Mass confusion of Citizenship Rules: Obama is Legit

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by AceWombat04
With that said, if the constitution states, "natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States," (emphasis added) then isn't it even more moot than just not defining what "natural born" means? Since it says, "or a Citizen of the United States," making a distinction between "natural born citizen" and the latter, doesn't that eliminate the necessity of being a "natural born citizen" regardless?

It says "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

The "or citizen" part is regarding people who hadn't been born in the US, but were much involved in politics. You have to remember that some of the Founding Fathers were born in Europe, and others were born in "United States" when it was "British America".

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. So that part was (we must infer) intended for those citizens not necessarily born in America, but involved in its founding, politics, and creation. That would seem to verify the belief that "natural born citizen" means a citizen born in the United States, as the latter is distinguished from it explicitly.

(I'm not saying I agree with it, just so everyone knows, but merely that that's what it appears to mean, lack of SCOTUS ruling notwithstanding.)

[edit on 12/1/2008 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. So that part was (we must infer) intended for those citizens not necessarily born in America, but involved in its founding, politics, and creation. That would seem to verify the belief that "natural born citizen" means a citizen born in the United States, as the latter is distinguished from it explicitly.

(I'm not saying I agree with it, just so everyone knows, but merely that that's what it appears to mean, lack of SCOTUS ruling notwithstanding.)

That is my opinion and understanding as well. At least, I make the same reading as you do, from that.

Also, if you look at for example Section 305 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1405):

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

If you look at those dates, from August 12 1898 to April 30 1900 Hawaii was annexed to the US - so the people born there, were declared US citizens. After April 30 1900, when Hawaii became a territory, they claim that a person was a citizen of the United States at birth.

I believe this supports the idea I have, and you've also reached, that someone is a "natural born" citizen when he or she is born as US citizen in the United States.




[edit on 1-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by Kailassa

Per your request from Article 2 of the United States Constitution.

Clause 5: Qualifications for office
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (September 2008)

See also: natural-born citizen and President of the United States
By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:

natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption)
at least thirty-five years old
inhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States.
The Twenty-second Amendment also prevents a President from being elected more than twice.

So you want to be president? Forget the nerves of steel, the charisma, the skeleton-free closet, the fund-raising network, the thick skin and the legions of loyal folks who agree with your stance on all the issues. Just to get into the game, you have to ask: How old are you and where were you born?

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77.

Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.
These are the only explicit criteria in the Constitution.

Now I've also read on this thread that Congress has "Passed Laws" making an exception, as well as Hawaii passing laws to the same effect......do you not know anything about the U.S. Constitution? NO STATE can circumvent the constitution NONE OF THE 50 STATES HAS THAT AUTHORITY. Furthermore, Congress cannot pass a law circumventing it either. Congress can however create an amendment to change the U.S. Constitution, but then it would have to be ratified (use the above example of the 22nd Amendment). PLEASE, next time pay attention to your American Government Class.


And again, I'm not saying he's not an American Citizen, but if he is not the rule of law applies.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


Supreme Court won't do anything about it unless there is some miracle mass chaos, and unless the people actually care. They'll flat out ignore it otherwise. If you think that's wrong you better start marching, because the opinion of Court will be neutral, whether you like it or not. How could our most principled of institutions not concern itself with such a moral issue? Because application of the law in this case is so fickle they don't give a damn. Besides the implications would be massive. It would be a breach of the balance of power. No, we don't live in an ideal world. Of all the Founding Fathers, I bet only Jefferson would care. And of course, the way he tended to show his concern was by retreating to his mansion Montecello and pretending none of it was happening.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by bosco8161
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States

I don't agree with your interpretation that "natural born" citizen applies to those born abroad, for the simple fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Their citizenship is ruled by Section 301 clauses (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431).

And again, I'm not saying he's not an American Citizen, but if he is not the rule of law applies.

Totally agree. I'm an Obama supporter, but if he were found to have not been born in the United States, then he is not eligible.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by danx]

Danx...



One could not attend schools in indonesia, UNLESS they were an indonesian citizen...


And, you COULD NOT BE AN INDONEASIAN citizen, IF you had any other citezenship...


So... either BO gave up his citizenship, when his mother 2nd husband adopted him...


OR, he was an illigal alien living under a false name in Indonesia...



His best case to make is that he broke no US laws... but only Indoneasian Law...


So, he IS an international Criminal, wanted in Indonesia...


unless of course he is not there, which would likely make him an illigal alien in the USA...


We will see how powerful BO has become...

Can he supercede the Law with the Clinton Media Machine behind him???

He has so far....and only time will tell

Ummmm....I'm a little confused.

We have ATS members, who by the nature of the anonymity of the Internets ("It's a series of tubes!!!")....[a quote from disgraced Senator Ted Stevens (R), AK]...claim to be be Constitutional 'experts'.

Why, oh why do a handful of people on an interent site know more than thousands and thousands of professionals that have already 'vetted' this issue???

My take on the subject (and I believe I have a right to comment...):

A person born in Hawai'i, after that former 'Territory' was welcomed as a 'State', is a 'naturally born citizen'.

A person born in the Panama Canal Zone (not a 'State', last time I checked) but to two US Citizens, on a Military Base...well, he/she is a 'Citizen', of course....but 'natural born'??????

Just food for thought.....the Founders and Authors of our Constitution could not foresee EVERY potentiality. How could they have been able, from their vantage point in the late 18th Century, to imagine the World we currently live in? These were men (face it, they were ALL men who had the power) who were accustomed to a certain form of society, one that they rejected in order to break away and re-start. I'm referring, of course, to the shackles of Britain, at that time....and the Church of England, which ultimately may have helped in the desire to lead the rebellion that spawned the 'American Revolution' in the first place!

Back to topic: As former 'subjects' of the British Empire, these 'rebels' wished to form a better Governmental System (i.e., the Constitution). One way to secure the fledgling democracy was to ensure that no British Royal, or other character, could usurp power....hence the Article to require a 'President' to be 'natuarally born'. (See? This prevented the Brits of the era to come over and sneak back into power....)

I will NEVER relent on the subject of whether or not Pres-Elect Obama is a 'natural-born citizen'...because I am convinced that he is.

However, I DO find the waste of time and electrons to debate the issue amusing, and quite pointless.

reply to post by TKainZero


TKain....your claim that a child could NOT attend a school in Indonesia unless they were an Indonesian citizen....is, well, frankly unsubstantiated!!

TK, you make a statement, but offer nothing other than innuendo...no proof of any kind!!!!

I could say, for instance, that NO child who was not a US Citizen could attend public school in the US....I have no basis for that claim, of course. I just wrote it (and it's patently false) but others who come along and read it may believe it!!!!

reply to post by coven


Actually that does not rule out McCain. U.S. bases are U.S. territory.


I'm not a supporter of the 'Obama can't be president' crowd. I think he's legit. But if you're going to argue, know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by TKainZero
Danx...
One could not attend schools in indonesia, UNLESS they were an indonesian citizen...
And, you COULD NOT BE AN INDONEASIAN citizen, IF you had any other citezenship...
So... either BO gave up his citizenship, when his mother 2nd husband adopted him...

You are making the mistake of only taking Indonesian law into consideration. While in the eyes of Indonesian law people could only have one citizenship (Indonesian), that does not apply to US law.

As it has been pointed out before, numerous times, US does not permit parents to relinquish their (minor) children nationality or citizenship.

If Obama didn't relinquish his citizenship and wasn't even 18 years old to do so, even if Indonesian law permitted parents to do so or through adoption, that was valid in Indonesia, not in the US.

In the eyes of US law he couldn't have lost his US citizenship, unless he was 18 years old and through his own intent and application to relinquish it. And that, as far as I know, didn't happen.

OR, he was an illigal alien living under a false name in Indonesia...

His best case to make is that he broke no US laws... but only Indoneasian Law...

Looking at those Indonesian school papers, I tend to believe Indonesian law was indeed broken.

So, he IS an international Criminal, wanted in Indonesia...

Well, no. First of all, if anyone falsified any papers at that time, it wasn't Obama - it was either his mother or his stepfather.

Also, he would never be an International criminal for that matter, since that was an Indonesian law in particular, not International Law. At most, he could face criminal prosecution in Indonesia.

But it also depends on the gravity of this crime in Indonesia. You also have to take into consideration that after X amount of time, some (minor) crimes lapse. We'd have to look at Indonesian law to figure that out.

But as I've pointed out, I don't think that matters much, because at most his mother or stepfather are guilty of that, not Obama.

Can he supercede the Law with the Clinton Media Machine behind him??? He has so far....and only time will tell

I haven't seen any evidence that he has superseded any US law, or even Indonesian laws for that matter, as he was a minor when he lived there.

Originally posted by avingard
Actually that does not rule out McCain. U.S. bases are U.S. territory.

I'm not a supporter of the 'Obama can't be president' crowd. I think he's legit. But if you're going to argue, know what you're talking about.

You are incorrect. US military bases abroad are extra-legal jurisdictions, and are not subject to civil law. They (US military bases) are also not subject to the 14th Amendment.

Foreign Affairs Manual:

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

Any attorney or law firm can post the questionable statement (as this one you cite to did) that allegedly require the US citizen parent need only have resided in the US for a year--but that does NOT make it fact. Besides, Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii, yet REFUSES to release his vault copy birth certificate, prefering to spend a reported $800K instead on lawyers fighting it in court!?? Sure, that makes since. Oh, and let's not forget that his Kenyan grandmother states she was present at his birth in Kenya.

Finally, the US Supreme Court does not waste its time conferencing en banc (12/5/08) on cases which have no chance to go forward. And has Obama given any thought to the fact that he may be unwittingly be setting himself up for assassination by some unbalanced crackpot who doesn't appreciate having an INELIGIBLE foisted on the US? ALL BECAUSE OBAMA WON'T ALLOW HIS VAULT-COPY BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO BE RELEASED??

Oh, PUHLEEZE....and stop telling people to "get over this". Obama is the one who needs to show his birth certificate or STEP DOWN!! Never have I seen a US President or candidate have such an arrogant and disrespectful attitude to the US Constitution and to the electorate! It is shameful... only an IDIOT would think he has nothing to hide!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ummmm....I'm a little confused.

We have ATS members, who by the nature of the anonymity of the Internets ("It's a series of tubes!!!")....[a quote from disgraced Senator Ted Stevens (R), AK]...claim to be be Constitutional 'experts'.

Why, oh why do a handful of people on an interent site know more than thousands and thousands of professionals that have already 'vetted' this issue???

If its already been "vetted" by thousands of professionals, then why is the SCOTUS looking at it?

reply to post by Evisscerator

SO are you claiming Obama has done one of these expatriating acts?
Do you have proof of your claims? or are you just another posting cutting and pasting only what benefits your view?

Originally posted by Kailassa
You need to do a bit more studying. The change Coven referred to was thoroughly grandfathered in. There is absolutely no doubt that Obama was born an American citizen.

Justia> Law> US Law> US Code> TITLE 8 — ALIENS AND NATIONALITY>
CHAPTER 12 — IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY>
SUBCHAPTER III — NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION>
PART I — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION> § 1409. —
Children born out of wedlock.

- (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Just out of curiosity, Kailassa, is there a reason why you're quoting law pertaining to children born out of wedlock? Do you know something that we don't?

reply to post by danx


"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

People don't seem to read that lines full meaning - or they mis-interpret it for obvious reasons - There has been a lot of that lately, especially with the Bush administration (Cheney)

At the time of the signing of this section and article, only the foreign born American people "at that time" were given amnesty from this Contitutional law.

Not after the fact. From that point on, the law was and is in effect

These people want to blur the line of its Constitutional value as to set up foreign born people like - Arnold - so they can eventually run.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by arizonascott]

reply to post by halfempty



Nov. 27, 2008

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this is no accident. It is being done on purpose with Media help - but to serve whom & why??

MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:

Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA -- Not Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)

Certificate of Live Birth -- Released – Proven Counterfeit (www.ObamaFiles.com)

Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro adoption records -- Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released

Punahou School records -- Not released

Selective Service Registration -- Released – Proven Counterfeit

Occidental College records -- Not released

Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released

Columbia College records -- Not released

Columbia thesis -- Not released

Harvard College records -- Not released

Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

Baptism certificate -- None

Medical records -- Not released

Illinois State Senate records -- None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost (All other Illinois state senators' records are intact)

Law practice client list -- Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

WHY DON'T WE SEE ONE WORD OF THIS IN ANY OF THE MEDIA?

Originally posted by arizonascott
"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

At the time of the signing of this section and article, only the foreign born American people "at that time" were given amnesty from this Contitutional law.

Not after the fact. From that point on, the law was and is in effect

And didn't I say that? That's why I clarified it for AceWombat04, who at the time was reading that phrase and thinking it applied to all citizens of the US, including at present times.

These people want to blur the line of its Constitutional value as to set up foreign born people like - Arnold - so they can eventually run.

You'll have no argument from me that Arnold (and others) can't run for President, taking into consideration that Constitutional clause.

I should also point out though, that in current times I don't think there would be any danger (at least the sort of danger the Founding Fathers perceived at the time) from foreign born US citizens to be able to run for the Presidency. However, for this to happen, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be added.

edit: fixed link



[edit on 1-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by danx


I wouldn't be against it either if there was an amendment - but there would have to be 100% transparency in their past and all documentation verified.

We wouldn't want a sleeper terrorist in the White House

I did not figure my question would be answered by the op.