Replies

... he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The fact is that US law makes no distinctions among people who are citizens by birth. There are either citizens who acquire citizenship through birth, and naturalized citizens. The latter may not serve as President or Vice President. We have to conclude that since the President was born in Hawaii and that his mom was a US citizen, that he is indeed a "natural born citizen."

It is time to drop this issue. The President's revealing of his birth certificate has taken what was a potent plurality of people and turned it into a fringe minority. It has 0 political power anymore.

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."

The fact is that US law makes no distinctions among people who are citizens by birth. There are either citizens who acquire citizenship through birth, and naturalized citizens. The latter may not serve as President or Vice President. We have to conclude that since the President was born in Hawaii and that his mom was a US citizen, that he is indeed a "natural born citizen."

It is time to drop this issue. The President's revealing of his birth certificate has taken what was a potent plurality of people and turned it into a fringe minority. It has 0 political power anymore. I second this, 100 percent.

The fact is that US law makes no distinctions among people who are citizens by birth. There are either citizens who acquire citizenship through birth, and naturalized citizens. The latter may not serve as President or Vice President. We have to conclude that since the President was born in Hawaii and that his mom was a US citizen, that he is indeed a "natural born citizen."

I disagree completely. The correct meaning of the term can be discovered by reading what the founders wrote. Whatever interpretations by Judges occurred later is irrelevant. I believe Obama is a Natural born citizen by the most stringent criteria, that being born of two American Parents. I believe I have deduced sufficient information from the available evidence to draw that conclusion.

“The fact is that US law makes no distinctions among people who are citizens by birth. There are either citizens who acquire citizenship through birth, and naturalized citizens. The latter may not serve as President or Vice President. We have to conclude that since the President was born in Hawaii and that his mom was a US citizen, that he is indeed a “natural born citizen.”

It is time to drop this issue. The President’s revealing of his birth certificate has taken what was a potent plurality of people and turned it into a fringe minority. It has 0 political power anymore.”

100% Correct. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law - or even just a good dose of common sense - would get this by now. Unfortunately Birtherism has become the right’s version of 9/11 trutherism.

It is time to drop this issue. The President's revealing of his birth certificate has taken what was a potent plurality of people and turned it into a fringe minority. It has 0 political power anymore.

0 political power to help conservatives. All that pursuing birtherism will bring us is a well deserved reputation for being conspiracy theorist kooks.

Is Obama a shady liar? Yes.

Is he hiding something? Yes.

Can we use that to remove him from office. No.

It's time to face facts. The American people aren't willing to go along with birtherism without solid proof. Gnash your teeth. Call it unfair. Pout. All irrelevant. If there's a hair of doubt, the vast majority of Americans will give Obama the benefit of it. Even the ones that don't like him. There's no appetite to remove a sitting President over a technicality that most people don't understand, and no court or opposing politician wants to touch.

We can convince ourselves on the internet that this is a slam dunk, but it's far from settled law. If the idea is to defeat Obama, then it's time to admit that birtherism is a dead end, and let it go. We can beat him on the issues, and we will. The man is self destructing in slow motion, and all birtherism does at this point is build sympathy for him.

Even a child born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

As you said, there are only two types of citizens, by birth or through naturalization.

The U.S. does not require anyone born on our soil to be naturalized.

I am a hard core Constitutional conservative -- the Constitution matters to me above all other government machinations -- ergo, I am a birther and have been one long before the term was coined or Obama was installed.

That being said, I am reviewing for myself whether it "is time to drop this issue" or not. By releasing yet another tampered document, Obama has stolen some wind from the sails of the effort. However, people are catching on relatively quickly that this is yet another "manufactured" document. That will seed further resentment. And, regardless of whether the certificate was "forged" or "scanned", the document specifies non-citizen parentage. That irks me.

The Constitution is law. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It cannot be changed or re-interpreted without formal Amendment. Legally, it must be read through the lens of original intent.

As such, there is *only* one class of people that are without question "Natural Born" citizens, and those are the children born on U.S. soil of parents who are citizens. There is doubt as to all other classes (a genuine dispute) of which mention has been made by various historic legislators and justices. And, if the matter were ever to be successfully adjudicated on its merits, I firmly believe Obama -- any so termed "anchor baby" for that matter -- would not pass Constitutional muster for the Executive Office. (Remember Obama's mother was legally shy of sufficient age to pass citizenship on to her newborn via parenthood.)

To turn a blind eye to this dispute because Obama is not altogether "white", is racist. To turn a blind eye to this because "no one's going to do anything anyway" is apathy, And to turn a blind eye to this because it has limited political value, devalues the Constitution itself.

If this issue has "0 political power" as you say, I am still not convinced we have a valid reason to drop it. If our ambition as a nation is to be "post racial", "self governed", and "adherent to the Constitution" (and I do think these are some of our goals and span political parties) we fail on all three counts by dropping it.