He’s trying to make the natural-born citizen issue into a racial issue. He seems to assume that “nonwhite” people can’t be natural-born. I’d say that’s a pretty racist assumption.

i still wanna see the actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE, not some colb hoax :)

Well, I’m white and like Obama and Jindal, I’m not natural born. Maybe we need to start pushing the point personally, with our own status as a guide.

Of course I’m not a birther, but where were these people when the radical Left was “just asking questions” about whether the president of the United States was complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans?

The writer obiously is channeling personal feelings, which are racist in nature. For the rest of us the issue is fraud, destruction of our Republic and Constitution. And the fact that we do not do communism nor Islamo-fascism here.

Let this writer roll around in his own pig stye. It’s typical of democrats. If you will remember it was Blow Biden who said something like...’we’ve FINALLY got a clean cut articulate black man running for the office....’

So modern, this deconstructionist minister, Bruce Reyes-Chow ...

Defining Marriage is a no-win situation. Let me be as clear as I can be. There is not one "Biblical" definition of marriage. Yes, there are examples of one man and one woman who are married, but even my kids know that there are also examples of marriage that go far and beyond the limits of one. I am shocked when Christian leaders talk about the Bible, especially in a civil context, as if is clear on the subject of marriage. This debate about and continued use of this "Biblical marriage" interpretation to inform civil relationships will lead nowhere and further blurs the separation of church and state.
Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-reyeschow/why-the-government-should_b_827209.html

Let's just ignore all the Biblical codes regarding marriage. While it is true that the Bible allows polygamy, and various levels of commitment between a man and woman having a sexual relationship -- marriage is most definitive -- each marriage is between one man and one woman.

Moreover there are many Biblical restrictions on specific forms of sexual relationships -- adultery, incest, where marriage must be defined as a solemn contract between a man and a woman in order for those restrictions to have any sense whatsoever.

Ignorance of marriage as a special contract needing society's protections is clearly a fast road to social breakdown, ruination, chaos, misery, poverty and a sure general destruction.

Of course, his thinking on the issue of Presidential eligibility is equally superficial, toyish, immature and flawed.

A pastor and a douche-bag..., pretty impressive cross section he’s got represented there....

Gee.

Who would have guessed that a clown with a last name of "Reyes-Chow" and a first name of "Bruce" (you can't make up this stuff!) would be playing the race-card?

I think I'll wait for the "homophobic" bomb to arrive before commenting...

He’s trying to make the natural-born citizen issue into a racial issue.
Of course he is! It's essential to the effort of demonizing the opponent. (racist, bigot, stupid, "crazy talk", etc. )
It's ongoing and unending.

All I can say to this drivel:

Good grief.

And again I say, “Good. Grief.”

According to this Reuter's article, this week Bobby "What me, a vice presidential candidate?" Jindal, governor of Louisiana, released a copy of his birth certificate. This was done as a response to an editorial that was in response to his support of Birther inspired legislation that would require all candidates for federal office on Louisiana ballots to show their birth certificates.

Since the Constitution clearly defines the requirements for holding various offices, it follows that refusing to do so is patently un-Constitutional.

First . . . for those who can muster up their best, "What? What's wrong with asking if people are born here?" and can do so with a straight face, get thee an agent and move to Hollywood..

I would submit that the author would be much more comfortable in Hollywood than I would.

The author is trying to shift the burden of legality to the Constitution.

The real question is "why wouldn't" a person verify their eligibility? The Constitution should not be on trial here. Any rational person can deduce that if the Constitution requires some qualification, then the person seeking office must prove that are complying with the law.

To think that the Birther movement is a rational, innocent and pure search for the truth denies the reality that the question and furor around it is fundamentally built upon about how American society still perceives brown folks . . . as not American until proven otherwise.

I've said it before and I'll say is again; playing the race card is a refuge for the worst type of scoundrels.

Perhaps some would say Mr. Jindal is swarthy. While I cannot presume to speak for him, I believe that he realizes that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and is demonstrating the fact by willingly complying with the provisions contained within. Even though it seems to be a state issue, it will spill over

Add on the "I am just asking a question, you shouldn't get so mad" posture and we either believe that we live in a vacuum void of generations of historic challenges to the "Americanness" of groups of people, or we really do believe that one cannot TRULY assumed to be "American" unless you are White.

Pathetic. I am 'white' as the author puts it. What truly makes me an American is my belief in the idea that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and was devised in such a way so as to guarantee our rights and freedoms. The author is stating that his beliefs are the litmus test of legality, that laws must conform to his ideology.

Let me say that I realize that the article appears to be a debate at the state level; I chose the Constitution because that is the real plum at stake.

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

I've leveraged some work on this from

Obama’s ineligibility: Were Americans set up by the press and then scammed by the Congress?

On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCain’s eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCain’s eligibility.

After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.

Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)

Obama said:

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:

As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:

“Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.”
“Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

The press is continuing to smear even as Democrat Birthers are standing up again (they attacked John McCain’s eligibility too).