What is a Natural Born Citizen?
For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.
It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.
A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
To be eligible for Naturalization one must:
• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States
The next type of citizen is that of a standard citizen. The USICS website describes a citizen thusly:
“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood (deriving citizenship through parent’s citizenship).
Whether someone born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time”
This passage from the USICS is important for two reasons. First, it makes the distinction clear that the United States uses two different means by which it derives citizenship; one by blood, and the other by place of birth. Second, it makes clear that citizenship is completely dependent on that laws that were in effect at the time a person was born. Today’s laws do not in any way effect or change the citizenship standing of a person who was born in 1961. This statement tells us that it is a person’s standing at the time of his or her birth that is the determining instant which dictates that person’s citizenship status. It is only at birth or upon naturalization that a person can become an American Citizen. Barack Obama’s citizenship status was determined at his birth just as with all American citizens who were born inside the territory of the United States.
This brings us to the third type of citizenship, the one most hotly debated, and the one least understood. Because of the infrequency of its relevance, few people will ever be in the position to become President, it simply doesn’t come up very often.
What is a Natural Born Citizen?
The following quotes are the research work of Ken Dunbar. He deserves credit for doing the legwork and hours of research that made it possible to print the quotations that follow.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
-Emer Vattel (English language version, “Law of Nations” (1797) Book I, c.19, § 212
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A7212
Who is Emer Vattel? He wrote the book "Law of Nations" which was originally published in France in 1758. Vattels work would be distributed by none other than Benjamin Franklin who received it from Charles William Frederic Dumas. History gives us this information in a letter dated 9 December, 1775
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.
…With sincere and great esteem and respect, I am, Sir, &c. B. Franklin.”
Benjamin Franklin himself read the works of Vattel, and there are numerous areas of our own constitution and founding documents that bear striking similarity to that work.
The constitution did not evolve from darkness. It was deliberately created, using the best knowledge and works of not only the day, but of history. The “Law of Nations” was one of those works, and it is not the only one. The definition given us in this work is the one that was used by the framers when they made the distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore, Vattel’s work has been cited numerous times in American History.
From the research of Ken Dunbar:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812)
********
"By this same writer it is also said: 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Associate Justice Peter Daniel in Scott v Sanford ( 1857 )
********
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen - ---Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )********
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 Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
********
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
[…]“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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the son of a British subject. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never an American, never applied to be, and never intended to be. His son’s condition at the moment of his birth cannot be changed, altered, redacted, retroactive or in any way changed.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen because he does not have two parents who were citizens of the United States of America.
-This article would not be possible without the internet research of Ken Dunbar. Ken does a Radio program once a week at Texasbroadcasting.net “The Liberty Pole” http://thelibertypole.ning.com/forum His program is Thursday Nights from 6 to 8pm Central.
Comments
Thank you for sharing my research with your readers, Dianna.
And, folks, Dianna will make an "appearance" on my show tonight at 7pmCentral.
Also, everything that I have written, on my site, is free for the taking. Email it around, print it out, etc.
(no w's) thelibertypoleDOTningDOTcom/forum
Noting that the pro-Obama MSM is probably deliberately asking the wrong question concerning Obama's citizenship, the White House has repeatedly told the MSM that Obama was born in Hawaii. But such a fact deliberately misguides the nation as to concern about Obama's citizenship qualifications to be president.
Again, as Dianna has indicated, regardless if Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama is not a natural born citizen because his dad was not a US citizen. Therefore Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be president.
I didn't read thru all of this cause I have seen similar but if its not in there you should add the fact the even his mother may not be able to pass on status because of her age at his birth.
Looks like your Remick quote disproves your thesis.
ALSO - If Obama was born in hawaii, which I believe he most likely was, the age of his mom is not relevant. He was born on US Soil and is a citizen. Because his father is British, and Obama can claim teh citizenship of another Nation by virtue of his birth, he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. For example, Obama's daughters could apply for and get British citizenship because of their Grandfather.
TonD - I strongly suggest you re-read that quotation. "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." This statement clearly shows that the Status of persons with out both parents as citizens, and born on the soil of a Nation have doubts as to the certainty of their Citizenship status. This is why they are not considered Natural Born Citizens, there is uncertainty present! It was that uncertainty that the founders strove to prevent!
GREAT ARTICLE!!!! Obama is not qualified and it shows hpw corrupt our whole system is that no court has heard this issue.
Everyone should write their congessmen and senators to support HR 1503>>> it gives the FEC the ability to check a candidates qualifications (not just depend on the political party to to verify).
IT IS NOT RACIST TO WANT THE TRUTH AND INSIST THE LAWS BE FOLLOWED.
Excellent post!
Leo Donofrio has been saying even before the election. He has done extensive research and the only legal remedy to remove an usurper to the office of US President is a Quo Warranto proceeding initiated by the US Attorney General, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, or an "interested party".
Google naturalborncitizen or 'Leo Donofrio' for more details.
Tom D, no the Remick quote PROVES her thesis, in Minor it says that the definition of NBC is nowhere to be found IN the Constitution...
however THE 14TH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR 6 YEARS PRIOR TO Minor's holding
therefore any 14th amendment definition of a citizen cannot be a natural born citizen (NBC)!!!!!!
This is critical!!!
Thanks for the laugh. Quoting supreme court justices or researchers or anything other than the Constitution means absolutely nothing. Zero. This was a long winded waste of time that has absolutely no basis in law or the constition. Try again.
The truth will eventually win out. Obama knows the U.S. Constitution, having taught Constitutional law. We've been duped into debating the Kenyan or Hawaiian birth in order to miss the big issue. What is it the magician does? Get you to watch his left hand, while he's performing the trick with the right?
By the way, excellent article.
Excellent article.
Liberty Belle, your ignorance is palpable. When we make the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen, we are quite cognizant of the fact that many will disagree with our argument, but we are also aware that like ourselves there is no single person whom can with any authority define the term natural born citizen. This matter must be legislated either through Amendment or preferably through the courts arising to the level of the United States Supreme Court for a final disposition on the matter. To do any less is to jeopardize the very protections, liberty and freedoms all Americans enjoy as a result of the United States Constitution. To do any less is an affront to our founders with profound disrespect for all that they fought for and accomplished on our behalf.
:Liberty Belle- Keep drinking the Kool-Aid you Obot. The usurper is TOAST!!!!
A good op-ed piece with good research for its purpose, but not news in that it does not cover the opposing views on this, I wouldn't proceed from a particular POV, however well-researched, to presume the interpretation the courts would apply.
Moreover, I think there's a fundamentally simple principle at work. Obama is not the first president born with a parent who was not a US citizen (James Buchanan, Chester Alan Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover, not including Jackson and Jefferson, the former with two immigrant parents and the latter with one (as the grandfathering of citizens post-revolution was established)). Yet courts and interests have continued to not challenge this. Is it really evidence of a corrupt system or is it more likely that the consensus is that it is sufficient to be born here to at least one citizen? I suggest the apparently simple and obvious answer is the correct and answer.
:Liberty Belle- Keep drinking the Kool-Aid you Obot. The usurper is TOAST!!!!
"acerbic - Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when he didn't renounce his U.S. citizenship upon attaining adulthood, because Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship. As usual, no mystery to anybody except deliberately ignorant Birfoons. "
You didn't read the article did you? Obama's citizenship was established at his birth. It established at that time he was a citizen of the US, but because he ALSO held the citizenship of Kenya and Britain, he could NEVER be a Natural Born Citizen.
Thanks for making my point for me, the opportunity to reiterate Obama's status at his birth is one that must be taken over and over again until America gets it.
Liberty Belle, your ignorance is palpable. When we make the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen, we are quite cognizant of the fact that many will disagree with our argument, but we are also aware that like ourselves there is no single person whom can with any authority define the term natural born citizen. This matter must be legislated either through Amendment or preferably through the courts arising to the level of the United States Supreme Court for a final disposition on the matter. To do any less is to jeopardize the very protections, liberty and freedoms all Americans enjoy as a result of the United States Constitution. To do any less is an affront to our founders with profound disrespect for all that they fought for and accomplished on our behalf.
By the way, there's also an interesting article on the notion of natural born citizen at yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Thanks for the link Wilson, I will read this more thoroughly when I have time in the morning. However the first thing that jumped out at me was this quote out of that document: "But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent," qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved."
On a Legal level, in SCOTUS as a specifically decided case it has not been defined. All we have are the facts which were drawn upon by the founders, which is what SCOTUS will use in deciding the case. I will also note that this article was written in 1988, and since that time no case has been brought to be decided on in that time until now.
The fact remains, there is uncertainty in the specific status of the man many are calling President. There is no other side to present. There is only what the founders left us, their sources, the constitution, and the cases decided since then that relate to it. All the evidence points to Obama not being a Natural Born Citi
Liberty Belle: Well since you're a koolaid drooler or probably a paid blogger from Eric Holder's DOJ offices...no facts will matter, except perhaps one...
Your plastic Jesus messiah "mmm mmm mmm" guy even said that both parents must be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen, in S.R. 511.
mmm mmm mmmm
Thank you, Ms. Cotter, for a superb article. I cannot commend you enough for another well researched and documented piece to educate the public about the profoundly important eligibility issue. You are a giant in your field for this valiant and brave use of your expertise, wisdom and talent. I bow to you.
Liberty Belle: Well since you're a koolaid drooler or probably a paid blogger from Eric Holder's DOJ offices...no facts will matter, except perhaps one...
Your plastic Jesus messiah "mmm mmm mmm" guy even said that both parents must be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen, in S.R. 511.
mmm mmm mmmm
This is the most concise summary I have ever read on NBC.
Obama's behavior is that of a guilty man. He has not behaved honorably, but has forced his view of the world on us, as he does in all other aspects of his reign. It is enough that he wants the world to conform to his beliefs; the citizens, the laws, tradition, history, and the Constitution be damned.
He will have the public option. He will own the banks, the car companies, and the media. He will release terrorists. He will stop fighting terrorists. He will abandon our troops in the field. He will raise taxes, break promises, redistribute wealth, and bring our country to her knees. His way or the highway.
King George III lives!
While I agree with the assesment I believe the point is moot now. What are we going to do? Remove him from office? The damage is done, our Republic gets the final nail in the coffin, the American people will either turtle or fight. We shall see.
Dianna, thank you for educating the public with your well researched, intelligent articles. I have become a regular reader. I am spreading the word on my forums, and I look forward to your continued efforts.
While I agree with the assesment I believe the point is moot now. What are we going to do? Remove him from office? The damage is done, our Republic gets the final nail in the coffin, the American people will either turtle or fight. We shall see.
"In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one". Yes there are many people who are born. If we are to infer that it means both parents of all children, why not also infer that since children is plural, it only refers to twins.
None of these quotes consider children of parents with different citizenships. They seem to suggest patrilineal descent only. (As in children take the citizenship of their fathers.) After passage of the 15th Amendment, this is dubious.
The plain words of the 14th Amendment support jus solis. The quote in Minor v Hapersett leaves that open. None of the quotes suggest that jus sanguinis is NOT sufficient, that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil.
Citizens are either born that way, or become that way after birth. Those that became that way at birth are natural born citizens.
Lynn from Texas writes: "We've been duped into debating the Kenyan or Hawaiian birth in order to miss the big issue. What is it the magician does? Get you to watch his left hand, while he's performing the trick with the right?"
Who has been doing this duping? The official line has been Obama was born in Hawaii and McCain was born in the Canal Zone. It's been so-called Birthers who have been trying to call attention to what you're now calling a diversion.
Steinkauler, as quoted in Perkins v. Elg (available online at suprem.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html)
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages."
The young man has German citizenship but he may become president, because he is a native-born citizen of the US (as long as he intends to and does come back to the US, and doesn't renounce his US citizenship himself and intend to stay in Germany.)
David Chesler is absolutely WRONG! Native born is NOT the same as natural born. The article is EXACTLY CORRECT. The 14th & 15th amendments have NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen and do not mention it AT ALL. Yor "children" (twins) reference is comical. If Obama's mother was the foreigner (personally I don't think that would matter) You MIGHT have reason for a discussion, but there is NO DOUBT that the FATHER must be a citizen.
Hey Birfoon kooks, can ANY of you at all ever answer this little riddle regarding a word right there in the Constitution instead of some Swiss novel: why is the word "naturalized" used to describe citizens who were born as citizens of another country and later made U.S. citizens? What is the general, plain dictionary meaning of that word?
What David C. does not point out in his argument of Perkins vs.Elg is that both the parents WERE US citizens at the time of their childs birth. They later moved back to their country with their child but the child was still natural born because his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth and he was born on US soil. Do not let these Obots cherry pick from cases. BTW I see absurdick is posting nonsense again.
"All persons born or [meeting a diff qualification] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and [something else]"
An amendment doesn't have to mention something to impact it. Especially the 14th which was more a clarification than a change.
No evidence or argument has been shown that any court has distinguished between natural born and native born. The Attorney General opinion in Steinhauler as quoted in Elg says born in the USA is enough to be President.
Vattel contemplates jus sanguinis, but the 14th Amendment makes jus solis the law of the land.
If someone is a citizen and didn't get that way after he was born (naturalized) he was natural born a citizen. That's all.
The founders might not have thought it a good idea to elect someone whose parents had foreign allegiance they might have accepted, but that's not what they put into law. (They probably didn't contemplate women or non-whites getting elected either.)
Hey Whiny Little *itch, are you compiling a "Troll List" yet?
Mitch, Steinkauler's father was apparently still Prussian when Steinkauler was born.
Suppose two members of the Chinese communist party come to the US, become naturalized citizens, and then conceive, gestate, and give birth to a child. When the child is one day old they take him back to China, renounce their US citizenship, and bring him up a loyal Chinese communist. The child comes back to the US when he's 21 and through an interpreter (because he doesn't speak English) claims his US citizenship. 15 years later, why wouldn't he be ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (His platform is totally conciliatory to PRC.) A good idea? Probably not, but he'd still be a natural born citizen.
Dianna
Great article! Your on fire!
google Law Professor Dr John Eastman and watch his videos on YouTube.
Absurdick-I don't have to compile a 'troll' list. I didn't whine. I just pointed out how stupid your argument was. Go to court with that one and see how far you get, moron. Now start your whine (like the sound of sheep):
Ohh-bahhh-ma
Ohh-bahhh-ma
Ohh-bahhh-ma
can someone please answer for me why conservatives hate the UN and anything to do with the US following the laws of other nations, but when it comes to Obama's citizenship, all of a sudden, international laws are something we MUST follow?
David,
Using your argument Osama Bin Laden could father a child in some cave somewhere. Ship the mother here to have the baby. Then at age 35 the child could run for president backed by Arab money and an 'in the tank MSM'.
At least in my scenario the parents would have to become citizens (taking at least 5 years) then produce a child who would have to be born on US soil, then yes if he moved back here at age 21, technically at 35 he could run.
Now I ask you which would be more difficult?
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?
I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Mr. Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it?
Mr. Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I'm just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don't think you're disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn't it?
Mr. Davis: No, Your Honor, I do disagree with that.
I believe that it encompasses jus sanguinis citizenship.
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Justice Gray - Wong Kim Ark
The Rights of the Colonists
by Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin
November 20, 1772
All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm."
Mitch, Steinkauler's father was apparently still Prussian when Steinkauler was born.
Suppose two members of the Chinese communist party come to the US, become naturalized citizens, and then conceive, gestate, and give birth to a child. When the child is one day old they take him back to China, renounce their US citizenship, and bring him up a loyal Chinese communist. The child comes back to the US when he's 21 and through an interpreter (because he doesn't speak English) claims his US citizenship. 15 years later, why wouldn't he be ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (His platform is totally conciliatory to PRC.) A good idea? Probably not, but he'd still be a natural born citizen.
Sorry for the dupe. Yes, Mitch, if OBL's son were born in the USA he would be a natural born citizen, and eligible, when 35, to be President. (I'm getting old, I forgot our greatest enemy was OBL and not the commies. Otherwise that's precisely the same scenario, same absurd limit of the assertion.)
The safeguard of course is nobody would vote for OBL Jr nor Mao Jr. And if they would, if we're that far gone, the Constitution isn't going to be much help.
There are plenty of other characteristics that would make someone a really bad idea to be President. (For the record, I thought McCain would have been better than Obama, and I voted for Barr, but I'm not a sore loser about it.)
You tell me, why would OBL Jr be ineligible?
"Go to court with that one and see how far you get, moron"
ROTFLMAO! Have you recently returned from the outer solar system or do you just project a bit, Little *itch? Who exactly HAS been going to court and seen how far they got, moron?
Diana - ask Ken Dunbar the following:
Given the following:
In the spring of 1784, a Englishman comes to America, he meets an American woman in Philadelphia, they fall in love and he marries her that same year. In late 1785, they have a son. In the spring of 1786, the Englishman returns to London for business. He never returns to the US. His wife and son remain in Philadelphia with her family.
Question:
Does the son have dual citizenship?
Is the son eligible to grow up and become POTUS under the grandfather clause, “citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”
absurdick,
None of the cases have been heard on merit. They hide behind 'standing'. I was refering to YOUR argument which was stupid. Like you. Now be a good little sheep and get sheered by Obama.
Diana - ask Ken Dunbar the following:
Based on these facts:
In the spring of 1784, a Frenchman comes to Philadelphia, he loves America, and decides to stay. He becomes a citizen of Pennsylvania per the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 (Section 42)as presided over by Ben Franklin.
Question:
Is the this "naturalized" American citizen eligible to become POTUS under the grandfather clause, “citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”
David,
You shouldn't have admitted you voted for Barr. According to the Fed's MIAC report that makes you a terrorist. Of coarse if you were importing underage girls from South America to be prostitutes Acorn would help you find tax loopholes.
From where I see it the Natural Born Citizen requirement is as divorced from whether the Founders contemplated a POTUS with dual loyalty as the residency requirement. That is, if our hypothetical OBL Jr. runs for POTUS 40 years after he was born, and 20 years after he's been living in the US (he has an apartment in NY and he sleeps in it every night, pays taxes there, votes there, etc.), and folks started saying "He doesn't meet the requirement to be '14 Years a Resident' because his heart was in a cave in northern Pakistan, and the Founders never anticipated someone like this would be elected." I'd be saying the same thing, he's a lousy candidate but that clause doesn't do what you say it does.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!