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.
how about this - hawaiian officials VERIFIED his birth certificate. holy cow.
do you think they were lying?
The evidence doesn't matter. Only their goal does. Their goal is to de-legitimize Obama's presidency. You could have a videotape of Obama's birth with a clear unmistakable background of Hawaii behind him and it wouldn't matter. They'd just argue that it was faked and so on and so forth.
Now that the evidence for him being born in Hawaii is insurmountable, many have moved on to new "defintions" of natural born citizen such as a natural born citizen means both parents had to be US citizens at birth and such.
Honestly except for a few TRUE idiots, I believe that most of them know that their arguments are bunk. Its kind of like how when a couple divorces and you're fighting over custody of the children you say and make up whatever you need to do to make the other parent look bad even though you don't actually believe what you're saying to be true.
The Media and Obamabots are for Obama what Goebbels was for Hitler.
What you say is gibberish..the founders wanted the father to be a US Citizen or become one..there is no way around it.. all you do is spin..Obama is not a natural born citizen based on his father..the founders said nothing about the mother..stop spinning..the drafters of the 14th admendment made it clear..it is the father gives natural citizenship to the son..and he must be or become a US citizen..Obama's father is a temporary guest...that's all.
Obama is not qualified to be President based on the intent of the Founders. You cant change it...by..Appeal to Belief or Appeal to Popularity.
You do not know what the "founders" were thinking. All you do is spin. One does not get citizenship solely through the father in the US. There is nothing in the 14 th amendment that says what you claim.
"Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of America and another country?"
"YES -- in many cases."
"If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life."
Obama had dual citizenship at birth in Hawaii.
Because the occurrence happened at birth, then he was not a natural born citizen, because natural born citizens are not bi-citizenual.
Just like a citizen born homo-citizenual is not a natural born citizen.
Neither are the trans-citizenuals natural born citizens.
"Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of America and another country?"
"YES -- in many cases."
"If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life."
Obama had dual citizenship at birth in Hawaii.
Because the occurrence happened at birth, then he was not a natural born citizen, because natural born citizens are not bi-citizenual.
Just like a citizen born homo-citizenual is not a natural born citizen.
Neither are the trans-citizenuals natural born citizens.
Of course, I may me kidding about some of this.
"Natural born citizen" and "dual citizenship" are not mutally exclusive conditions. We have already had three (count 'em) presidents who were "dual citizens" by such definition. Plus Bobby Jindal, whose parents were citizens of India when he was born, is being touted as the great hope for the Repubs.
But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. "2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject."
"At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. [b]The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington."
There is nothing of the sort of that drivel in US law.
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.
