Trump Has 'Just a Little' Doubt Obama Was Born in America

FoxNews ^ | March 17, 2011

[maggief]

Potential presidential candidate Donald Trump says he has "just a little" doubt that President Obama is U.S.-born but his feeling doesn't make him an "idiot."

The mogul and TV reality star suggested in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Thursday that he's reluctant to discuss the topic because "everybody that even gives any hint of being a 'birther,' a word you didn't use, even a little bit of a hint like, 'gee, maybe you know, just maybe there is this much of a chance,' they label them as an idiot."

[Tribune7]

"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980." -

[omegadawn]

there is no hard evidence until someone is able to access all of obama’s records.

but what we do know is that if obama’s birth was registered and finialized in Hawaii, he would hve no need to be useing false SS numbers. Since WE know as a FACT that obama has been using a CT SS number that is not his, for some reason he must of have not been able to get one under his own records(birth). This would strongely suggest that he was not born in the U.S., and does not have an American birth certificate required for his own SS number.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem.

To your point, however, there is only one group of citizens who are unquestionably and without doubt “natural born citizens” - those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No law is necessary to establish their citizenship. No interpretation of law is necessary to clarify their citizenship status. No legal arguments can be made against their citizenship.

About all other groups, legal arguments can be made for and against citizenship. Until and unless the SCOTUS interprets the phrase “natural born citizen,” there is only one group who NBC status unquestionable.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem.

To your point, however, there is only one group of citizens who are unquestionably and without doubt “natural born citizens” - those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No law is necessary to establish their citizenship. No interpretation of law is necessary to clarify their citizenship status. No legal arguments can be made against their citizenship.

About all other groups, legal arguments can be made for and against citizenship. Until and unless the SCOTUS interprets the phrase “natural born citizen,” there is only one group who NBC status unquestionable.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

“birthrite citizenship” given to Mexicans and other invaders is the result of an erroneous interpretation.

“birthrite citizenship” was the result of a twentieth century erroneous reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution adopted on July 9, 1868. The intent of this amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) which barred freed slaves from becoming citizens. The amendment also included clauses dealing with officials of the Confederacy.

The United States Constitution, Section 1 of Article Two sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does states that "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."

Regards,
GtG

[Joann37]

McCain is horrible, and cannot stand up to anyone! His courage as a captive, years ago, is long gone.

And personnally, there are many things I dislike about Trump, but I do believe he could stand up to the dems.

So who do YOU think would be a good conservative candidate? I wish DeMint or Rubio would run, but that seems unlikely at this time. Who do YOU think could beat 0bama? (not a rhetorical question, I just wonder?)

[bluecat6]

Obama’s adoption and acquiring of Indonesian citizenship is not recognized by US law.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interesting statement. No proof. Just a spin control statement.

You need to become a Leo fan...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-state-department-has-always-recognized-and-abided-by-foreign-laws-concerning-us-citizens-born-with-dual-nationality/

[hosepipe]

Obama is so far past his birth place being important its rididulous..
Obama is guilty of far worse crimes than voter fraud.. and ineligibilty..

He has salted(appointed) the Executive Branch with people want to bring down this government..
Treason, sedition and espionage trump any inegilbility..

With people that don't even hide this fact..

[wintertime]

0bama isn't a citizen”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are a troll or a very confused and ill-informed conservative.

Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution demands that our president be a NATURAL BORN citizen.

[Just A Nobody]

The candidates are educated on the issue.
The candidates lack the gonads to stand up to the Marxist Communist mainstream media. And...So does **every** weenie Republican representative and leader in the Party.

Excellent post!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You are also likely to hear a great deal about Vattel, who in a French language book "defined" NBC in passing"

Yes, you are correct. And our founders certainly knew about Vattel. However, the founders never clearly defined natural born in the constitution. I do agree with Vattel that your citizenship comes from your parents (specifically your father) and not where you were born. This just makes sense.

I think that the 14th amendment part of citizenship was talking about those slaves at the time of emancipation. The legislature knew that the South would try to deny them citizenship rights even after the war. But this is my opinion only and will be fought out (vis a vis anchor babies) politically over the next several years.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"For the last 230 years Natural born citizenship required that both parents be American citizens."

This is not true. The law has required that one parent be a citizen. You are correct about Anne Dunham and the law in 1961. She was not old enough to convey citizenship if he was born outside the U.S.. However, if he was born here then she was old enough to convey citizenship. That was the law in 1961. This is why people want to know where he was born.

[opentalk]

What Trump said about Palin - love the last part

--On Palin–she’s “an amazing woman,” and qualified to run for president:

She was the governor of a great state. She did fine as the governor. I think personally she made a tragic mistake when she left early … She did a good job as governor…And she’s a tough cookie. I think she’s more qualified than Barack Obama was when he became president.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem."

Actually there is. See my post 29.

[Howie66]

Since Trump supported Stroker in ‘08, I fail to see how he could or would stand up to the RATs.

In my humble and honest opinion, I do not want to see another Senator run for POTUS. I don’t care who they are.

I really like John Bolton and would like to see him take a run at it.

Sarah Palin is also one that I could get excited about, especially since the leftist maggots are so obviously terrified of her.

Herman Cain is loaded with potential as well.

I would LOVE to see a former MARINE go for it! This country has never put a MARINE in the White House and I think that needs to change.

I think that it’s still too early to say for sure but I have a list of those that I wouldn’t support, no matter what.

Gingrich. Pawlenty. Romney. Huckabee. Thune. McCain. Bush.

Just to name a few.

[GingisK]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

[GingisK]

NOTE: The above text was copied from a FreeRebublic post by etraveler13.

My attempt at citing this in html was gobbled up by the bit bucket.

[pnh102]

You are a troll or a very confused and ill-informed conservative.

And you must clearly be incapable of critical thinking. What exactly is going to happen if Trump runs on this plank without solid, irrefutable evidence and then 0bama reveals his "actual" birth certificate that shows he is indeed a natural born citizen (whether or not this is true is irrelevant, he can just show a prop to that effect and enough people in this country will buy it).

If Trump is the nominee and he does this, he will lose.

[Visceral]

The R’s and D’s alike cover each other’s rear ends.

EXACTLY !!!!

From 2008 to 2010, I blamed Zero and the democrats for the fraud we are living in. This is no longer about Zero; The REPUBLICANS now have to power to subpoena the BC. The REPUBLICANS are an accessory after the fact, in collusion to perpetuate the fraud. The only hope of the truth ever coming out, is for the REPUBLICAN establishment to feel threatened by loss of political power. If 20% of their base (Birthers) walk away, their political power is finished.

[bluecat6]

The Constitution is silent on what constitutes a “natural born citizen”. Only that the President has to be one. The term is mentioned one time in the Constitution in Article 2 section 1. The 14th amendment does not mention this phrase. It only outlines what constitutes a citizen. This “natural born citizen” has been left up to the lawmakers to determine. Your interpretation of the phrase (both parents being U.S. citizens) is not the current legal interpretation and I don’t believe it has ever been.

________________________________________________________________________________

Its ‘natural born Citizen’. The ‘Citizen’ is capitalized, the ‘natural’ and the ‘born’ are not. There is no hyphen between natural and born.

The founders were learned men. They were not sloppy and messy with this document we call the Constitution. They did not leave us an assignment to determined the meaning of the phrase (not term) ‘natural born Citizen’. To them it was clear. A Citizen who gains that status from natural law and holds that status since birth.

Natural law citizenship is that derived from your father and your father’s land. If your citizenship is derived from positive law (man-made law) as in the 14th Amendment or one of the many naturalization acts then you are not a ‘natural Citizen’ and thus not a ‘natural born Citizen’.

Note that they carefully constructed the phrase - two simple adjectives and the actual proper noun with capitalization. Had they meant to create a new term or reference a proper noun term in someones book they would have written ‘Natural Born Citizen’. They did not.

Having your parents, and more specifically, your father as a Citizen is an unwavering concept of natural citizenship throughout the world and was well understood in the late 1700s. Even the first naturalization act identified jus sanguinis as the key element when it declared those born to American parents overseas are to be considered AS natural born Citizens. I point out AS since it does not say they ARE natural born Citizens, just that they should be treated AS nbCs. To still BE an nbC apparently you had to ALSO be born in the US.

Even being ‘patriot’ means being loyal to your fathers land. ‘pat’ comes from the Greek word for father, as in ‘paternity’.

And here is the problem. We have a usurper whose father was British. And he is still British today according to British law.

Like the Thailand PM he held dual citizenship. He has never submitted form RN to renounce such ties to Britain. The founders did not fail us in their work, we failed ourselves to prevent usurpation in manner specifically feared by the founders.