BTW, for our education, can you tell us what US law tells us that both your parents must be citizens at the time of your birth for you to be considered natural born?
Yes, that is the standard Hussein Head argument for sucking up to Hussein.
US Law? You mean like something the Supreme Court said? I don't know . . who cares? The Law, AFAIK is written in Article 2 Sect 1 of USC. That isn't good enough? Well . . try this - any state governor, expressing the Will of The People (the individual) simply refuses to authorize a particular candidate from entering onto the state ballot. How does that work for you?
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
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?
As far as I know there is no ‘law’ for the POTUSA as there is no ‘law’ for eligibility of congresspersons. The requirements are set/buried in the Constitution which is above any law, even those adopted to carry out the Constitution. It is the Constitution which delineates a difference for eligibility between offices. It requires in the one instance ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA and only ‘citizen’ for congresspersons. For ‘natural born’ many people as myself firmly believe that ‘natural born’ is bedded in the documented discussions and acceptance of the Founders which included Vattel’s reasoning for citizenship of both parents. Many people do not accept the Founders’ documented intent because the Founders were not explicit as to words in the Constitution. These persons would then have to accept that Obama is eligible baring any question of birth location that parentage is of no concern as to eligibility for POTUSA.