Obama still hasn't proven his citizenship

Post Reply New Topic

Or born on US-Ships, Army-Bases, etc.: Which can lead to multiple citizenships: Think about a child of German mother and an Italian father born on an US-Ship in a French harbour.

as long as you have one us o n parent or are born in us o na that pretty much slams dunks it

It is more for practical terms: If you want to work or study in Europe for a while, a passport of an EU-member-state is most helpful. Having multiple citizenships can make live much easier.

Obama was born to a US citizen, his Mother, she was as white as Wonder Bread and from Kansas. So even if he was born on the Moon, he is a US citizen. It is as simple as that.

If he was born on Mars to Marvin the Martian, and his mother was from Casper WY, and she moved to Venus when he was two, he is still a natural born citizen of the United States.

It was in fact John McCain that was born outside the US.

End of Story.

And then adopted by a Jew from the UK married to a Russian.

BTW: There are some Jews in the US which are not aware that they can claim the German citizenship without loosing their US-citizenship. Art. 116 of the German postwar constitution stipulates that anyone or the offspring thereafter how lost his German citizenship under the Nazi-regime by the Nazi-policy can claim his citizenship back.

I bet a lot of German Jews lost their trust in the Germany government for good.

Let's talk about practical terms: If you are an Israeli or US citizen and you like to start a job or study e.g. in the UK or France than you will have a lot of paperwork. If you have a second German passport you are EU-citizen and the privileges of Title 2 of the EC-Treaty apply, so the British or French Authorities had to deal with you in almost every case like with a born Briton or French.

It's true. Obama's mother, a white midwestern American, secretly snuck off to Kenya to give birth to her son, probably because they have a better health care system.

Ok...the Constitution only allows American-born citizens the right to be President (as stated above)

Now think; you have the Republicans, who have tens of millions of dollars, thousands of employees, access to all the law-enforcement and medical records (they were running the government at the time).

They tried everything, both legal and otherwise, to derail his presidential campaign.

Now, if there was one shred of evidence that he wasn't and American citizen, they would have been on him like white on rice (as we say down here). He wouldn't have gotten very far past New Hampshire.

So, despite the paranoid fears and fantasies, since he did make it through the whole process, he must be an American citizen.

...and that's all I'm gonna say about that - Forrest Gump...

"Natural born citizen" is never defined in the Constitution, and is thus up to the interpretation of the courts.

It is likely that the current state of affairs in the United States, and the world, will be taken into account -- as well as public opinion (as the courts have no power to enforce their decisions; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia ). With the highly integrated international community and the general public opinion being that most all people wouldn't care if the president was born in Canada, so long as he or she was a citizen for the vast majority of their lives and\or, most importantly, that they have the welfare the United States at the top of their list of priorities.

Another note: The context in which the "natural born citizen" clause was added into the constitution:
"One possible source of the natural born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787, from John Jay (who was born in New York) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." (Underlining in the original)[7] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention."

Yet another note: Back in July 1776, there were about 2.5 million people living in the colonies. (2005 population from unpublished data; 1776 population from Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970.)

--The context is obviously such that the founders, in a time when the American population was very small generally sparse, did not want, say, 3 million immigrants flooding their country and seizing power from the wealthy white upperclassmen. At least, not before they had the chance to import 4 million whites from Europe with some incentives

Perhaps we had to dig a bit deeper: The terms of the early US-law was influenced naturally by the English legal system of this time. The English/British law has, opposite to most other countries, has still no strict doctrine of an unified citizen ship. Older laws, like the Confirmation of Liberties of 1405 spoke only about "all the King’s liege People and Subjects". On the other way around there were restrictions to some of "the King’s liege People and Subjects", e.g. those from Wales (till the Laws of Wales Acts under Henry VIII). When in 1701 the House of Hanover (via Sophia of Hanover) had been the "Royal House in Waiting" (they came actual on the Throne in 1714) parliament thought to provide safeguards against to strong foreign influence into English/British affairs. The Act of Settlement 1701 provided therefore restrictions on naturalized Subjects of HM: "That after the said Limitation shall take Effect as aforesaid no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him".

It could therefore well be that this cause of the US-Constitution is remainder of this English/British law.

---

BTW: This restriction never applied for the person of the monarch. The "Statute for those who are born in Parts beyond Sea" of 1350, still valid law in the UK provides: "The Law of the Crown of England is, and always hath been such, that the Children of the Kings of England, in whatsoever Parts they be born, in England or elsewhere, be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the death of their Ancestors; which Law our . . . Lord the King, the . . . Prelates Earls, Barons, and other great Men, and all the Commons assembled in this Parliament, do approve and affirm for ever."

ie. All controversial topics.

no, this is about heckling or hazing or teasing or taunting or denigrating. Getting on someones nerve and drilling down. Discussion about a topic is one thing, but trying to make someone feel bad because they have their belief is causing conflict.

Merle

That's called debate.

debate is when you can cream the opposition with their own facts about the subject, you are confusing ad hominem attacks with superior knowledge

Merle