neither of them became US Citizens, but did hold the green card and paid taxes and lived by the laws of the nation. The kids were educated in CA and by order of their parents were to speak English at school and Spanish at home.
I contend my husband and his siblings are native born citizens but not natural born citizens. What say the experts on the subject? Am I right or wrong?
From SCOTUS decision US v Wong Kim Ark (1898):
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (citizen and natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
No, he does not.
Author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defined Natural Born Citizen unchallenged. That definition is Born under the sole jurisdiction of... Obama was born under two, he could never even for an instant have been a Natural Born Citizen regardless of where he was born.
John Bingham was from Ohio, and absolutely an Abolitionist. His definition went into them congressional record, and NO ONE ever challenged his specific definition of NBC.
IOW a wise country would never have granted her citizenship because she had no respect for our founding principles. She was an English socialist who loved the monarchy. Go figger.
Anyway, that makes me NOT an NBC? Heck, if I wanted, I could join the Sons of the American Revolution (through my father's mother to some guy who immigrated to Maine in the 17th century.)
Oh well, darn! Time to disband the exploratory committee. Thank you for your support. Your contributions will be returned except for the packing and handling fees which are going to pay for my trip to Vegas after this exhausting campaign.
Natural born citizen probably means in the Constitution what it meant to the states who sent delegates, and who then ratified it: the American version of natural born subject.
People act as if the Constitution was the first time the phrase had ever been written. It wasn’t.
More can be found from an 1844 case on inheriting property:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
When Obama was very young, he was adopted and his name changed to Barry Soetero. Apparently some time after he came back from Indonesia, his name was changed back to Barack Obama. Also, it appears that his citizenship was changed while in Indonesia and, I guess, changed back.
Would it mke sense to find out how all of this transpired and if has any relevance to the eligibility issue?