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.
Obama nor Rubio nor Jindal is constitutionally-eligible
First, let me state (to the many who have not researched the issue as much as me or others):
Neither Barack Obama(D), nor Marco Rubio(R), nor Bobby Jindal(R) are constiutiionally-eligible to serve as POTUS.
So, as you can see, I'm not a Democrat nor Republican operative. I'm a Constitutional Conservative.
Both of the two major parties in the U.S. do not want to discuss the issue of natural-born citizenship because both sides have 'golden boys' who are not constitutionally-eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS).
The presiding legal definition of 'natural-born citizen' is not found on a political hack's blog, a left-leaning newspaper's article, Wikipedia, a city or county judge's ruling, or even in the Constitution.
The presiding legal definition of 'natrual-born citizen' was put forth by the 1875 United States Supreme Court.
In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court stated both the definition of 'citizen' and the definition of 'natural-born citizen'. They are different. The Supreme Court said that a 'citizen' is merely defined as a resident of a country, while a 'natural-born citizen' is someone born in the US to TWO US citizen parents. (a later Supreme Court also ruled that any baby born out of the US, but to at least ONE US citizen parent, carries over any US citizenship status as if the baby was born inside the US.)
1) Therefore, even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he is only a 'US citizen' and not a 'natural-born citizen' because his father was never a US citizen and he therefore doesn't meet the "two US citizen parents" requirement set forth by the 1875 Supreme Court.
2) IF Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, then the post-1875 Supreme Court ruled that he gets to carry over whatever citizenship status as if he was born in the US, which is simply 'US citizen' (since his mom was a US citizen) and NOT 'natural-born citizen.
So however you slice it, Obama is only a 'US citizen' and not constitutionally-eligible to hold the office of President.
This is the same situation for Republicans Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio since while they may have been born inside the US, their parentS were not US citizens at the time of their births.
Now you see why neither of the two major political parties wants to address this issue. Hence, Obama hasn't been impeached or removed by the Supreme Court, and many Republicans are touting Marco Rubio as a great pick for Romney's VP.
Feel free to find copies of the Minor v. Happersett and US v. Wong Kim Ark rulings online to confirm my statements.
First, let me state (to the many who have not researched the issue as much as me or others):
Neither Barack Obama(D), nor Marco Rubio(R), nor Bobby Jindal(R) are constiutiionally-eligible to serve as POTUS.
So, as you can see, I'm not a Democrat nor Republican operative. I'm a Constitutional Conservative.
Both of the two major parties in the U.S. do not want to discuss the issue of natural-born citizenship because both sides have 'golden boys' who are not constitutionally-eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS).
The presiding legal definition of 'natural-born citizen' is not found on a political hack's blog, a left-leaning newspaper's article, Wikipedia, a city or county judge's ruling, or even in the Constitution.
The presiding legal definition of 'natrual-born citizen' was put forth by the 1875 United States Supreme Court.
In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court stated both the definition of 'citizen' and the definition of 'natural-born citizen'. They are different. The Supreme Court said that a 'citizen' is merely defined as a resident of a country, while a 'natural-born citizen' is someone born in the US to TWO US citizen parents. (a later Supreme Court also ruled that any baby born out of the US, but to at least ONE US citizen parent, carries over any US citizenship status as if the baby was born inside the US.)
1) Therefore, even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he is only a 'US citizen' and not a 'natural-born citizen' because his father was never a US citizen and he therefore doesn't meet the "two US citizen parents" requirement set forth by the 1875 Supreme Court.
2) IF Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, then the post-1875 Supreme Court ruled that he gets to carry over whatever citizenship status as if he was born in the US, which is simply 'US citizen' (since his mom was a US citizen) and NOT 'natural-born citizen.
So however you slice it, Obama is only a 'US citizen' and not constitutionally-eligible to hold the office of President.
This is the same situation for Republicans Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio since while they may have been born inside the US, their parentS were not US citizens at the time of their births.
Now you see why neither of the two major political parties wants to address this issue. Hence, Obama hasn't been impeached or removed by the Supreme Court, and many Republicans are touting Marco Rubio as a great pick for Romney's VP.
Feel free to find copies of the Minor v. Happersett and US v. Wong Kim Ark rulings online to confirm my statements.
So we should purge the records of the previous Six Presidents that would not also be Legal according to the above?
I would suggest that if you believe your arguement is correct that you submit it as a case and if and when you make it to the SC you will find out if they still agree over a hundred years after the orginal ruling, it is the ONLY way you will ever get your wish, otherwise, get used to the idea of Four More Years of President Obama
First, let me state (to the many who have not researched the issue as much as me or others):
Neither Barack Obama(D), nor Marco Rubio(R), nor Bobby Jindal(R) are constiutiionally-eligible to serve as POTUS.
wrong.
the "2 US parent" theory has been shot down multiple times in court. from ankeny v daniels:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
obviously they disagree with your assumption that US v wong kim ark excludes those born in the US to foreign parents.
as for minor v happersett, it specifically states that it's not giving an exclusive definition of "natural born citizen":
"Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be citizens at birth. 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 citizens at birth, 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 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."
the courts have also rejected multiple cases which have claimed minor v happersett gives an exclusive definition of NBC.
i also give you william rawle, contemporary of the founding fathers, george washington apointee and constitutional scholar:
" Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges."
First, let me state (to the many who have not researched the issue as much as me or others):
Neither Barack Obama(D), nor Marco Rubio(R), nor Bobby Jindal(R) are constiutiionally-eligible to serve as POTUS.
................
1) Therefore, even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he is only a 'US citizen' and not a 'natural-born citizen' because his father was never a US citizen and he therefore doesn't meet the "two US citizen parents" requirement set forth by the 1875 Supreme Court.
2) IF Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, then the post-1875 Supreme Court ruled that he gets to carry over whatever citizenship status as if he was born in the US, which is simply 'US citizen' (since his mom was a US citizen) and NOT 'natural-born citizen.
if obama was born in hawaii in 1962 (hawaii became a state in 59 but was a us territory since 1898) then he is a natural born citizen....and qualified......end of story
if he was not born in hawaii (all indications show he was born in hawaii) then he is not qualified
if he was not born in hawaii (all indications show he was born in hawaii) then he is not qualified
in that scenario ( and speaking completely hypothetically ) it would be uncertain if obama would qualify. under the laws of 1961 US citizenship would not have automatically transfered to obama IF his mother ( at her age ) was married to his father but would have transfered if his parents weren't married. you then get into the confusion over if obama sr was legally divorced from his first wife when he married stanley ann. also, when the citizenship law changed it was made retroactive but would that affect NBC status?
...when the citizenship law changed it was made retroactive
False
"For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.)"
my mistake ( i don't get vigilant with my fact checking when discussing hypotheticals ). but my statement still holds true if the mother is unmarried ( and was in the US for 1 continuous year prior to the birth ).
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.
Obama nor Rubio nor Jindal is constitutionally-eligible
