Replies

Could you please point me to the place in the Constitution that states that Hawaii Law determines who and who is not a US citizen?

First and foremost, Natural Born status is a constitutional test that was established when the Constitution was written. It required both parents to be Citizens (Naturalized is fine) and the individual to be Born in the US. (Except for persons who were simply Citizens on the date of the adoption of the Constitution. - Which BO doesn't qualify)

This test only has meaning for one person, the candidate for President being offered to the electoral college.

Starting with the 14th Amendment, the status of "Citizen" began to be defined leading to the current laws and regulations defining Citizenship but none of this really has that much bearing on the Natural Born Citizen status defined by the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1. In the case of Barack Obama, the birth certificate is only important in establishing that he actually is listed as a child of a non-citizen, because this would establish that indeed as is already agreed by all parties, Barack Obama was a British Citizen at birth as well because his father never was a citizen of the United States. The whole Birth Certificate issue is a distraction unless it shows someone else is his father, which it doesn't.

Many are arguing that Barack Obama is not a Citizen at all.. which would be more clearly disqualifying and there is significant evidence that this may indeed be the case, but all of this is ultimately moot because this debate must have been finished before the President was inaugurated, and it wasn't.

The reason to chase this down and all of Barack Obama's missing records is one of proving or disproving that BO has achieved his office by committing a fraud or frauds. This knowledge is the right of every citizen.

First and foremost, Natural Born status is a constitutional test that was established when the Constitution was written...

This may all be true, but my reason for posting that particular statute was to demonstrate a simple motive for Obama's mother or grandparents to lie about his birth location, without there needing to be any grand conspiracy to make Obama president. Given that the statute could quite possibly deny Obama citizenship entirely, it establishes a good motive for his family to lie about his place of birth well before any of his political ambitions. People who like to ridicule "birthers" tend to claim that a grand conspiracy theory is necessary to explain all of the goings-on in order to make the whole thing seem more far-fetched than it really is.

First and foremost, Natural Born status is a constitutional test that was established when the Constitution was written. It required both parents to be Citizens (Naturalized is fine) and the individual to be Born in the US. (Except for persons who were simply Citizens on the date of the adoption of the Constitution. - Which BO doesn't qualify)

You speak as though this definition is actually in the Constitution.

First and foremost, Natural Born status is a constitutional test that was established when the Constitution was written. It required both parents to be Citizens (Naturalized is fine) and the individual to be Born in the US. (Except for persons who were simply Citizens on the date of the adoption of the Constitution. - Which BO doesn't qualify)

Then you should have no problems pointing out what article of the Constitution that constitutional test is in.