Post by Jeff StricklandPost by D. StussyPost by Jeff StricklandThe Constitutional requirement is that the President be natural born in
the
Post by Jeff StricklandUSA, not an immigrant. Immigrants that become naturalized to gain
citizenship are not allowed to become President of the United States, but
if
Post by Jeff Stricklandthey have children that are born here then those children can become
president.
In order to be natural born, he must have parents BOTH of whom are citizens
(they may be naturalized as long as it occured before the child's birth).
Obama Jr. FAILS this part because his father was never a U.S. citizen.
A child, born to immigrant parents AFTER both have naturalized, does
qualify. However, that does NOT describe Obama's situation.
Post by Jeff StricklandSadly, Maria from a dusty shack in Tiajuana can crawl under the fence and
give birth to Pedro in San Ysidro, Calif., and Pedro can grow to become
President of the United States EVEN THOUGH Maria was apprehended for
being
Post by Jeff Stricklandan illegal alien and sent home. She would reasonably take little Pedro
with
Post by Jeff Stricklandher to raise him in Mexico, yet he could still grow up to become
president.
WRONG! Such a child is not a U.S. citizen at all. There is no birthplace
citizenship. The 14th Amendment has TWO requirements, and [illegal] alien
parents fail to meet the second: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
(Legal resident aliens also fail.)
In order for a child to be born a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, he must have
at least one citizen parent (so as to be "subject to the jursidiction" as
it is used in the 14th, per the Congressional record of its debate
prior
Post by Jeff StricklandPost by D. Stussyto
ratification). A child of two aliens born on U.S. soil is an ALIEN, NOT A
U.S. CITIZEN. The alien parents need NOT have diplomatic status for this
result.
Post by Jeff StricklandYou can thank the 14th Amendment for the possibility of Pedro becoming
president some day.
The 14th says no such thing.
Regardless, the 14th states who is a mere citizen. It does NOT state who
is a natural born citizen. There are U.S. citizens at birth who are NOT
natural born citizens (i.e. those who have only one citizen parent).
How does such a clear violation of the Constitutional Requirements go
unnoticed?
It's NOT unnoticed. 30 law suits around the country challenging his
eligibility are proof of such.
Did you really expect a DEMOCRAT-controlled Congress to declare their own
party's presidental candidate as ineligible?
On their nomination forms for 49 states (not Hawaii), the Democrats did NOT
certify that Obama was eligible, as they have done with their candidates in
prior years, and as the Republicans and the other 4 minor parties all did
in 2008. That's because the Democrats knew he was NOT eligible but they
didn't want perjury to be a reason for invalidating the election, so they
chose to omit the statement. With such election fraud uncovered, Joseph
Biden (as co-runner for VP) and Nancy Pelosi (as the DNC convention chair)
would also be removed from office as they were in on it. That would leave
the Senate Pro-Temp, at the time, Robert Byrd, who has since died, as next
in line. Due to his health issues, he would not have been expected to
assume the office. This is why Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State -
because she's next - and was given that job in payment for her silence on
the issue. SoS is the top appointed position in the chain of succession.
Post by Jeff StricklandThere has to be something seriously wrong with your argument, OR there is
nobody anywhere that plays gatekeeper to keep the riffraff out of the Oval
Office.
The ineffective Federal Election Commission and the Electoral College are
the failed gatekeepers. I've already addressed above why Congress failed.
Post by Jeff StricklandI can't imagine that the Conservative Right -- Limbaugh, Hannnity, Beck, et
al -- would spend so much time on issues of Jerimiah Wright and Bill Ayers,
and all of the others IF there was any validity to your claims of what it
takes to be a natural born citizen, and therefore a candidate that meets the
Constitutional Requirements. This would be like nobody opposing JFK because
he was only 34 instead of 35. (JFK put off his run for the Oval Office
because he wasn't old enough.)
Because the left-wing mainstream press had declared that anyone challenging
Obama's eligibility is either racist or a wacko "birther." However, that
does not mean that these people are wrong.
The Constitution itself does not forbid an ineligible candidate from being
on the ballot for an office or from being elected. It only forbids (or
defers) the ineligible elected from actually assuming office until
eligibility is secured. For an underage elected or one who doesn't meet
the residency requirement, once those requirements are met, the elected may
be sworn in. However, "natural born status" is a permanent condition which
cannot be later gained when lacking.
Post by Jeff StricklandWith all of the issues that conservative radio hosts bring to the table in
opposition to Obama, not one of them raises the issue of him not meeting the
Requirements of Office. There is very little love for Obama outside of the
Democrat Party, so if he wasn't qualified through birthright, then one would
think that his detractors would be onboard with the birthright challenges
that you say exist.
See above. Also, the radio hosts HAVE raised the issue in the past.
Although TV, not radio, why do you think Lou Dobbs left CNN?
John McCain admits now that not challenging Obama's qualifications is one
of his biggest mistakes, right behind having selected Palin as his running
mate. However, McCain had his own problem, which was explored and vetted,
and a determination was made that he was (and is) eligible as a natural
citizen under the military exception.
Post by Jeff StricklandI think the only birthright challenge is against the claim that he was born
in Hawaii, because without being born in the USA his birthright to the
presidency does not exist -- for the reasons you think he does not meet the
requirements anyhow.
Even if born in Hawaii, he still isn't eligible. Note that for what
response Obama has given, he merely alleges that he's a U.S. citizen. He
has NEVER said that he's a natural born U.S. citizen, and even if he had,
most people do not seem to understand that there's a difference.
A birth certificate is NOT proof of citizenship. Although it may record
the names, birthplaces, etc., of the parents, nowhere is the parents'
citizenship(s) recorded. Birthplace alone is not sufficient for
citizenship under the 14th Amendment. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means
having at least one [U.S.] citizen parent. Jurisdiction doesn't mean just
"territorial control" as it does in civil law or criminal procedure. It
means the ability to assert control - e.g. compel conscription by military
draft. A country can legally draft only its own citizens, and that example
is why "jurisdiction" means having a citizen parent. See the Congressional
Record regarding the discussion of the amendment for details.
Proof of citizenship is as follows (simplified version - not 100%
accurate): If one is not himself naturalized, one must recurse through
one's ancestors until finding: 1) a naturalized ancestor, 2) an "original
citizen" - one who was a permanent resident of the 13 Colonies on the date
of ratification of the Constitution, or 3) a citizen of a state on the date
it is admitted into the union (Article IV, Section 2). Of course, any
ancestor renouncing their citizenship before having children would not
count. Such is the only way to know that one has U.S. citizenship at
birth - to prove a chain of citizenship back to one of those. Out of that
list, only an "original citizen" could be President (per the grandfather
clause of Article II, section 4).
Obama, if proven to be born in Hawaii*, was a U.S. citizen at birth --
because he was born in country to a citizen parent. However, he will never
have "natural citizen" status because his parents had differing
citizenships. Under the laws of his alien parent's country, Obama Jr. is
ALSO a citizen of Great Britain (3 years later converted to Kenyan), and is
thus a dual citizen, not a natural citizen. Then there's the mess with
international adoption laws that changed his citizenship when his
Indonesian step-father legally adopted him. Per Indonesia, his new
country, Obama Jr.'s U.S. citizenship was surrendered as Indonesia does not
permit dual citizenship at all. When Obama returned to the U.S., he
committed immigration fraud, declaring that he was [still] a U.S. citizen
when he wasn't, but even if he had regained U.S. citizenship, he'd be a
naturalized citizen now because any "natural born citizenship" status he
might have had was lost by the act of adoption. No matter how one looks at
it, Obama is not now a "natural citizen" of the U.S. and is therefore
ineligible.
* - The alleged "Hawaiian CoLB" is either a forgery or improperly
prepared(**) and thus void, as it contains no attestment section on its
face as required by defintion of a certificate. Regardless, some people
look at the law behind the document and note that such a document can be
issued for children NOT born in Hawaii as long as a parent can prove
Hawaiian residency for the year immediately preceding the birth. People
("birthers") have challenged this because they note that if he was not
actually born in Hawaii as claimed, his mother lacked sufficient age to
pass her citizenship and thus Obama Jr. was not a U.S. citizen at his birth
(whether solely or in combination with other citizenship(s) he may have
had). If not born a U.S. citizen, his "natural born" status need not even
be examined.
** - Would you accept a diploma (a special type of certificate indicating
completion of a level of education) with a signature on the back? Of
course NOT. We all know that valid certificates (regardless of type) are
signed on their face.
All of this has been repeated ad nauseum in the political newsgroups for
the past two years. If you can't pay attention, then STFU.