hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Previously I've stated that a "Natural Born Citizen", was one born in the US, born of 2 US citizens. In doing some further research on the subject, I have found that was not completely accurate.
It does not change the fact that Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen", though. He might be, he might not be.
(Assuming that he was actually born in Hawaii, that has not been proven yet either, but putting that aside for a bit.)
For Obama to be constitutionally eligible to be President, the Supreme court would first need to define a "Constitutional natural born citizen"
The "birthers", or "Kooks" are backed up by the Supreme Court, in having "doubt".
Seems I was trying to interpret the definition of Natural Born, which is the Supreme Courts responsibility, which they refuse to do, thus far. IMHO, there is ample evidence available to define "Natural Born Citizen", as a "person born in the US of 2 US citizens", if the SC would only accept the challenge.
Should Obama be considered eligible, if there is any DOUBT?
Why does the Supreme Court refuse to hear any case that questions Obama's eligibility, when they have acknowledged previously that there is "doubt"?
Should his name be on a ballot in 2012, without the question answered?
Hopefully we can have an intelligent debate, without the name-calling etc.
*knowingly, because there was previously the issue with Chester Arthur:
Where's an honest Constitutional Lawyer, when you need one?
It does not change the fact that Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen", though. He might be, he might not be.
(Assuming that he was actually born in Hawaii, that has not been proven yet either, but putting that aside for a bit.)
For Obama to be constitutionally eligible to be President, the Supreme court would first need to define a "Constitutional natural born citizen"
The "birthers", or "Kooks" are backed up by the Supreme Court, in having "doubt".
2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly* elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html
Seems I was trying to interpret the definition of Natural Born, which is the Supreme Courts responsibility, which they refuse to do, thus far. IMHO, there is ample evidence available to define "Natural Born Citizen", as a "person born in the US of 2 US citizens", if the SC would only accept the challenge.
Should Obama be considered eligible, if there is any DOUBT?
Why does the Supreme Court refuse to hear any case that questions Obama's eligibility, when they have acknowledged previously that there is "doubt"?
Should his name be on a ballot in 2012, without the question answered?
Hopefully we can have an intelligent debate, without the name-calling etc.
*knowingly, because there was previously the issue with Chester Arthur:
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)
Where's an honest Constitutional Lawyer, when you need one?