Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fact #1 - Obama senior was a British subject at the time of Barack's birth. Under British law, that automatically made Barack a British subject too. The question remains, can a British subject possibly be confused with being a natural born US citizen, eligible to be President of the United States? The answer is absolutely not.
At least the following presidents were also born as citizens or subjects of other nations and held dual citizenship until their deaths: Tyler, Taft, Arthur, Truman, Eisenhower, FDR and JFK. Kennedy was a triple.
There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that would prevent a dual citizen from being President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Our founding fathers fought the revolutionary war against the British empire to free us from British rule. They drafted the constitution, and made specific and exclusive reference to "Natural Born Citizen" as one of the criteria for eligibility to be President of that new United States of America, so as to preclude a foreign agent from taking the highest office. But that criteria also states that the president not only must be a "natural born citizen" but also stipulates that he must owe no allegiance to a foreign power. Clearly, being a British subject violates that criteria too!
Ignoring that "criteria" is plural, what "criteria states" that? Exactly?
It's considered bad form to just make up bull****, you know?
"A ‘birth certificate' and a ‘certificate of live birth' are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words.
One officially confirms and records a newborn child's identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth' is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate' is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt.
If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver's license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth' and a 'birth certificate' and one should never be confused with the other."
George Romney's circumstance being born in Mexico, with both his parents being US citizens has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and his situation of being the product of his Kenyan born father who was by law, a British subject at the time of Barack's birth.
mexico also grants citizenship to children born outside the country to mexican citizens ( jus sanguinis ). george romney was a mexican citizen therefor mitt gained mexican citizenship at birth.
not sure exactly how you see that different then obama's situation.
"A ‘birth certificate' and a ‘certificate of live birth' are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words.
One officially confirms and records a newborn child's identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth' is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate' is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt.
If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver's license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth' and a 'birth certificate' and one should never be confused with the other."
according to 2011 donald romney has not proven his place/date of birth.
This is simply untrue on so many levels. My Ohio BC says "Certificate of Live Birth," but it includes a lot of the details the birthers would want -- hospital in which I was born, time of birth, attending physician, etc. For my two sons born in Indiana, however, I received a "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes no more than the information we've seen for both the president and Romney. And you know what? It was good enough to obtain passports.
He hasn't found anything, old things that have already been proven. I'd live in a idiocracy if more then about 20% of people thought the way that you do right now.
Maybe I do, maybe I don't.....
Well when they start irrigating the crops with brawndo you will know.
It's good that he's getting it out of the way. It also draws a sharp contrast with the way Obama handled the release of his birth certificate.
Yeah, it's so very, very different. Obama released HIS COLB in June of 2008, five months before the election. Romney releases HIS COLB at the end of May, 2012, five months before the election. Where's the sharp contrast?
Oh, yeah, the birthers still haven't accepted Obama's COLB, nor his long form, nor the birth announcements published in the paper, nor two separate Hawaii officials from both political parties verifying the certificates. But Romney plunks down his COLB and everybody is satisfied.
You're right, there is quite a sharp contrast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
