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.
InformedConsent has a habit of garbling several different anti-eligibility theories into one confused argument. It's not entirely his fault, since he is little more than a mouth piece for the Birther narrative rather than somebody who thinks about it himself. But I wanted to take a moment to tease apart his two most intimately confused arguments. He seems to think they are one, but they are not.
The two theories are:
1. The "Vattel definition" of natural born citizen, requiring two American citizen parents.
2. The ineligibility of dual citizens.
The first argument has already been beaten to death (again) is this thread. Vattel cannot have had any influence over Article 2 of the Constitution, as the inappropriately named "Vattel definition" never existed until ten years after the Constitution had already been framed.
The second argument, though, has nothing to do with the "Vattel definition." How do we know this? We know this because a person can perfectly meet that definition and still be a dual citizen.
Example: The grandchildren of Italian citizens born in this country to parents who are both American citizens are still (under Italian law) Italian citizens at birth.
So, they meet the "Vattel definition" perfectly. They are born on American soil to two citizen parents. One of their two citizenships is natural born American, the other is Italian.
Article 2 of the Constitution tells us what a President must be. It says nothing about what a President must not be. As long as a person is 35 years old, has lived 14 years in the United States, and is a natural born citizen they are eligible. It says nothing about any other citizenships they may hold, and no American law has ever proscribed dual citizens from eligibility as long as one of those citizenships is natural born American.
So it does not matter if President Obama was born a British Subject and/or was later a Kenyan Citizen. As long as he was that entire time a natural born American citizen too, he is eligible.
The question was asked umpteen pages ago as to why BO's application to that college (been so far back I've forgotten the name) which stated he was a "foreign" student, thus eligible for special admission, has anything to do with his birth certificate.
Your memory fails you. There is no evidence that any application President Obama made for any college ever stated he was "foreign student."
That is a complete Birther invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
My question would be "if he is, indeed, a legitimate US citizen then he lied on that application" or "if he did not lie and was a citizen of Indonesia, did he renounce his US citizenship when he was of legal age to do so?"
Since no such application apparently exists, he cannot either be accused of having lied on it or be suspected of renouncing his US citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
One way or the other, IMHO, he was a liar and seems to have committed fraud. Also, IMHO, nothing has changed with him. Many may call it "spin" but I have to call it deceiving which to me is an out and out lie.
The "spin" here is that you have assembled a scenario that rests on the assumption that something happened that never happened. By pretending it did, you are then able to create two scenarios that both make Obama look like a liar. That's not a very hard thing to do.
But since the premise is a fairy tale, the conclusions are worthless.
Not a single of the "suspicions" on which Birthism rests has any evidence in its favor. It is like arguing over whether or not Harry Potter is half muggle or three quarters. Ultimately, you are arguing over a work of fiction.
Yes he did. All three copies were in French and not one of them contained the phrase "natural born citizen" anywhere withing them.
You do realize that Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin 3 copies Of Vattel's Law of Nations in French, right? I've already posted a jpg of the French version containing chapter 19 subsection 12. Read it. It calls for natural citizens to have had citizen parents, and explains why that is necessary.
Quote:
I am getting my info from the original documents, not Birther web pages like you are.
I see... you couldn't help yourself from climbing on the 'bash the birfer' bandwagon. Well... that's what happens when you can't debate the facts. A shame.
I'm getting my info directly from Benjamin Franklin's 1775 letter to Dumas, Vattel's Law of Nations, and the Congressional Record from the late 18th century. You, on the other hand, seem to just be spouting talking points that you've picked up from somewhere.
Even the DNC's own fight the smears website will not state that Obama is a natural born citizen. Think about that.
Quote:
This is another Birther lie that never dies. In point of fact, Arthur's father's status as a foreigner was so well known that he was regularly pilloried during the election as "That son of an Irishman."
That's a specious claim. Since when do the Irish not become naturalized U.S. citizens?
Besides, I've already contradicted that claim. Read Hinman's How A British Subject Became President of the United States. At the time, the objection to Chester Arthur was that they thought he was born first in Ireland, and when that didn't pan out, the claim was shifted to Canada.
Quote:
It is fascinating that you seem to swallow the idiotic writing of Leo Donofrio without regard to his history as a drug user, failed lawyer and insane insistence that he is the "Paraclete" who was sent to earth to announce the second coming of Jesus in the form of a British rock band (I'm not making this up).
I have no idea what you're babbling about, but you sure seem to make a lot of claims. What is the historic significance, how is it relevant, and where are you getting your info?
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
I don't know what would happen, but there is no reason in the world that there should be such a controversy over his citizenship. He could end it, if he chose to. Makes me wonder why he doesn't (same with reference to his college records - why won't he reveal them?) What is there he doesn't want known?
he is following one of the first and best rules of responding to Internet idiocy:
They always accepted the COLB and even said so on the web page. They preferred the long form (not to prove citizenship, but to help prove Hawaiian ethnicity) but always accepted the COLB.
They accepted the COLB, but would then have to follow up with lengthy investigation and verification processes. Interesting how Obama could become president with much less verification than the Hawaiian DHHL required at the time.
Quote:
You are lying again. Not only doesn't the law say that, for them to place a false location in the "Place of birth" field would be a criminal offense.
Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, as proven by his Certificate of Live Birth, to a citizen of the United States, his mother. Title 8, section 1401 of the U.S. Code confers citizenship at birth to anyone born within the U.S.*
Where's the controversy? It seems very clear to me that President Obama is qualified to serve as leader of our nation.
*excluding children of diplomats who are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
And here you prove your total hypocrisy. A few posts before you were splitting hairs between the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen," and suddenly you insist that it's fair game to insist completely different languages are "quite clear" as meaning the same thing.
There is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen. Otherwise, naturalized citizens would be eligible to become president. They're not.
Read the French version of Law of Nations. The meaning is quite clear in French. The requirement is citizen parents. And it explains why.
Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, as proven by his Certificate of Live Birth, to a citizen of the United States, his mother. Title 8, section 1401 of the U.S. Code confers citizenship at birth to anyone born within the U.S.
He's about as natural as Monsanto corn.
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.
bandwagon. Well... that's what happens when you can't debate the facts. A shame.
