Constitutional Scholar Defines What A Natural Born Citizen Is To Be President (Obama, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio Don't Qualify) (Sanders, states)
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.
From Obama's own campaign website 'Fight The Smears'.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Read that last sentence. It says 'That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
the same act governed his children as far as ENGLAND...under ENGLAND rules IF they chose to be part of ENGLAND
obummer was BORN IN THE USA , to a US CITIZEN (his mother)...he is a natural born citizen...there is NO ARGUNG THAT POINT
take it from this retired First Sergeant...you are barking up the wrong tree sarge
he is a natural born citizen , just by being born on US soil ...even if both parents were illegal (ie anchor babies)
his MOTHER was a citizen, he was BORN INTHE USA...therefore BY LAW and BY CONSTITUTION he is in fact a natural born citizen
Where in the Constitution or federal law does it state that children born to foreign citizens are natural born citizens? I've already posted historic evidence that such is NOT true.
There is no "allegedly" here. IT is a FACT, that Obama was born in Hawaii. This is confirmed and that makes him a Natural Born Citizen.
According to the 14th Amendment, he really shouldn't even be a citizen. According to the WKA decision, he is a citizen. However, there is no Amendment or law that indicates he is a natural born citizen because he isn't. The problem: he was born subject to a foreign power. The DNC readily admits that fact.
A child born in the US is not subject to any foreign power unless the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation. They are (as made explicit in the 14th Amendment) "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
False, as the DNC has already admitted. They clearly stated that as his father's child, Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Where in the Constitution or federal law does it state that children born to foreign citizens are natural born citizens? I've already posted historic evidence that such is NOT true.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S.
"""The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens""". rep John Bingham 1862
"""our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic"""
In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759–1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799), wrote that
""""The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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 appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us""""
Court decisions
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on "natural-born citizen". The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[35] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question
A campaign website isn't going to spend numerous paragraphs to explain a very complex subject. No one is denying that he COULD have been a British Subject per the British Act of 1948. What we are saying is that Obama II had the POTENTIAL to become a British Subject. Unlike the website, and you, British Law requires of those born outside its borders to subjects/citizens of Britain, to FORMALLY accept British citizenship by the age of 21 (and go through a background check, a moral character check, take the citizenship ceremony oath, and pay a fee), and FORMALLY RENOUNCE any other citizenship they may hold. Since Obama II didn't do any of the above, he never was, and never will be a British citizen, in the LEGAL sense, recognize sense.
False.
Quote:
Children who have automatically become British citizens do not need to register.
""""The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens""". rep John Bingham 1862
Bingham also stated this on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham was correct. Obama's father (a British Subject) owed allegiance to Great Britain since his birth status was governed by the British Act of 1948. That right there means Obama Jr. is not a natural born Citizen.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S.
"""The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens""". rep John Bingham 1862
"""our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic"""
In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759–1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799), wrote that
""""The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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 appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us""""
Court decisions
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on "natural-born citizen". The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke[1844],[35] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S.
Obama's parents weren't citizens. Only one parent was a citizen. The DNC already admitted that Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
The other quotes and opinions you copied and pasted do not laws or Amendments make.
More than one law has opined that ONE parent is all you need to be a Natural Born citizen but don't let that stop you.
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.
A campaign website isn't going to spend numerous paragraphs to explain a very complex subject. No one is denying that he COULD have been a British Subject per the British Act of 1948. What we are saying is that Obama II had the POTENTIAL to become a British Subject. Unlike the website, and you, British Law requires of those born outside its borders to subjects/citizens of Britain, to FORMALLY accept British citizenship by the age of 21 (and go through a background check, a moral character check, take the citizenship ceremony oath, and pay a fee), and FORMALLY RENOUNCE any other citizenship they may hold. Since Obama II didn't do any of the above, he never was, and never will be a British citizen, in the LEGAL sense, recognize sense.
