John passes muster, does Barack?

[Dep D]

Just a little something to ponder...



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292901

[retired]

Just a little something to ponder...



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292901

Isn't that just more "birther" nonsense that has been beaten to death?

[Dep D]

Isn't that just more "birther" nonsense that has been beaten to death?

No, President Obama was born in Hawaii. That is settled. He was born on US Soil to an American Citizen mother, and a British Subject father.

He was a co-sponsor on a bi-partisan Senate resolution that declared Senator McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because both of his parents were "Americans Citizens" even though Senator McCain was born in Panama.


Leahy's statement was specific on the issue of U.S. parents.

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not," he said then.

I'm just saying if President Obama thought it was pertinent to ask the question of someone else, and sign off on a Senate Resolution on the question, then he wouldn't mind if we had a discussion on his eligibility on the same matter.

To be fair they could be linked, but a different question.

[DAL]

I read this (why I wasted my time I don't know).

The resolution says that McCain is a natural born US because he was born to parents who were citizens of the United States. It does not say that only someone whose parents are citizens of the United States are natural born citizens.

If P then Q does not equate to if Q then P.

WND has succumbed to (or perpetrated) a very basic fallacy of logic.

[DAL]

Isn't that just more "birther" nonsense that has been beaten to death?

"We saw an example of that this week, when the birthers' spokespeople quickly pivoted and insisted that the president was not a citizen because his father was a Kenyan immigrant. There is no constitutional or legal support in any serious quarter for such a view, but that doesn't seem to matter to the invincibly convinced."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...wed+Stories%29

[Cyber_Saint]

"Natural Born" doesn't mean that you have to be born in the U.S. It means that you have to be a US citizen at birth. You don't need to be born in the US to become a US citizen at birth.

[Dep D]

I read this (why I wasted my time I don't know).

The resolution says that McCain is a natural born US because he was born to parents who were citizens of the United States. It does not say that only someone whose parents are citizens of the United States are natural born citizens.

If P then Q does not equate to if Q then P.

WND has succumbed to (or perpetrated) a very basic fallacy of logic.

DAL,
I agree, except the assumption by the bi-partisan panel was even though you are an American Citizen; you must meet a certain criteria.

If not, why investigate what “Natural Born Citizen” means for Senator McCain unless you believe he doesn’t fit the/a/one/many criteria.

For Senator McCain who was born in Panama with parents who were American Citizens, the litmus test by the bi-partisan committee for determining if Senator McCain was a “Natural Born Citizen” was although he was not born on US soil, both of his parents were American Citizen’s so therefore Senator McCain was a “Natural Born Citizen”, and eligible to run for the Presidency.

That answers only one of many groups of American Citizens by US Senate Resolution.

What about the many other groups.

Born in the US with only one native born US Citizen Parent.
Born outside of the US with only one native born US Citizen Parent.
Born in the US with legal immigrant parents.
Born in the US with illegal immigrant parents.
Born in the US with two naturalized US Citizen parents.
Born in the US with one Naturalized US Citizen parent.
Born outside of the US with one Naturalized US Citizen parent.
Born outside of the US with two Naturalized US Citizen parents.

Although the framers did not define a “Natural Born Citizen” they did put in a clause of who could not be the President of the US.

Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution;
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Why did they only want “Natural Born Citizens” and not just “Citizens” (except at the adoption of the Constitution) to be eligible to become President?

I’m not saying President Obama isn’t a “Natural Born Citizen.”

I’m not saying President Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.”

What I’m saying from my reading is just because you are born on US Soil does not make you a “Natural Born Citizen.”

I’m saying President Obama and whoever runs for office post 2008 may have to deal with this question.

I don’t know if a US Senate Resolution has the weight of law such as legislation.

Maybe Senator McCain was not eligible. I don’t know.

This link about the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” brings many components together and makes it clear as mud.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Natural-born_citizen

[JasperST]

You have to be on guard when you read anything from World Nut Daily.

[SRT936]

You have to be on guard when you read anything from World Nut Daily.

Exactly. WND has become the home of the lunatic fringe. They've never met a conspiracy theory they didn't love over there.

[DAL]

[QUOTE=Dep D;2739471Why did they only want “Natural Born Citizens” and not just “Citizens” (except at the adoption of the Constitution) to be eligible to become President?[/QUOTE]

Because the framers wanted to ensure that the person owed his loyalty to the U.S. rather than a foreign power. A 60-year-old who moved to the US at the age of 45 and became a naturalized citizen might still have loyalties to another country.

Nothing in the Constitution is spelled out in detail.

[DAL]

Just to give an example of why this whole argument is frivolous:

In the Southwest, pregnant Mexican women frequently cross the border to have their babies in the U.S. It is widely accepted that those children are U.S. citizens, even though both parents are Mexican. That being the case, how could anyone argue that a person born in the United States is not a citizen because one of his parents is a foreigner?

[SRT936]

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

'Nuff said.

[SRT936]

Then you support birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Doesn't really matter if I support it or not. It is the current law of the land and therefor applicable to the argument at hand.

[DAL]

The Arizona birther law would have challenged that. I guess JT Ready and russ Pearce consider him an Anchor Baby

Why doesn't Arizona just outlaw the federal government? At the very least, it should enact a law requiring that any presidential candidate be a conservative.