Supporting the law equates being a lunatic like Rosie? If that's what you think of FReepers, then why are you here?
You want to say he wasn't born in Hawaii?
Obama could have been born in the WH. It still doesn't make him a nautral-born citizen eligible to be President.
Fine. Prove it (I don't think you can).
Not my job. Burden of proof is on your buddy Obama.
But stop claiming that "natural born" means you have to have two citizen parents.
Two natural-born U.S. citizens.
It doesn't. It is settled law for the last 110 years.
What law? Scottish law? Specter, is that you?
The Constitution describes "natural born citizens" and "naturalized citizens" There are no other types. There is no method for a baby born in the US to be naturalized by having a citizen parent. So such children are NATURAL BORN citizens.
You're wrong, and I'd destroy this argument further if it wasn't for me being on my lunch break. But (evil villian cartoon voice) I assure you my FReepers will complete my task!
Supporting the law equates being a lunatic like Rosie? If that's what you think of FReepers, then why are you here?The law is not on your side. I'm a FReeper too. Not all FReepers agree with you on this. In fact, I'll warrant that most of us don't.
Obama could have been born in the WH. It still doesn't make him a nautral-born citizen eligible to be President...Two natural-born U.S. citizens.Read the damn 110 year old ruling. You don't know what you are talking about. It's embarrassing. THe Constitution NOWHERE says you have to have two natural born citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. If it were so, it would mean that you have to be the direct decendant ON MOTHER'S AND FATHER'S SIDE of a couple in the US in 1789. Because if you come from immigrants since then NONE OF THEIR DECENDENTS could ever be a "natural born" citizen. It's ludicrous.
How wacked out are you going to get on this? If your claim is true then virtually nobody can be president. We all trace our heritage back to a immigrant from somewhere. By your definition the child of that person cannot be a natural-born citizen since the immigrant is not a natural-born citizen. And then their grandchild cannot be a natural-born citizen. And their great-grandchild cannot. And so on, and so on.
My grandmother wouldn't be, she had a father born in Italy.
My grandfather wouldn’t be, he had a father born in England.
My other grandmother wouldn't be, her mother's parents came over from Norway.
My other grandfather wouldn't be, he had a grandfather from Germany.
So neither of my parents could be “natural born” by your definition either; thus I would not be a “natural born” citizen either.
Under what scenario could ANYBODY be a natural born citizen by your criteria?
Everyone in the USA of European descent has a parent who had a parent or grandparent or great^n-grand parent who was not “natural born”; and by your criteria they and their descendants would also not EVER be “natural born”.
I think your extremism got in the way of logic and rationality in this case.