Quantcast

To be a Natural Born Citizen, both parents must be U.S. Citizens. Barack's Father was Kenyan.

Davra 2009/09/07 21:29:02
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Bye! 2009/09/23 00:28:35
    No, because his Father was Kenyan
    Bye!
    +11
    I wish some ignorant people would just get it through their fat heads that there is a difference between "Native" born citizen and "Natural" born citizen. The Constitution requires one to be a "Natural" Born Citizen in order to hold the office of POTUS. Period.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Che Guevara - Hero 2012/12/31 01:42:26
    Undecided
    Che Guevara - Hero
    How did the 2012 election work out for you ? lol
  • AK47 2009/10/08 16:00:08
    No, because his Father was Kenyan
    AK47
    +4
    According to the U.S. Constitution BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens in order for a U.S. Citizen to qualify to be president. Natural born has a different meaning in the Constitution than in day-to-day matters of immigration. If a person is born in the U.S. of immigrant parents he/she is considered to be a native born citizen and may even be referred to as a natural born citizen but cannot legally hold the office of POTUS unless both parents are also U.S. citizens, regardless that they obtained citizenship through the naturlization process. Read article II of the Constitution. Should the Supreme Court be called upon to interpret what the Founding Fathers' intent was with respect to the phrase "natural born"? Ostensibly, the intent was to ensure that future presidents would owe no allegiance to another country. Latest twist to this controversy is that BO's father was not the man from Kenya whom we know and love but was a U.S. citizen named Frank Marshall Davis.
  • rosanna... AK47 2012/11/25 17:37:01 (edited)
    rosannarmiller
    This case had nothing to do with the definition of a "natural" NOT "native" born citizen. Check out the link below....
  • rosanna... rosanna... 2012/11/25 17:38:05
  • MrDazzling~ 2009/09/23 21:03:23
    Undecided
    MrDazzling~
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/174...
    Well according to this definition, the post turtle is not...
  • enlightened one 2009/09/23 12:20:09
    No, because his Father was Kenyan
    enlightened one
    +2
    His father was Kenyan.
  • Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a... 2009/09/23 12:09:45
    No, because his Father was Kenyan
    Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a Terrorist "
    +7
    according to my understanding of the constitution and of the related historical writings, he is not a "Constitutional Natural Born Citizen"


    Some believe that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the United States and both of your parents, at the time of your birth, must be U.S. citizens. The birthers support their viewpoint with the following information:

    * Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 -- except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur -- was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

    * When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth. If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble ...

















    according to my understanding of the constitution and of the related historical writings, he is not a "Constitutional Natural Born Citizen"


    Some believe that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the United States and both of your parents, at the time of your birth, must be U.S. citizens. The birthers support their viewpoint with the following information:

    * Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 -- except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur -- was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

    * When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth. If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough -- Chester Arthur)

    * On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. (John Bingham, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)

    * The Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word "citizen" in reference to certain individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were citizens by law or by naturalization, but the Supreme Court has never referred to them as "natural born citizens". In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), Miss Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States and, when she was born, both of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens.

    * In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations was revised to include the term "natural born citizen". The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of "natural born citizen", as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:

    The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

    * In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations:

    ...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

    * In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed "doubts" regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these "doubts", but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

    These sources do not prove these peoples' case. But they show that these people do have a rational basis for requesting a public inquiry into Barack Obama's presidential eligibility.
    (more)
  • barbara... Bill - ... 2012/11/16 01:32:32
    barbaratracie.harris
    +3
    we need to get him out of the white house he has destroyed this country and it needs to stop
  • Brian S 2009/09/23 02:40:48
    Undecided
    Brian S
    +6
    Until I see the original long form birth certificate stating what hospital he was born at including the attending physicians name, I will not believe he was born in the US. For those that say his parents must be US Citizens, that is not the case. According to the US Constitution, Article II in the 5th paragraph it states:

    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.

    The only qualification is that the person running for the Office must be born in the US, unless they were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about the parents of the presidential hopeful. Now that is a pretty simple qualification. In addition, nowhere does it mention parents conveying birth rights etc.

    Leave it to the lawyers and judges to bring into the situation about parents of the presidential hopefuls.
  • Bill - ... Brian S 2009/09/23 20:01:44 (edited)
    Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a Terrorist "
    +4
    Hi Brian,
    actually, that's a little bit off..

    In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations:

    ...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

    the court has carried that opinion in one form or another all the way through 1939 and has yet to solidly state any other position on what constitutes a "natural Born Citizen" according to the intent of the constitution and the founding fathers and framers of the constitution.*


    but I do think that the long form cert would be beneficial to the issue, along with all his other records and the fact that in 1981 after the age of 18 he traveled abroad using presumably an Indonesian passport since what records can be found show that he didn't have a US passport until 2005 when he became a senator., this also raises a title 8 question about him as well since the customs people are in fact representatives of the US government.

    *added.
  • Brian S Bill - ... 2009/09/23 22:07:46
    Brian S
    +2
    I agree with you on the long form. I haven't delved into the situation deep enough to look at the other issues. The long form would be good enough for me.

    I know this is unrelated, but did you hear about the ballot in Texas? Both McCain and Obama filed their application paperwork to be on the ballot AFTER the filing deadline.... and both of them had their paperwork faxed in. Why is it that politicians can go around deadlines and providing paperwork to be the Commander in Chief, when I had to go to the local tax office in person to file the paperwork to get a DBA?

    Actually I had posted a blog about the situation last year around November or so.
  • Bill - ... Brian S 2009/09/24 00:25:47
    Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a Terrorist "
    +2
    No, I did not hear about that.., kinda funny though, we all have to follow the rules, but politicians don't?

    *shakes head...

    so, if you get a chance, I have a few writings about the constitutional eligibility issue in the constitution section of my 2012 group..

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

    Feel free to have a gander at them if you'd like..

    Thanks Brian..
    Bill
  • Brian S Bill - ... 2009/09/24 02:51:47
    Brian S
    +1
    Here's the blog. I think I still have copies of the faxes from McCain and Obama on my puter. Got the info in a roundabout way from the Texas SOS Office.

    Will check the link out tomorrow, about to hit the sack.
  • Bill - ... Brian S 2009/09/24 14:45:05
    Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a Terrorist "
    no problems..
    don't see the blog link in your response though..

    Thanks
    Bill
  • Brian S Bill - ... 2009/09/24 14:53:21 (edited)
    Brian S
    +1
    oops, it was getting late and I forgot to post it... lol

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • Bill - ... Brian S 2009/09/24 15:15:08
    Bill - McGee - 2012 "I am a Terrorist "
    no worries brother
  • Lord Nils 2009/09/23 02:23:02
    Undecided
    Lord Nils
    +2
    Had he been born in Hawaii, he is a natural born. My best friend's daughter was born here, and IS a Natural. That was seven years ago. Her dad, became a naturalized citizen last year. SHE can become POTUS, but he cannot.
  • krister 2009/09/23 01:32:34
    Undecided
    krister
    Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be POTUS. Is a pregnant woman never allowed to travel? You people are pathetic.

    Obama has many faults but if you want to waste your time trying to prove that he is ineligible, be my guest. Anyone that is stupid enough to get caught up in this issue is best kept distracted by it to keep them from spoiling any rational debates.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 01:41:54
    keymanjim
    +5
    Being president requires US citizenship. And over top of that, natural born citizenship.. If he was born in Kenya, according to the laws on the books at the time, his mother was too young to convey her citizenship onto him.
    He would be a British citizen instead of half British citizen. Which is what he possibly is now.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 01:56:06
    krister
    +1
    If he was born in Kenya to his American mother, it would go to court and he would retain his seat as POTUS.

    Thankfully, he was born in Hawaii so no time will have to be wasted in court.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 02:02:46
    keymanjim
    +4
    He is either half or all British citizen. Half if he was Born in Hawaii, all if he was born in Kenya.
    Either precludes him from holding the office.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 02:15:28
    krister
    He already is holding office. Take it to court and see how far you get.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 02:21:22
    keymanjim
    +4
    He's holding off illegally. There are several cases in the works that will unseat him without the need for impeachment.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 05:21:58
    krister
    You mean there are several cases in line to be dismissed by judges.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 12:01:34
    keymanjim
    +4
    That was a lazy answer.
    The issue will be brought up in open congress soon. You can thank Cheney for that.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 14:46:29
    krister
    +1
    I'm sorry if you think that the truth is "lazy".
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 22:10:54
    keymanjim
    +2
    You may want to try the truth. All you've provided is speculation.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 22:32:39 (edited)
    krister
    +1
    When you find an article that mentions a lawsuit that HAS NOT been thrown out, why don't you let me know then?

    Thanks and good luck.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 22:40:09
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/23 23:22:23
    krister
    +1
    You're kidding me right? I'm looking forward to proof but I'm afraid that forwarded emails do not count.

    You did notice that that is a blog, right?

    You don't get your news from blogs and emails that people forward to you, do you?
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/23 23:28:42
    keymanjim
    +1
    So, you're saying that the case isn't being heard out in California?
    Just because the lap dog media isn't covering it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/24 00:17:28 (edited)
    krister
    Why hasn't Fox News covered it? I'm sure that they would be more than happy to share such a story.
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/24 00:43:18
    keymanjim
    +1
    You're going to have to ask Fox news.
    Pretty soon, all of our media outlets will be forced to cover the issue.
  • krister keymanjim 2009/09/24 02:53:46 (edited)
    krister
    I apologize. I had good reason not to believe you but I must thank you for pointing this out.

    I wish that the media was covering this because Orly Taitz deserves to have her legal actions in full view when she is made a fool of.

    Ironically, you have shown me a case that has not begun trial and has a TENTATIVE court date that will probably be thrown out on October 5 at the scheduling conference.

    "On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). At the hearing held for this case on September 8, 2009,Defendants notified the Court that the Motion to Dismiss had been filed. The Court then proceeded toset tentative dates for the case, including a tentative trial date of January 11, 2010. The Court specifiedthat these dates would be finalized at a Scheduling Conference held on October 5, 2009."

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/198...

    Another thing that is interesting is the fact that the Judge has forced Orly to work with someone that she hates.

    "The second issue was a snit on the plaintiff's side. Taitz had originally worked with attorney Gary Kreep in Wiley Drake's lawsuit against Obama, the case that has since blossomed into Barnett v. Obama. At some point, Kreep, Drake and co-plaintiff Markham Robinson decided to...



    I apologize. I had good reason not to believe you but I must thank you for pointing this out.

    I wish that the media was covering this because Orly Taitz deserves to have her legal actions in full view when she is made a fool of.

    Ironically, you have shown me a case that has not begun trial and has a TENTATIVE court date that will probably be thrown out on October 5 at the scheduling conference.

    "On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). At the hearing held for this case on September 8, 2009,Defendants notified the Court that the Motion to Dismiss had been filed. The Court then proceeded toset tentative dates for the case, including a tentative trial date of January 11, 2010. The Court specifiedthat these dates would be finalized at a Scheduling Conference held on October 5, 2009."

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/198...

    Another thing that is interesting is the fact that the Judge has forced Orly to work with someone that she hates.

    "The second issue was a snit on the plaintiff's side. Taitz had originally worked with attorney Gary Kreep in Wiley Drake's lawsuit against Obama, the case that has since blossomed into Barnett v. Obama. At some point, Kreep, Drake and co-plaintiff Markham Robinson decided to part ways with Taitz. Taitz refused to sign a change-of-attorney form, and then filed a motion stating Drake and Robinson's desire to be removed from the lawsuit. Those two plaintiffs say they authorized Taitz to do no such thing. Carter, very much taking the tone of a teacher scolding children, called a 15-minute recess and told Taitz and Kreep to work it out. When court resumed, Taitz lit into Kreep with a litany of ways that she said he had botched the suit against Obama. Carter wasn't pleased. "I think what I'm going to do is force you two together [in one lawsuit]," Carter said. "I don't know if I can legally do this, you can take it to the 9th Circuit if you like and delay it longer." He then made the two bickering lawyers move their chairs next to one another. "I'm very visual," he said. "I need to see you two as one.""

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/nav...

    I will enjoy watching the birthers hopes rise knowing that I will get to see them come crashing down.
    (more)
  • keymanjim krister 2009/09/24 03:51:25 (edited)
    keymanjim
    +1
    Actually, what I was referring to was the DOJ's motion to dismiss. In it they mention the counting of the electoral votes, as regulated under Title 3 subsection 15 of the US code, provides for objection to be made at that time and none were made. Well, none were made because the then President of the Senate failed to call for objections.
    Because the rules that protect the integrity of the electoral process were not followed, the district court can call for a writ of mandamus and force Congress to call for objections (albeit late) as to obama's eligibility to serve.
    Now, Congress must complete their duty and call for objections. After 8 months of obama screwing up the country, there are going to be more than one that will bring up his dual citizenship. But, then, it only takes one. The issue can't be closed until all objections are addressed.
  • barbara... krister 2012/11/16 01:36:59
    barbaratracie.harris
    +2
    they are all bought and paid for by the muslems you all better wake up its hitler and gas chamber all over again do you want to go there?
  • ♐☆ ♥ De... keymanjim 2009/09/24 01:00:49
    ♐☆ ♥ Deni ♥☆♐
    and lets not forget the reason for the law being written into the Constitution in the first place. . . It was a protection for the people so they would not have a President who would possibly hold a special allegiance to any other country
  • keymanjim ♐☆ ♥ De... 2009/09/24 01:16:34
    keymanjim
    +1
    Correct. Since the framers of the Constitution rested control of our armed forces in the hands of the President, they need to avoid any conflict of interests should the two countries of a dual citizen were to go to war with each other.
    The only solution to that was for the President to have allegiance to the US only. And the only way for that to happen is for the Presidents parents to be US citizens also.
  • barbara... keymanjim 2012/11/16 01:35:56
    barbaratracie.harris
    +3
    he was put in office by the muslems that are running this country and that is why they sat by and let our people get murdered in lybia hes muslem they dont kill their own he couldnt order them to kill who was shooting up our embassy and stevens
  • barbara... krister 2012/11/16 01:33:55
    barbaratracie.harris
    +1
    he was born in kenya and she flew 3 days later to hawaii get your lies straight

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/30 16:49:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals