Replies

The only way that Obozo is a “natural born” citizen as required under the Constitution is if his father is other than BHO, Sr.

That's simply not true. The Constitution lists no such requirement.

In order to get where you want to get, we'd have to accept a whole host if extra-Constitutional sources (while simultaneously ignoring other, equally valid ones). The Constitution says what it says. And it says nothing about the citizenship requirement of his father.

Now, some claim that anyone potentially eligible for dual citizenship, such as the son of a British subject, would not qualify as natural-born regardless of whether that person ever pursued dual citizenship. That's nonsense, though, as it would preclude a Jew from ever becoming president. As it would millions of Americans of Irish descent.

Under this "theory" we could have a man born in America of two parents who were themselves born in America, and yet tell him he's ineligible because one of their parents was born in Ireland and he is therefore theoretically eligible to apply for Irish citizenship.

It's madness, and totally unsupported by the Constitution.

BS.

The Constitution says he MUST BE (in part) a “natural born US citizen”.

FACT.

The courts have stated that that was not defined within the Constitution, but never said it was the same as a “citizen”.

The meaning of the term was understood at the time the constitution was written and needed no explanation.

I can go back and reference the ruling and what the court actually said describing a related case.

They have been playing legal weasle word games with this. Saying that he is a “natural born” American citizen. Not United States but American. The two words are not the same. The term American can be applied to all of this Continent, both North and South America.

I think it is most likely that Frank Marshall Davis fathered Obozo. And the BHO, Sr. was a paid patsy to give the bastard offspring a name.

If that is true, he might be a natural born citizen and also a “natural born Commie B_tard.

I think it is most likely that Stanley Ann had him in Canada. It was NOT in HI.

You're mixing apples, oranges, and metaphors.

The "Natural Born Citizen" is not only a constitutional requirement, it is a tradition. The particulars of the requirement are not spelled out in the COTUS. However, the TRADITION is quite clear.

It does (or did) not matter a jot WHERE the parents were born, or whether they themselves were "Natural Born Citizens," or naturalized immigrants. As long as BOTH parents were citizens of the US, the offspring was held to be "Natural Born."

Traditionally, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Charles Evans Hughes, and a whole host of wannabe and actual Presidents would NOT be "Natural Born Citizens. The only precedent Obama has is Chester A. Arthur, who modern scholarship has definitely established, was a goddam liar. He knew he was not an NBC, and finagled his way around it and destroyed all the evidence

Obama aside, which he soon will be anyway, we need to define citizenship, and Natural Born Citizenship. For example, by what stretch of the law is the offspring of two illegal aliens to be considered a US citizen?

At the very least, the black-robed bumkissers of the SCOTUS owe us a ruling on the many valid appeals they and their clerks have rejected. Who's correct: the Traditionalists? The Obamanites?

THIS IS A VALID CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.