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.
I don't understand the American system..when Obama..was running - Hillary was one of his competators...THEN - Obama gains office...and THEN appoints Hillary as head of state - It made it look like a facist system - with out real competion - as if the reps and dems were one happy family. In my personal opinion...I don't like blindly ambitious politicans..who seek status and fame - I like those that serve the people..and those are rare these days - I don't see that in Hillary - I just see ego.
No the Constitution says nothing of the sort. The Constitution says:
Natural born citizen = you are a US citizen at birth. Under the laws that existed when Barack Obama was born, one parent needed to be a citizen and he had to be born in the USA. His mother was a US citizen before he was born. He was born in Hawaii. So he is a natural born citizen.
The rules have since changed. It was always true that if you were born outside the USA to two US citizens, you became a US citizen at birth. But they've changed the rules that existed when Obama was born. If I'm remembering correctly, if either parent is a US citizen, you inherit citizenship from them no matter where you are born.
Supreme Court is the ruling authority on the Constitution, both parents must be US citizens..to hold the office of President..totaly different for US citizenship
Supreme Court is the ruling authority on the Constitution, both parents must be US citizens..to hold the office of President..totaly different for US citizenship
Please cite the specific Supreme Court ruling where it was determined that both parents must be US citizens.
Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth
Obama and his lawyers fought the case up and until the case went to trial then Obama refused to show any documents or show up for court date, this says a lot about the man.
Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.
Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “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 thatall children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
Hilary has publicly stated that she wants to return to private life and has no intentions of being the Secretary of State for four more years, nor run for public office. I'm not sure why people have a hard time grasping this.
I agree; I've posted a link twice, and people still don't get it. Plus, there are all of these inane and off-topic posts; that makes it hard to have a discussion about the actual subject of the thread.
Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “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 thatall children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
That's a lot of posting and you've yet to actually provide the ridiculously simple thing I asked you for. Specifically which case was it where the Supreme Court ruled that "natural born citizen" = "born in the USA to two US citizens." I'm beginning to have doubts that you know what you're talking about.
You see, if you provide me with the specific Supreme Court case, I can double-check your facts. Linking websites is disingenuous at best as they are almost certain to be massively biased in favor of your point of view.
I'll chew my own arm off before voting for Barack Obama this year, but I will defend his right to run for the office of President because he does qualify, is a natural born citizen and has the right to run for that political office. I will happily admit defeat if you can provide something of substance to prove me wrong. You have not done so.
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.
