LOL … it won’t get past first base in headed to the courts.

That is *exactly* the advice that I would give you. Honestly, I wish you were correct simply because I would *like* it to be that way. But it is not!

;’{)

To quote the relevant paragraph

“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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Thus reliance upon this case would be erroneous as the Court declined to discuss the issue finding the question answered without going further.

Thanks. I suspected as much. Your expansion on the citation makes my point quite clear.

;’{)

Bob,

For the most part I agree with a lot of your positions. To be perfectly clear and keep this on track, I was talking about Marco Rubio.

“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.”

I’ll trust you on the citation. I have no reason to doubt it’s veracity.

From your article:

“Rubio’s parents came to America from Cuba sometime between 1956 and 1959 (the exact date is in dispute) and became naturalized U.S. citizens in 1975. Rubio was born May 28, 1971.”

I am assuming that your line of reasoning here is that because they were not citizens at the time of his birth, Rubio, regardless of whether he was born on the soil of this country or not, cannot be a natural-born citizen. The flaw with that logic is simple: The language of your citation is inclusive, not exclusive. In other words, if his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, there would be no doubt as to his status as a natural-born citizen. The full citation may have more to say than that, but you have not given me that, so I can only speculate that it does not say anything stronger than this. What you have given me does not exclude a child born of legal aliens here on our soil at the time of their child’s birth. Even were this one particular citation to somewhere else in the body of what it says to exclude all others from being considered natural-born citizens, it is a lone citation, certainly outweighed by years of fairly consistent rulings that those born on U.S. soil, including those so called Anchor Babies, are considered to be natural-born citizens. Were the Law to be written that defines this differently, in line with what you desire to interpret the law to mean, I would agree, since the Constitution itself does not define natural-born citizens in its body.

Thank You Sir,

Mel

The 14th does not define natural-born citizens per se, you are correct. However, it only includes two categories, and natural-born citizens must be one of these two categories to *be* citizens, per the clear language here. It is fair to argue that this does not specifically address natural-born citizens, but absent law (that has not been repealed) that defines natural-born citizens as not being all citizens born here in the U.S., it is also fair to argue that the Constitution itself does not exclude that possible (and currently accepted) interpretation.

At this point, the Law rules. You cannot argue that Constitutionally, Rubio could not be President, and therefor could not be Vice President. You can argue that it is questionable, but not Unconstitutional. And I don’t think the Law defines him as a citizen, born here in the U.S., who is *not* a natural-born citizen. That Law would make it illegal for him to be President, were such a Law to exist. But it does not!

Thanks,

;’{)

Unclearbrook;

You must be a Lawyer, or you sound like one with a mouth full of Bull Crap. lol!

I am unaware of such law. got a cite? (FYI…the Constitution is not legal statute nor is it “law”.)

Coal miner…David from MA didn’t read the link

If about.com says so it MUST be true.

I wish liberals woukd think instead of react.

It gave references which you may want to read…

Obama was born in the 60s. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and a territory before that.

How do you know Obama was born in the 60s since he has never provided an independently verified legal birth certificate?

What part do you not understand? According to your “interpretation”, never recognized in any court…Jackson, Hoover, Wilson, Jefferson, Buchanan and Arthur are all invalid presidencies.

Like I said…you want to be public with the fact you’re a prime candidiate for a room with padded walls? Such is your Right.

Jefferson was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified making his presidency legit. Read the Constitution before you try to tell those of us that have what it says.

Ok…for sake of putting your mind at ease…now how about Hoover, Jackson, Buchanan, Wilson, Arthur? You’re stating, for public reading, that 6 out of 43 Presidents were illegally holding the office. More than 15%. is that correct using your “interpretation” ?

Flashy writes:

“Ok…for sake of putting your mind at ease…now how about Hoover, Jackson, Buchanan, Wilson, Arthur? You’re stating, for public reading, that 6 out of 43 Presidents were illegally holding the office. More than 15%. is that correct using your “interpretation” ?”

Since Arthur is the ONLY one other than Obama I do not understand your math. Living in another world perhaps?
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

In 1875 the US Supreme Court ruled: A “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born whose parents were both American Citizens, before the child was born. Obama’s Father was NEVER an American citizen, his Mother Denounced her citizenship after she married Obama’s father and move to Kenya. Rubio parents became American citizens after Rubio was born. Romney’s parents were both American citizens before Romney was born. Neither Obama or Rubio are qualified to be President. Romney is. Obama should be impeached, but the Republicans want follow the Constitution anymore than the Democrats on mater, because they want to run Rubio for the Office of Vice-president and/or President. The internet is free (for now)look it up.

case name?

Dear Gary,

(And Flashy)

Minor v. Happerset (1875)
“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.”

Best wishes,
Bob

Gary…Romney may talk about his parents being “immigrants” from Mexico but they were not…BOTH were US citizens, born to parents that were US citizens. They were living in Mormon colonies in Mexico and came back to the US when the Mexican Revolution started.

While Romney’s father WAS born in Mexico, he was born to TWO US citizens and both his sets of grandparents were also US citizens.

Same reason Reagan had his sealed. And almost every modern president has had theirs sealed.

So you’re proud calling yourself a “birther” knowing people snicker at you behind your back (if not to your face) and mothers take thier child by the hand and walk a bit wider around you? Whatever floats your boat …

Do you also diss Clint Eastwood for talking up America?

are you in grade school? we are talking about more than college records. and, your childish playground jabs show your true intellect — that and your liberal left-wing rantings…. pathetic

Naw…I did my time in grade school a few decades ago. Quite honestly, with me…and everyone I know without exception that I’m aware of, will honestly state a Birther who “believes” is a person who is a few fries short of a Big Mac Deal.

Flash, the snickers are all at yr own expense, I assure you. Yr one of the geniuses that thinks stealing from others to give to someone else is “good”. Then go live in Europe or Greece. they’ll show how ell that works.

Actually Vic…when the crisis hit full bore, Europe tried the policies which are suggested for be implemented here in the US. worked well for them didn’t it? As they rely on us to be the engine to bring them out of the mess they dug deeper?

NotaDemAss writes:

That fact still being, he has not put forth the mandatory documentation that is not faked.

And the faked one clearly shows he is not eligible cause one of his parents is NOT a U.S. Citizen at the time of his claimed birth.

Here is a nice long primer on the subject of natural born
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

For the record, Chester Authur did hide the fact that his father was not a legal citizen of the United States. I can not remember where I read this but it may be easy to look up. Authur’s father became a citizen of the US in Authur’s 3rd year of his term.

Mr. Livingston, my disclaimer was not for amusement. It was to ensure complete understanding that in my opinion, you are fully aware what you write.

Thank you for doing deeper research into the parentage of past presidents. Some you have cleared up, others remain clouded as to whether in the very questionable interpretation you put forth(one which I believe incorrect and without any court precedence) their presidencies were valid.

I did forget to add Taft to the list. There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.

As to the impact today, I would proffer that if the prior presidencies were never overturned, especially Taft since it was his administration which brought us the 16th Amendment, the correct interpretation is that which court after court in this land have upheld. That being under the recognized requirements for the presidency, Pres. Obama and Mr. Rubio are both eligible for the office.

As you will note, I have since the time I was erronoeusly accused of having several names posting here, studiously avoided calling into question the accuracy of the Commentators ‘facts’ used in their articles. However, if you read of anything I state as fact and such is erroneous, please feel free to correct such. I have no problem with having correct facts. Will you also be making such corrections for the others as well ?

Thank you.

Respectfully

Flashy

flasher, I understand your pain at being corrected, but I don’t understand why you think Ohio residents wouldn’t become citizens upon Statehood. That’s how it worked for the other States, up to and including Alaska and Hawaii.. Dear “desperatately wanting to appear as a learned flasher” please advise. Give me a link that says Ohio residents would not become citizens upon Statehood.

From what I know, apparently Ohio was never ratified as a sstate. this was discovered in the 1950′s, and Congress passed a retroactive ratification. Thus, in theory, people born in Ohio before the 1950′s were not ‘citizens’ nor ‘natural born’ since Ohio was, technically, not a state.

I assume if i am in error, I will be corrected soon hereafter.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/explanation-ohio-statehood.phtml

Thanx liberty. The Ohio argument was told to me by someone who claimed the Income tax wasn’t legit.

Ohio may not have been a state, but it was a territory and therefore part of the US.

So he was a citizen. However….(now we get to “natural born” etc argument)

“There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.”
Flash . . . Ohio wasn’t a state . . . then it was a Territory . . . what Country was the territory in Flash? I would sugest it was in the USA . . . isn’t critical thinking and logic wonderful . . . LOL

Not arguing that point Dale. But we then have to ask…was Taft a “natural born” citizen as per the requirements of office? I could make a better argument Taft was ineligible than Rubio or Obama.

Ohio was a State beginning in 1803. Taft was born in Ohio in 1857.

Flashy says:

Not arguing that point Dale. But we then have to ask…was Taft a “natural born” citizen as per the requirements of office? I could make a better argument Taft was ineligible than Rubio or Obama.

This should be fun. Make your case flashy. Be prepared to show your work.

Flashy writes:

I did forget to add Taft to the list. There is a slight problem with Ohio being a state in that apparently statehood wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1950 something. Since Taft was born in Ohio, and in theory was not a state at the time of his birth…he wasn’t a “natural born”.

Let us propose a scenario in which ohio was not and is not a state of the US. Let us further propose that this land called ohio is not and never was a territory of the US. Let us further propose that Taft was born in this very same land. (called ohio).

In the above scenario Taft is STILL natural born because BOTH OF HIS PARENTS were citizens at the time of his birth.
—————————————————————–
NBC William Howard Taft (1909-1913) Born: September 15, 1857 in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Father- Alphonso Taft was born in Townshend, Vermont on November 5, 1810.
Mother- Louisa “Louise” Maria Torrey was born in Boston, Massachusetts on September 11, 1827.
—————————————————————-
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

Vicki…i did some quick research last night. the argument that Taft was ineligible for the office since he was not born in a state has been used as basis for fighting the Income Tax. he signed the bill sending the amendment to the states for ratification…thus, that is the argument.

Flashy writes:

Vicki…i did some quick research last night.

Too bad you didn’t share with us your research.

Read both. Now please explain how Venus is applicable when the question wasn’t one the Court addressed. Explain it in the next case you cite because the Court explicitly stated it was not going to touch on that subject.

Thanks

No actually if it was a Democrat and he or she was willing to build a damn fence and rid this country of all illegals and actually have a SPINE and lock them all up before he gives them a bus ticket (one way) home then I wouldn’t care if both of his parents hadn’t been citizens at the time of his birth.

Do you understand the difference between “NATIVE BORM” & “NATURAN BORN”? Apparently not—–go to your room!

“NATURAL BORN”

Yea…C-Section babies are OUT OF HERE !

OK Dave…i gotta ask. Do you think the words ‘native born” would have been used back then, especially within the framework of “natives’ referring to the Indian populace?

Or are you of the opinion the drafters sthought of a distinct meaning between “native born” and “natural born”? Today they may have a slight, very slight, connotation of difference. But back then?

How’s this…find anything in the writings of the period which refer to “native born” used in a different context than “natural born” in the same document or subject.

For flashy (and others) A primer with lots and lots of references.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

Thanx Vicki. It was very humorous. I even printed it out to display to firends that yes indded, there are unbalanced people walking around thinking they have a grip on reality ….

How can you possibly think this? His PARENTS were not citizens at the time of his birth you dolt

To Sue and Everybody else:
Look lady, for the last time Marco Rubio and Obama are native born citizens. Also, Obama’s mother along with grand parents and great grand parents are native born citizens for 3 generations. Therefore,
Obama is a native born citizen. Again, with Marco Rubio, he was born in Miami, Fl. in 1971. Granted his parents were applying for citizenship but he was born on this soil. Thus, this constitute he’s a
native/natural born American citizen eligible to run for president. Thanks!!
P.S. If you’re going to attack Obama, then attack his policies not faulty propaganda that he was “born” elsewhere. Have a good day!!

Dear Tony,

Your saying that natural-born and native-born are the same does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it, or how rudely you try and make your point.

Neither is a natural-born citizen as understood by the Framers.

Best wishes,
Bob

To Tony, The Constitution does not say “native born citizen”‘, it says “natural born citizen” and there is a difference. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, “natural born” refers to persons born to parents (plural) who are citizens (also plural) of the United States.

Has the SCOTUS defined the terms to be different? Is there anything from the beginning period showing the term “native born” to be used in any manner ?

BTW…when did the term “native born’ start being used to differentiate from ‘natural born”? The last year or so?

Dear Tony. Proof by bald assertion does not carry much weight in this group.

Flashy asks about the supreme court and its opinion/use of the term “natural born citizen”

“If a person was born in the U.S., of a non-citizen parent, Supreme Court has consistently referred to such person as a “native-born citizen”, never as a “natural born citizen”. Whenever the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents. ”

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

For Tony. The above blue is a cite to backup an assertion. Try them. They are fun.

To Mr. Livingston:
Sir, i don’t want to get into an unpleasant debate with you but you’re going to have to get in touch with reality. As sybucket put it, this bizarre claim that Obama or Rubio aren’t native or natural
born citizens make conservatives look nuts. In general, this sounds like a plot from the book/movie “The Manchurian Candidate”. Basically,
i re-emphasize, be in touch with reality. To beat Obama, concentrate
on his policies, not some paranoid fantasy. Thanks!!

HO TONY.
THE GRANDPARENTS DO NOT MATTER ITS THE PARENTS THAT COUNT… BY THE WAY HE HAD GRANDPARENTS ON HIS FATHERS SIDE ALSO, THEY WERE NOT AMERICANS. HAVE SOME MORE KOOL-AID…

Tony says:

To Mr. Livingston:
Sir, i don’t want to get into an unpleasant debate with you but you’re going to have to get in touch with reality.

Following up a bald assertion with an ad hominem. Nice. Not very useful but it is entertaining.

As sybucket put it, this bizarre claim that Obama or Rubio aren’t native or natural born citizens make conservatives look nuts.

Argument to ridicule. Another infamous fallacy. And apparently deliberate attempt to confuse by equating native with natural when used in the context of born citizen.

In general, this sounds like a plot from the book/movie “The Manchurian Candidate”. Basically,
i re-emphasize, be in touch with reality.

A return to ad hominem with a smattering of argument to authority.

To beat Obama, concentrate
on his policies, not some paranoid fantasy. Thanks!!

And back to ad hominem.

So what facts do you offer to justify your position that Obama is a natural born citizen within the context of the Constitution? We have shown our work now you show yours.

Vicki…source please? I’d like to read the reference.

reason i ask is the link stated what you pasted, but has no supporting SCOTUS cases where such was used to differentiate. A quick LawScan search turned up zip.

Dear Tony,

You are locked into a false paradigm. You have been conditioned to believe that the government and the media would never lie to you and that they don’t have their own agenda. I understand that escaping from conventional wisdom is a difficult task, and to some, very frightening. There are many layers that must be peeled away before you find the truth, and each layer reveals frightening and uncomfortable realities. I have presented you with the truth. You can choose to see it, or you can choose to ignore it. However, you cannot refute it so you resort to ad hominems.

Best wishes,
Bob

Flashy says:

The reason i ask is the link stated what you pasted, but has no supporting SCOTUS cases where such was used to differentiate. A quick LawScan search turned up zip.

Your lawscan search may have failed due to the bad side effects of having data online.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

Actually, Brian, under the current opinions, the President of Mexico’s child would hold dual citizenship…Mexican and US.

IT’S N O T AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP!!! It’s ” United States ” Citizenship! Speaking for America… “DOESN’T Make you a UNITED STATES Citizen!!! [ STARS & STRIPES is NOT “THE” AMERICAN FLAG! { It is (1) ONE of the AMERICAN FLAGS!!!You will learn that before you get your Citizenship LEGALY!!!

“Maybe you should find something better to do with your time than bashing other true Americans”

Errr…jim. hate to be the one breaking this to you, but he wasn’t bashing other true Americans..he was bashing anti-Americans and America haters. y’know…the ones who constantly drag down all that is great about this country?

Those dissing on Clint Eastwood for talking up America etc ?

You’re not a typical American, Flashman. You’re a liar, a thief, a slanderer, a plagiarizer, and probably many other immoral things that I don’t yet know about. You represent the Liberal Class well.

Ask me to prove those, Flashman.

DaveH you could couldn’t carry Flashy’s jock in a debate! You pay him the highest compliment YOU fire every bad title you can think of at him!!HE OWNS YOU!!!

NC…”he own’s you”? LMAO…yeah, right and so do you…ROFLMAO! I guess he owns Mr. Livingston too…LMAO again!

Do you ever post under the name “denisso”?

DaveH shows his true colors slandering not just one person but an entire group of the population he happens to dislike and disagree with.

HAY SUE
DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS, OBUMMER AND HIS TEAM ARE FIXING THEM SO HE WILL LOOK BETTER FOR THE ELECTION, JUST DO NOT TRY TO CHECK THEM OUT. HELL IN ONE MONTH THEY WENT FROM 9.5 TO 8.2, ALL IT TAKES IS A PENCIL TO LOOSE A FEW MILLION PEOPLE FROM THE WORK FORCE… A DOT HERE A COMMA THERE WALAAAA …

LOL vic!!

THAT’S a big BINGO!

I have been away for a long time,and have just returned,but nothing has really changed here. It’s the same old irrational rantings of small diseased minds.As for Mark Rubio,he is well qualified to be president of these united states,because he was born on United States soil.The Consitution says natural born,nothing about citizenship of parents.If I came from another country legally with my pregnant wife and she gave birth our child would be qualified to be president of the United States.And Mr Livingston you should know better than to keep this nonsense going. You’re turning out to be nothing more than a propagandist and a fraud. What you’re doing doesn’t make good dialogue it’s poisoning the atmosphere. I am sure you can do better.Have a pleasant day.
Debo.

Dear Debo,

You are correct that the Constitution says natural-born. In your example, your child would be native-born, but not natural-born. There is a difference whether you choose to see it.

Best wishes,
Bob

One of the very interesting things I find in the liberal argument is the claim that natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. There are a LOT of phrases in the Constitution that are not defined yet the liberal seems to use them without question. Why the focus on this particular phrase, which was well understood by the writers of the Constitution. So well in fact that they could not conceive of citizens devolving to the point of asking what the meaning of “is” is.

The founders were aware that an educated electorate was required to keep liberty.
“1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) “…wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government…”[5]”
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-education

Bob L.: Natural: Born Refered to English Decent… ( The Makers of THIS Government.)
Native: Born of the Indian Tribes Before We got here!

Mr Livingston.
We’re quibling with words.Whether natural born or native born you’ve got to be born in the United States in order to be president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and he ran for president. How is it that Obama who was born in Hawaii a US state isn’t qualified to be president according to your reasoning? I think you guys make things up to suit your biased agenda. There is no way in hell that Obama could be president if he wasn’t born in the United States of America. So from a rational person to another (I think you’re rational) please stop the birther nonsense, it’s embarrasing.
Peace.
Debo.

Dear Debo,

You write: “We’re quibling with words.” Words are very important. They have a certain meaning that, while it may evolve over time, cannot be changed on a whim.

You write: “Whether natural born or native born you’ve got to be born in the United States in order to be president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and he ran for president.” Yes, McCain was born to two American citizens on a U.S. military installation. Congress determined it was, essentially, American soil. But no matter, if you read the excerpt from the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent acts, he would have qualified regardless of his place of birth.

You write: “How is it that Obama who was born in Hawaii a US state isn’t qualified to be president according to your reasoning?” I believe I explained this in the article and in subsequent posts. If it is still not clear I suggest you reread them.

You write: “There is no way in hell that Obama could be president if he wasn’t born in the United States of America.” You have much to learn about how the power elites operate. When the DNC submitted its official certificate of nomination it sent one with different language than all that been used previously. The phrase that the candidates for president and vice president are legally qualified was removed. For a detailed summary go here: http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DNCConspiracy.htm

You write: “So from a rational person to another (I think you’re rational) please stop the birther nonsense, it’s embarrasing.” The so-called “birther nonsense” as you describe it is important. I take the U.S. Constitution very seriously. What is embarrassing is that you and so many Americans don’t.

Best wishes,
Bob

There is a formal process to renounce ones citzenship, and one must be of legal age to do so. It cannot be renounced for you. Second, having lived in Indonesia I can tell you I am aware of children attending school that were not citzens and they did so without issue.

The baby is Moroccan if the laws of Morocco says s/he is (as we do in the U.S.) Dual nationality, dual allegiance. I wouldn’t be real happy with a baby born in Morocco of Moroccan parents (naturalized U.S. citizen) who lived in Morocco for his/her first 15 years and educated in a Madrassas. Now you would think that such a candidate would be found out and eliminated (by vote) but we know from experience how a charismatic candidate might hide records and history to prevent us from knowing him/her. I know it’s unlikely but the parallels to our current usurper-in-chief make it a frightening possibility.

Paul . . . very few countries in the world bestow citizenship for the Accident of Birth . . . the US still does . . . large mistake and needs to be changed now!!!

My son was born in Morocco (on a military base) – and at age 18 had the choice to “pick” his citizenship. Seeing as he had only been there a few months of is life, and loves our country – our USA – he had no problem “picking” – but had one hellava time getting his birth certificate from the government so he could continue working here!! He hadn’t left the country since we returned stateside in 1976.

Thats part of the issue but Obumma has produced an incomplete faked Hawaiian birth certificate and then he produced a SSN from Connecticut, where he was neither born and NEVER resided. The # is from someone who was either born or died in 1890. Now how could that have happened??? (Sarcasm)

Hmmmm now it’s being claimed Pres. Obama’s SS# was one given to a person who died in 1890? Sorry, difficult to keep up with the birther arguments. I’d ask the same question since a person who died in 1890 wasn’t alive to receive one when they were issued. So yeah, good question since SS #s weren’t given out until 45 years after the dead person died. Now how do you suppose THAT person got theirs? ZOMBIE ATTACK !

Flash . . . I think that should have been 1980 . . . wasn’t that about the same time he switched from Sowetoro to O’bammy?

Vic, if you can “prove” what you “know” you can get a gig on Hannity and the President kicked out of office! Otherwise your ignorance is hanging out!

Sorry…but if you have any sources that say in this country the child is determojed to have descended from the father’s lineage and the mother’s lineage is inconsequential, please let us all know.

Same as you, custon & tradition.

Like the wife takes the husbands name as do the children….seem simple to me, your relying on a religious application.

Ummm…my wife, and many of her friends, kept their maiden names and/or hyphenated them. My daughter chose my name, but uses both interchangeably. I know she has bank accounts in both names.

What you view as ‘custom and tradition” isn’t necessarily so across the land. There is a world outside of your city block y’know.

Sorry, not all women take their husband’s name anymore. I am deleting this account, I don’t like being exposed to such ugliness and the hatred of God’s children. Whether you like it or not, Obama is our President, get over it.

Bye bye Susan. Don’t go away mad, just go away. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

“determojed”?
And that from a guy who attacked my literacy yesterday? Unfounded, of course, as are most of Flashman’s statements.

Actually DaveH..I didn’t attack your literacy. I merely pointed out the article you linked from the Cato institute was one you appraently did not read…most likely because it had words of more than two syllables.

That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.

As for my typo’s? They are typo’s. Live with it.

“That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.”

Fact? Flashy you only post opinions based on your opinion or to make simple enough for even you the only “facts” you ever have exist only in your head.

“That’s a statement of opinion based upon fact.”? Yep, you’re another one who believe his opinions are facts…I beg to differ…I know you have a difficult time seperating the two but just so I can be of help…just for you Flashy.

opinion -
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

fact -
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth

2. something known to exist or to have happened

At least two Supreme Court cases reference the term “natural born citizen”. The Venus, 8 Cranch 253 case of (1814). In this case the court references a well known legal text Nattel’s Law of Nations. In Book 1, Chapter xIx, Paragraph 212, Nattel states that for a person to be considered “natural born”, the parents (plural) must be citizens (plural). Moreover, he goes on to state that a childs Father must be a citizen, to be considered “natural born”. The other Supreme Court Case is Minor v Happetsett of (1875). In this case the Court states that “natural born” means a person who’s parents (plural) are citizens (also plural).

here is a list of 4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts

None identified. the article is mostly garbage

Prove it smilee! Why don’t you post some sources and not be a butthead? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Necee may not be Jewish or Israeli.

ROTFLMAO!

And you would be ruled out in count of stupidity

Shut up, liberal idiot.

How did a homosexual muslim get elected! He isn’t “natural-born” AND has “boyfriends!”

And, third, he is an illegal!

Professor;
Hell now thats an easy question to answer, We don’t have a POTUS we have a CEO.

Therefor a CEO need not be natural born.
This also applys to anyone on the Board of Directors – aka – what we all call the Congress.

See its a simple case of Ocam’s Razor. The DC Act of 1871 was where we went from a “Common Law nation under the ORIGINAL Constitution” to a “De Facto form under Lex Fori Law,” now also under UCC MT law.

Thus we don’t have a Government we have a Corporation and all of you were born into “SERVITUDE” to that noted Corporation based on the 13th and 14th Amendments.
As well, we are all NOW due to the DC act of 1871 – the Original Constitution & Bill of Rights don’t apply to you.
We are no longer SOVERIGEN, nor are the States where you live.
In plain words you are a SLAVE to the United State’s and always have been.

Please do yourself a really big favor, take some time Google;
Bill Foust Youtube feeds, please just sit back and learn.
You may also want to google the Season of Treason 1 & 2.

Learn when the problems started and you will have the keys to fix the Problem or like so many others just keep doing the same old stupid things over and over again, by the way so just how well is that working out again? $16 Trillion and the money just keeps on blowing down the road.

All of you Have a nice day.

…

Hmmmm…maybe you’re on to something. And maybe the reason America is ceasing to exist as it was is because a foreign anti Christian religion has crept in unawares, called JUDEO Christianity, which for all intents is ZIONISM with a different name.

Amen!

Ahhhh… the Anti-Semites chime in! Hate to break it to you Nazis, but there is no “Christianity” with out the Jews and the Old Testament of the Bible, when you get down to it. And, no I am not Jewish, just understand the simple truth of the Bible – “…first to the Jew then the Gentile”, ever wonder why?

““…first to the Jew then the Gentile”, ever wonder why?”

Ummmm, because it was realized there had to be someone that paid full priced retail ? LOL

Just checked to make certain. You must have an abridged vrsion. I did not find anything stating “Obama is not a “natural born” citizen”.

Flushy, obama is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, now you read it, so get use to it, DAH !!!

Says you. And just to let you know….you don’t count. Until you can get a SCOTUS ruling saying otherwise, I’ll stand with the common understanding AND practice observed for 200+ years applies. You’re born in this Country on this soil…you’re a naturally born citizen.

This includes both Sen. Rubio and the Pres.

Which SCOTUS ruling would you like flashy? Here are several:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts

HO FLASH YOUR LOVER BOY OBUMMER SAID IN ONE OF HIS EARLY SPEACHES HE WAS BORN OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. KENYA HAS A BIG SIGN THAT SAYS WELCOME TO THE BIRTH PLACE OF OBUMMER, HIS GRANDMOTHER WHO IS IN KENYA SAID SHE WAS IN THE ROOM WHEN HE WAS BORN OVER THERE. AND ONLY HIS MOTHER WAS A CITIZEN NOT HIS COMMIE LOVING FATHER…
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY HE EVER GOT IN THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT TO START WITH. A PERSON SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE THEY CAN BE A IN THE RACE BEFORE THEY CAN RUN….

Vicki..read the cases. ’nuff said

Kelly, ask the ACLU! They know more about the US Constitution than any body here by a hundred yards!! They are experts!! Check their record!

The ACLU only studied and study the Constitution to distort it. How difficult can that be for you to understand?

Even as the take on right wing causes ? or is that when they read it ‘correctly” ?

Nadzieja, Sean Hannity, Ollie North, and Rush Limbaugh surely appreciated the ACLU’s liberal “distortion of the Constitution” when the ACLU came to their aid to SUCCESSFULLY defend their Constitution rights. OBVIOISLY THE ACLU DOES NOT ASK YOUR POLITICS!!!

NC
no one distorts the constitution more than these three

Wrong smilee. The Atheist Communist Looney Liberal Union is the worst. Remember its founder set out to destroy or warp the Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Homeschoolingvixen, Isreal is a whole nest of Jews! Ask them how they determine who is a Jew!! Christians don’t get to say what’s right about everything! Even American Christians!

What are you babbling?

…because that’s is all NC ever does…but at least he/she’s not yelling…yet…

Well at least it’s good to know all the anchor babies being spit out here these days can never be president.

JimBob,
I am merely paraphrasing the words of Obama’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski.
I support Orly Taitz quest for the truth concerning Obama’s eligibility.

To Bad a Judge in Ga doesn’t agree. (and Indiana)

Neither court has agreed to anything except to allow discovery to go forward. These cases are going nowhere, this has happened before and got to the SC and they refused to hear it

Michael,

You may want to explore Orly Taitz. Look at the Martindale Hubbell.

Bob, where is your proof docu was fake?

Dear clarence swinney,

A number of experts in typography and photoshop have testified in court and/or been quoted saying the document Obama presented as a copy of his long-form birth certificate is a forgery. If you choose to look at their evidence it is pretty obvious it is a fake, and a bad one at that.

Best wishes,
Bob

You don’t even have to be an expert to tell that the LFBC is a forgery. The white halo around the text that keep the pattern of the security paper from reaching the text show the alterations. The whole point of the pattern in security paper is to show altered text.

The forgery is so bad that it is difficult to believe that it was not done intentionally to see how gullible the public might be.

Everything about Obama bin Laden is a fake. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

(offensive comment removed)

We’ve been skirting around the issue for to long. Both parents must be citizens of the United States before the birth of their child. Then and only then may He/She run for the Presidency of the U.S. Obama has always been ineligible. Rubio and Jindahl are also.

WRONG!! Both Obama and Rubio are eligable to be president and despite all being said here nothing will change that

Wrong answer smilee and Sue is right. Both parents must be native born U.S. citizens. Sheesh! Don’t know your Constitution. Of course, you libtard never know anything truthful. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Cannot help but wonder ,,,did obama’s hatchet men get to the Judge in GEORGIA OR PERHAPS HIS FAMILY WAS THREATENED….WE KNOW OBAMA IS A FAKE BUT NO ONE IN WASHINGTON SEEMS TO CARE, JUST THINK HOW WE COULD DESTROY ALL OF HIS ACTIONS IF CONGRESS OPENED THEIR EYES TO HIS FAKE DOCUMENTS. NOT ONE STUDENT CAN REMEMBER HIM ATTENDING COLLEGE. HE WANTS TO BE KING OF THE NEW WORLD AND THE MEDIA OR CONGRESS WANTS TO HEAR THIS AND IF HE IS REELECTED WE COULD HAVE A REVELOUTION IN THIS COUNTY. HIS VACATION COST 4 MILLION…DID HE PAY FOR THIS…IS HIS EXPENSE ACCOUNT AUDITED…THE FED RES NEEDS TO BE AUDITED TOO

Bob’s “proof” of intent is nothing of the sort.
“…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
First, this says noting about both parents, and this is clearly a definition for cases where the child was born outside of the U.S. but retains his/her citizenship.

Mark are, I’ll vote for Lech as long as he promises that, if elected, he will stay away from the Republican Party Platform. We have been wrecked by that least one too many times!2001-2008 but I’m not calling any names!

Not as bad as from 2009 to the present. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

As I read it BOB, it says ‘citizens’ which is plural which means more than one.
In other words, it MUST mean mother AND father and not only one of them.
That is how I read it anyway.

Would not the plain understanding of the use be referring to the thousands of citizens.

I ask two questions…the reference would read as if the plural was used to mean the many overseas traveling around the globe. Use of the singluar would imply there weren’t numerous travelers. using the plural may be including all and meaning one of the many.

Or … have you considered the writing style of the period and what was common usage in writing back then ? languages do evolve. Try reading Shakespeare in the original, and such was 400 years ago. The passage of two hundred involves a vast change in writing, speaking, and use/definition.

Languages may “Evolve”, but if you read it as it is stated, the meaning is still there, and is still just as clear as it was written over 200 years ago. Both parents have to be citizens of the United States for the child to be considered a natural born citizen. Don’t try to complicate it by trying to change the original intent to match your own twisted version of what the constitution is saying.

Don’t forget that women at that time (1780) did not have many rights. Thus it was the father who passed citizenship to the children. Using that as a template, neither Obama or Rubio would be eligible.

“Don’t try to complicate it by trying to change the original intent to match your own twisted version of what the constitution is saying.
” <—USAF

You mean like what the Radical Right, GOP and American Taliban (as well as the Birthers) try every day?

Flashy, I’m taking a shot(at you)here but what USAF means is don’t try to confuse the readers with your Marxist/Alinsky doublespeak! The regulars here have been on to you for a long time and the newer readers tend to spot your “Marxis community organizer” tactics fairly quickly. You’ve got no cedibility here or haven’t you noticed?

He was not “children”, either– he was only one child. Come on you guys, don’t you understand English?

Bud I have researched this subject extensivily and what ai have found is that his mother must have lived in the US for 5 years past her 16th birthday in order to convey citizenship to her son. the fact that she was only 18 when he was born prohibits her from doing this. It has been awhile since I read this but it is in the contistution.
hope this helps you form an opinion one way or the other and better yet piques your interest to research on your own.

have a good day

Thanks fellow vet

Is that all we have to say other then what is good for the country. Marco is beging to sound like Trump. Or maybe marco has some bones in the closet of his past

The reason the founders used “natural born” (born to US citizen Parents) was they did not want the president to have any connection or loyalty to a foreign nation. They wanted the president loyal only to the USA. Anyone with a foreign citizen parent could be led to support the foreign nation over the USA.

I have said for a long time, that if Rubio really cared for this nation, he would come out and say publicly that he will not consider being VP or president because he is ineligible because his parents were not US citizens when he was born. He can continue to serve this country in the House or Senate.

Why would he say that when he is by any sane stretch of the imagination, qualified and eligible for the office?

We are discussing facts here flashy, not your imagination.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts

Why would he say that?? Because, by definition, he is not qualified to be President. He is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Wake up Flushy, methinks you need some real edification.

What a joke your referral is, it lists four SC Cases and identified none; the rest is all commentary and no facts

You’re the joke smilee. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Why do the Libs have such a hard time understanding simple language? Rubio is ineligible to be VP or President. What is so difficult to comprehend?
All the childish “but I want to be” does not change the Constitution and Rubio should bow out gracefully from such presumption.

Well Nad…perhaps when the right stops trying to say Blue is Red, and Green is yellow…we can begin discussing compromises and move this nation forward. until the right does have that moment of lucidity, it’s just best they go sit in some corner and complain, get out of the way and let America get down to repairing the damage wrought the past 30 years.

The big R party has been compromising on the constitution for far too long. It is time to stand up for the constitution against people like you.

Christy, Rubio has said that he was NOT eligible to be president. He said that he was born in this country, but, it was before his parent had become citizens! Neither of his parents were Americans, they were “foreigner,” when he was born…so, what is hard to understand about that!

Rubio can be a citizen, he just cannot be president!

Dear Bud Tugly,

First, citizens plural. Second, Obama’s mother was a minor and unable to transfer citizenship.

Best wishes,
Bob

The purpose of the “natural born citizen clause” was to confer citizenship on the freed slaves. The clause would fail in its purpose if it required the parents to be citizens, because prior to the 14th amendment no slave could be a citizen. (Dred Scott v. Sanford.) Moreover, some of the slave parents were born outside of the United States. Later cases applied the provision to persons other than freed slaves and their children. These are classic examples of decisions that construe the Constitution to carry out the intent of the framers. (Here, of course, the framers are the the congress of 1866 who wrote the “natural born citizen” provision.)

Dear Michael Willemsen,

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with whether a person is a natural-born citizen.

Best wishes,
Bob

Dear Gwynne Chesher,

Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the conversation.

Best wishes,
Bob