In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
Not at all true, in fact, quite the opposite.
According to the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen is identical to a "person born" citizen:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
So, if "persons born" or "naturalized", are citizens enjoying all "privileges or immunities" alike, BUT naturalized citizens CANNOT become President, then it stands to reason that being that "person born" citizen is not sufficient qualification on its own to meet the Constitutional standard for the Presidency, and there is a third, and higher class of citizen who attains citizenship via something other than being born in the United States. That is the "natural born citizen"...a person who attains citizenship as a birthright, rather than as an effect of simple geography.
That citizen's birthright comes to him or her as a legacy from citizen parents (plural).
That fits perfectly well in with Vattel's definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.
The debate over Obama's birth certificate is a distraction, and a smoke screen designed to hide the real issue...Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a citizen.
The answer is clear and unquestionable...he is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President by virtue of his father's lack of American citizenship, birth certificate be damned.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
Beauseant!
Can you please state which section of the law specifically states that the father must be a citizen in order to be a "natural born citizen"?
Also, if that is the case, then why all this effort about the BC? If he is disqualified on this simple basis, then what happens next?
An article was written no long ago referencing "Obama losing control of the military" because of this mess. One way or another thus must be resolved now.
In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
Not at all true, in fact, quite the opposite.
According to the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen is identical to a “person born” citizen:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
So, if “persons born” or “naturalized”, are citizens enjoying all “privileges or immunities” alike, BUT naturalized citizens CANNOT become President, then it stands to reason that being that “person born” citizen is not sufficient qualification on its own to meet the Constitutional standard for the Presidency, and there is a third, and higher class of citizen who attains citizenship via something other than being born in the United States. That is the “natural born citizen”...a person who attains citizenship as a birthright, rather than as an effect of simple geography.
That citizen’s birthright comes to him or her as a legacy from citizen parents (plural).
That fits perfectly well in with Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born citizen” is.
The debate over Obama’s birth certificate is a distraction, and a smoke screen designed to hide the real issue...Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a citizen.
The answer is clear and unquestionable...he is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President by virtue of his father’s lack of American citizenship, birth certificate be damned.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
There was an opportunity to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president at the joint session of Congress when Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate counted and certified the vote of the Electoral College. Any one Senator and any one Representative could have challenged certifying the Electoral College votes; but none did.
When Chief Justice John Roberts swore Obama in, he became President. What is truly “unquestionable” is that impeachment by the House of Representatives and a trial and conviction by the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors are the only constitutional processes that can remove the 44th president from office before next election day.
Chester A. Arthur, the 22nd President of the United States who became president in 1881 following the assassination of James Garfield, faced claims that he was born in Canada or Ireland, from where his Baptist preacher father had emigrated.
During the 1880 election campaign, when Arthur ran as Garfield’s vice-presidential running mate, Democrats hired a man called AP Hinman to explore Arthur’s origins. Hinman claimed that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not move to the US until he was 14. Arthur denied the charge, defending himself in an interview with the Brooklyn Eagle on August 13th, 1880: “My father, the late Rev William Arthur DD, was of Scotch blood and was a native of the north of Ireland. He came to this country when he was 18 years of age, and resided here several years before his marriage,” Arthur said.