9th Circuit Court to hear eligibility questions

World Net Daily ^ | March 30, 2011 | Bob Unruh

[circumbendibus]

Arguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama's eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.

Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2.

"I can't believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case," wrote Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.

[Danae]

Ok, so you are saying that the State Department does NOT recognize the citizenship of people from other nations?

Give me a break. The United States has ALWAYS recognized other nations.

But you want proof. Ok, its been found by better minds than mine.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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/

The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality – as to American citizens – have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. 

The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.  We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:

“MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:  I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son’s birth…

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.”

Please take notice of two crucial facts.  First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born.  Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.  Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.

In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code.  Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America.  Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen.  Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military.  But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son’s eventual release from custody.

Lansing’s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations.  In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.

As Secretary Lansing’s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US).   And there would have been nothing the US could do about it.  This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.  Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.

Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born.  Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship.  Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom.  Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births.  Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.  But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.  He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.  Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:

“I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible.  As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey.  The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized– which is not the case with Da Prato– for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment…

Italy *  *  *  has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.  Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute.  Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours…”

Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge’s thoughts were legally misguided:

“As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries… The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.  Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws…

…Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.  The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years.  Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

‘…Such children are born to a double character.  The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.  (Moore’s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)’

…I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt… which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:

‘Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.  House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.’ “

Lansing slams the point home – which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State – that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka “dual fealty”).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President.  Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.

But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that – not only does the US recognize dual nationality – we have “adopted” it as the law of our own country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:

“For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States.  This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.”

Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US.  And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person’s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.  It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis.  A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has “always” recognized dual allegiance and has “adopted” it under law.  Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

 

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (…with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

[Danae]

Examiner, Meh. They got bought out by another company which messed with the format so much it isn’t even remotely the same, and is a LOT more difficult to use. I have been deep in school and maintaining a 4.0 gps, raising two kids, volunteering in their schoo and for my hometown city government.... I have just been too darned busy to try and figure out how they screwed it up... LOL

I proably should, but its been a while now.

Thanks for the Kudos by the way. I have to credit Leo Donofrio, he is the real intellect behind what I have posted. I can’t rightfully take credit for it!

Have a great day!

D

[CodeToad]

“You are NOT a natural born citizen if your mom isn’t and/or your daddy isn’t a citizen of the US of A.”

That’s not even remotely true. If the mother is a US citizen and has met residence requirements, it doesn’t matter who the daddy is.

[omegadawn]

The official definition for Natural born citizen is:

“CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN”

Unless obama’s father was a U.S. citizen, he is not Natural born.

[GBA]

That’s not even remotely true. If the mother is a US citizen and has met residence requirements, it doesn’t matter who the daddy is.

Wrong again. He would be a citizen, but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Thanks for the opportunity to help you understand this seemingly difficult issue.

[GBA]

As a point of clarity, assuming obama Sr. of Kenya is his bio-dad and his mom was a US citizen, then wouldn't that make their little baby Barry a dual citizen?

[Danae]

"“You are NOT a natural born citizen if your mom isn’t and/or your daddy isn’t a citizen of the US of A.” That’s not even remotely true. If the mother is a US citizen and has met residence requirements, it doesn’t matter who the daddy is."

Really?? Seriously you believe that crap?

No, sorry, but you are completely confusing Citizen with Natural Born citizen and BOTH parents matter. Only in the case where the father is NOT known is the father irrelevant.

A Natural Born Citizen is one born under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States. A citizen is someone born here, or someone born to a parent of a citizen, or someone born overseas to a citizen parent.

Natural Born Citize = Born under the Sole Jurisdiction of the United States = two parents who are citizens = born on our soil.

There is NO other nation involved with a person like that. That is why the Founders CHOSE this term and its meaning to be one of the requirements for POTUS.

Anyone born under MORE than one jurisdiction is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. A citizen, quite likely, but not one born under the sole jurisdiction.

Have I hammered home the sole jurisdiction thing hard enough yet? Ok, just to slam it right out of the park... Leo Donofrio:

++++++++++++++++++++++++
The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality – as to American citizens – have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. 

The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.  We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:

“MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:  I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son’s birth…

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.”

Please take notice of two crucial facts.  First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born.  Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.  Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.

In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code.  Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America.  Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen.  Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military.  But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son’s eventual release from custody.

Lansing’s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations.  In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.

As Secretary Lansing’s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US).   And there would have been nothing the US could do about it.  This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.  Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.

Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born.  Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship.  Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom.  Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births.  Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.  But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.  He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.  Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:

“I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible.  As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey.  The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized– which is not the case with Da Prato– for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment…

Italy *  *  *  has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.  Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute.  Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours…”

Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge’s thoughts were legally misguided:

“As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries… The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.  Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws…

…Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.  The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years.  Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

‘…Such children are born to a double character.  The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.  (Moore’s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)’

…I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt… which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:

‘Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.  House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.’ “

Lansing slams the point home – which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State – that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka “dual fealty”).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President.  Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.

But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that – not only does the US recognize dual nationality – we have “adopted” it as the law of our own country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:

“For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States.  This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.”

Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US.  And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person’s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.  It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis.  A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has “always” recognized dual allegiance and has “adopted” it under law.  Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

 

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (…with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

[Danae]

Sorry for typo:

Natural Born Citizen = Born under the Sole Jurisdiction of the United States = two parents who are citizens “+” born on our soil.

Sorry for that.

[CodeToad]

“A Natural Born Citizen is one born under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States.”

Sorry but no other country can remove or affect a citizen’s birth rights to this country. McCain was born in Panama. Panama has every right to claim he is a Panamanian citizen, yet, that does not affect his natural born citizenship having been born to US parents on military duty overseas. I have two sisters in the same boat.

You can blah, blah, blah all you want and post tripe all over the place, but the fact remains than when a US mother gives birth in the US and has been in the country long enough a required by law her child is a natural born US citizen regardless of who the father is and what country wants to lay claim to the child.

[CodeToad]

“Wrong again. He would be a citizen, but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.”

Listen, stupid, why don’t you go ahead and give us all a legal reference to your claim. Go ahead. We’ll wait.

[GBA]

"Stupid" Nice. Clearly, you have won the argument with your in depth and detailed comeback.

Since you conveniently ignore what doesn't agree with your take on reality, do NOT, I repeat just in case you missed it, DO NOT look up the definition of dual citizenship.

Better yet, why don’t you go ahead and give us all a legal reference to dual citizenship being a qualification for Presidential eligibility. Go ahead. We’ll wait.

[Danae]

Sorry dude, but not only are you wrong, you are ignorant of both law ans history. Perhaps you should READ what I posted.

its all there in the historical record. Sorry to shift your paradigm, but it is what it is.

It isn't about removing citizenship. It is about RECOGNIZING the sovereignty of other Nations. If McCain was NOT born on the Territory of the United States, then he was NOT a Natural Born Citizen. If he was born on the base, or on U.S. Territory then he would be. The same for your sisters. If they were NOT born on the base, in US Territory, then, no they aren't Natural Born Citizens.

The State Department has NEVER changed this defination.

A Natural Born Citizen is one born under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States.

Sorry to shatter your perception of the universe, but it is what it is.

[CodeToad]

In other words, you're just another Internet Lawyer mouthing off about what you "feel" to be true and have no idea how to research the actual law in any way, federal or State. You, like so many others, just repeat what you have read on the Internet and believe it must be true because your read it on the Internet. Well, try actually reading the law, the statutes, the actual words, not what some other idiot says they think is true.

So, here, learn a little and learn to do you own research instead of just repeating other statements from the Internet and sounding stupid:

United States Code, Title 8, Section 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"Natural Born" only requires common sense in that a person born as a citizen and does not require any additional acts to become a citizen is a natural born citizen.

So, go find Title 8 Section 1401 and read the rest of it. Learn a little. I am tired of you sanctimonious pinheads trying to talk down to everyone when you don’t know squat.

[Kenny Bunk]

The Cosmic Joke that is BO/BS continues.

My friends, the 9th Circuit Court is quite capable of finding a Wombat from Tasmania eligible to run for President of the United States.

BTW, In addition to being a "Two Citizen Parents Constitutionalist," and a "Birther, " I now announce the founding of the

"Real Namers."

It has come to my attention, via attorney Hemenway of Hollister v Soetoro, that The Capo Community Organizer has probably been cruising under a name not legally his since 1980 or thereabouts. A peek at the BC's would help.

When the Magic Marxist Mombasa MF was adopted by the Indonesian guy, his name was quite properly and legally changed to Soetoro, or "Soebarkah," or however the Worthy Oriental Gentlemen of Indonesia do the name game. At that time, in the normal course of events, the "Obama" BC, if there actually was one, would have been suppressed, and a brand new one issued with the last name now legally something or other Indonesian. Thence forward, our man was to be known to the world by his Indonesian name, whatever that was. Never did Our Fearlessly Ineligible Leader bother to legally change his name back. He apparently just felt like being African rather than an Indonesian.

Not only that, he told the Bar of the State of Illinois, on their official application that he had "Never used an alias, or a name other than BHO, Jr. (or II, which he also neglected to mention, along with traffic violations and drug use). Affirmative Action doesn't cover that one!
BTW, he "voluntarily" retired from the Illinois Bar. Well at least that's better than Michelle, who was involuntarily suspended by court order!

Ain't this great? He is not the offspring of two citizens, we don't really quite know where he was born, (not that it matters much, with the foreign papa thing), and he's probably using the "Obama" name illegally.

Now this mess is going to the 9th Circuit Court? I already can hear the pitter-patter of little Wombat feet.

Prediction: The 9th Circuit Court will order that BO/BS be carved into Mt. Rushmore, dressed in Kenyan and Indonesian Tribal Garb, and with a plaque in Indonesian, Swahili, (and Spanish, of course). Wouldn't surprise me if the 9th Circuit also orders BO/BS canonized as a Saint.

Wake me when we get back to America, please.

[Kenny Bunk]

Join the

REAL NAMERS

ping

[Danae]

LOL Ping meh baby!

:)

[Pilsner]

Ok, so you are saying that the State Department does NOT recognize the citizenship of people from other nations?

No. Let me say this in words of few syllables short words.

If the Brits can pass a law that stops a person born in the U S A from becoming President, then the Brits, not Americans, decide who can be President. If you think that George Washington, Ben Franklin, and the rest of the men who wrote the Constitution intended for the Brits, not Americans, to decide who can be President, then you are beyond hope.

[Red Steel]

LoL good one KB. ;-)

[GBA]

Thank you for repeating the same tired quote/argument you progressive "sanctimonious pinhead Internet lawyers" "feel" makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

But, I didn't see "Natural Born Citizen" defined in your quote, apparently you missed that part in your research?

Look, I don't know you. Perhaps you've had a bad day and have come here to vent, but I do understand the point you are trying to make, albeit crudely: The Founders didn't define NBC clearly enough for you and obama.

And, the SC hasn't cleared up any misconceptions, such as what you are struggling with. Common sense, as you personally illustrate, isn't all that common.

But, before you dig deep or ask someone for a few more insults to help you 'feel' better, what does your common sense tell you about your president claiming his daddy is Kenyan, not American?

Would that give obama dual citizenship? If so, then he isn't a NBC and he isn't eligible.

[rxsid]

Thanks circumbendibus!