OK, I HAVE AVOIDED THE BIRTHER ISSUE UNTIL WATCHING ANDERSON COOPER TONIGHT . . .

[MrChips]

OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?

[little jeremiah]

I understand the point, and agree with it. I don’t think “nobody” wants to touch it, as it is discussed at length on FR.

I think he was born in Kenya, but I agree that just having an alien father proves him a non-NBC. If 0bama Sr is his actual father, listed on his actual birth certificate.

If it is proved he was born out of the US, that will be easier for people in general and courts, but the issue certainly needs to be cleared up.

[MHGinTN]

You have a major problem with constructing valid analogies: "“John and Mary came from England in the year 1800 and had a baby as soon as she stepped off of the boat, but that baby won’t be eligible to run for president in 35 years because his parents were not born in the US prior to the Revolution ('prior to the revolution' is a strawman because of the exception clause the Founders wrote into the Constitution), and were not yet US citizens at the time of the birth (prior to the Revolution, there were NO U.S. Citizens).”

You've run yourself around after your own assumption, trying to prove your assumption, and made errors in your reasoning. The definition of Natural Born Citizen was well established in the latter part of the eighteenth century, that's why the founders used the term without defining it, kind of like 'arms' in the 'keep and bear arms' part. You want an anchor baby to be more than just a citizen, and there are agitprops working FR who also assume that which they set out to prove, that just being a non-naturalized citizen qualifies under modern interpretation of the Constitution. Have fun with your tail chasing.

[little jeremiah]

I apologize for my rudeness, such as it was.

I didn’t mean “good” freeper or bad, it just seemed odd that you had never posted on any thread about this topic until now, and then have opinions that appear to be very uninformed.

I don’t think I am a bully but will double check my speech and motives.

[greeneyes]

“Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. The issue is not only if Obama was born in Hawaii, but that his father was NOT a US citizen. Obama admits ....”

I have already noted this and the rest of your post elsewhere on numerous occasions and do not disagree. So let me further clarify the points I was trying to make.

Obama’s birthplace need not be known to prove he is not a Natural Born Citizen(NBC) as referenced in Article II, section 1 of the constitution. The constitution does not define the term, but the birthplace is being used by press and Dems as a distraction to what is blatantly clear - his father is a foreigner-I think we agree on this.

There is absolutely no question that a child born on American soil, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA,to parents who are both citizens is a NBC entitled under the constitution to be president once attaining the age of 35 and being a resident for 14 years. We agree.

That the Supreme Court has noted the acceptance of this class of citizens is true. However the Supreme Court has also noted a dispute regarding other classes of people, and has not ruled about them.

For example in minor vs happersett, the court noted that there was no doubt about the children born to citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the USA, but noted that “children born within jurisdiction with out reference to the citizenship of their parents, as to this class there have been doubts.”

The court noted that it was not necessary to resolve these doubts in the case before them (it was a suffrage case), and proceeded to ignore the issue.

Also questioned over the years was whether children born overseas to 2 citizen parents could qualify. Is a child born to an unwed citizen mother, on US soil, eligible? Could Gov. Jindal qualify? ETC. ETC. Some say yes, some say no.

I researched this issue about 2 years ago, so I don't even remember all of the various things I read, but was wondering if you could tell me which Supreme Court rulings have stated that the term NBC for presidential eligibility was reserved EXLUSIVELY for a person born of 2 citizen parents on US soil? I would very much like to read them, as I did not find any.

Also, I was wondering which source you used to determine that the “legal definition” of NBC is “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

I would like to be able to cite that authority when I encounter people who believe that all that is needed is for someone to be born on US soil to be considered eligible for president.

I believe the framers meant that the president should be born to parents who were both US citizens, and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

To me, this would include children born to US diplomats and others stationed overseas in service to the USA, as well as those within the continental mainland and territories.

However, just because you and I agree on the term NBC, does not mean that there are not other classes of citizens that some people think should also be qualified, nor have those issues been settled, and the debate goes back to the 1700’s.

Congress has further muddled the issue during the years with its various statutes pertaining to NBC in particular and citizenship in general. Hence, there are unresolved issues pertaining to the NBC definition, so I can not say that it is a settled issue, with out being a least a little disingenuous.

[awin]

I watched it too. Yesterday someone posted Anderson’s 360 blog with the subject and I posted a comment and it would NOT show up. Literally all the liberal point of views were coming in and I kept posting mine (3times) and it never showed up! CNN is slimy. The piece itself was awful and I could not stand being called stupid one more time. Its really like watching a sham in progress the way they were selling those who have questions as fringe and wackos . The AZ rep was great!

[greeneyes]

Without a doubt the libs have blurred the lines. By the way, I just got going and wrote an exceptionally long reply on this very thread. LOL. Sometimes it’s just too hard to be concise.LOL.

[old republic]

Identifying what Natural born citizens are used to be fairly straightforward back in the day. The problem is that the rules governing citizenship for the last 70 years are radically different than they always were for the majority of US history. (You couldn't have dual citizenship in the US before the 1950s when SCOTUS decided differently...before SCOTUS ruled otherwise you would lose your US citizenship if you tried to hold dual citizenship.) However, since you are a descendant of Revolutionary war heroes, let's talk about what NBC meant and how citizenship worked before the commies messed up the definition of the word.

For 2/3 of American history women had what was called "derivative citizenship." I believe that women would have held this type of citizenship in the US from the time when the Constitution was adopted up until about the 1930s. As you may be aware, American law and pretty much the whole Western world determined one's citizenship primarily through the Father and thus all women were considered to be the citizenship of their father if they were single or of their husband if they were married.This was considered the Natural law and order of things. Consequently, spouses would always be the same citizenship and children would always natural born if their father was an American even if their mother had been born a British subject.However,under the old system, Children born outside of marriage would receive their mother's citizenship if the father was unknown.

Since you were unmarried at the time of your birth and the Father was not legally recognized, your son would have probably inherited your citizenship, and consequently, there is a high chance that under the law your son would have been considered a NBC under the old system. However, as you noted earlier the lack of a legal definition, will allow the courts to fudge the definition of the word NBC to mean whatever they want, whether it was our Founder's intent or not. Who knows what a court might rule on the subject today

By the way, it sounds like you've got some good people in your blood. I hope you don't let your son forget what his ancestor's did and what they stood for.

[Rutabega]

They are not uninformed, they just don’t agree with your views. Like I said, however, if he was born in Kenya, and someone can prove it,then I am on your side and he isn’t an NBC. I haven’t seen a case where the USSC ruled on citizenship status of someone who has one parent who is an NBC, just naturalized citizens, or parents who were not even citizens.

[Rutabega]

If you take out the clause about the parents not being in the US prior to the revolution, I am just not sure how the analogy isn't valid, when comparing two people who crossed the border from Mexico to have a baby in the US so they can get benefits. I will agree that the parents in my analogy were not out for welfare for life, but they were not US citizens.

Not chasing my tail, just adding some new thoughts to the argument that is not really going anywhere.

Anyway, isn't there a lot of argument about what they meant by “keep and bear arms” and that's why there are (invalid) laws on the books in certain states that limit the types of firearms? I am pro-2nd amendment, so I am certainly not trying to justify those arguments, but to pretend that there haven't been any arguments so you can bolster your position that there aren't disagreements on what “natural born citizen” means is sort of disingenuous.

[conservativegramma]

Feel free to think I am nuts for not wanting my kids to be labelled as some type of sub-citizen so you can continue to make the argument that Obama is illegal.

See that statement right there is the root of your entire argument or opinion on this issue! You seem to have this idea that not being natural born is somekind of 'sub' citizen. No way! You are the only one arguing that which reveals its some sort of emotional issue for you, and therefore you can't grasp the constitutional argument because you are blinded by the emotions.

The one and ONLY distinction between a citizen born on the soil and a natural born citizen born of 2 citizen parents is achieving the rank of POTUS someday - that's IT! There is NO OTHER distinction so there is no such thing as a "SUB" citizen.

And the ONLY reason that distinction is in there is to PROTECT the United States from foreign influences and usurpations!!!!!!!!

[Rutabega]

Thanks, OR!
My dad is a retired physicist (and from the first class of Freepers in the nineties) who currently is a historian and geneaologist who has written a number of books. He is always emailing me with new people that he has proven links to, and my mom’s family has also been here since the 1600’s, and it is through her that we are DC first generationers. She has a trunk from her great-grandmother that has a program and silverware that they snatched from Lincoln’s inaugural ball (they were invited guests, though we have become much less blue blooded in the intervening years!)
My kids are taken to so many battlegrounds and US heritage sights that I think he has a very good grasp on what made this country so special.
I agree that my son is a NBC, and I only posted because I am sick of people saying that NBC is cut and dry without two citizen parents. If it was widely known and accepted that NBC = two citizen parents in modern times, I can’t think that the Supreme Court would have sat on their hands when it came time to swear Barry in.

[old republic]

The 14th Amendment is the cause of all of these confusions with citizenship. By the way, the 14th amendment has the most illegal shady constitutionally repugnant ratification process of any amendment to the US constitution. Before the 14th amendment there was no need to define Natural born Citizenship because citizenship was received in only two possible ways, you were naturalized or you were born a Natural born Citizen to US parents. (There was no gray space about a child's citizenship because a wife ALWAYS had the same citizenship as her husband).

Court interpretations of the 14th Amendment introduced the confusion that made it unclear what a Natural Born Citizen was. After the courts started literally mangling the definition no one could really be certain what an NBC was. Was it someone born on US soil, was it someone of one US parent or two US parents, or a person born to a US parent on US soil etc? So you see its not failure of the founders to specify what an NBC is that is our problem. It was perfectly obvious back then. The problem is that we have allowed activist courts to interpret it in such a crazy way that we now can't even agree on who is a citizen anymore.

[douginthearmy]

You have crossed the line. I would tell you what I think of you but you don’t deserve the insight. The Constitution is different from the Framers intent. If you can’t understand that there is no point in debating. We have AMENDMENTS which make the Constitution as written TODAY and interpretted by the SUPREME COURT, the LAW. Not the Framers intent. So again, it doesn’t matter what the Framers had in mind, what matters is the current law as of 2010, which is completely different from “living document” nonsense. I have no respect nor tolerance for someone who puts words in my mouth and makes up my mind for me, so don’t expect anything further on this.

[Rutabega]

Whatever, Gramma. I am sorry you think I am emotionally too involved to want my child to be something other than a sub-citizen. Please show me somewhere in case law that defines a third type of citizen. There isn’t one.
You sound very emotionally attached to your argument, and I am very politely disagreeing with you. Read whatever nonsense you want to into my replies, but don’t burden me with it.
If the USSC listens to one of these cases (and I really wish they would, whatever the outcome for my son, who will not want to run for president unless he has some type of personality 360) and they say that there is a third type of citizen besides natural born and naturalized, I will very humbly beg your pardon. Until then, it is all right for me to disagree with you, without being called too emotional to think rationally.
As to the end of your post, I am just asking how my son can really be subject to foreign influence or usurpation? I know lots of Americans with foreign born parents who have a lot more foreign influence from that parent than my son. Do they become de-categorized as NBC’s because their folks celebrate holidays differently, or cook food from their country? (See how silly that seems when it is about something benign and not malevolent political views?)

[conservativegramma]

As you may be aware, American law and pretty much the whole Western world determined one's citizenship primarily through the Father and thus all women were considered to be the citizenship of their father if they were single or of their husband if they were married....Since you were unmarried at the time of your birth and the Father was not legally recognized, your son would have probably inherited your citizenship, and consequently, there is a high chance that under the law your son would have been considered a NBC under the old system."

Very well thought out and reasoned response....I had forgotten about the "derivative citizenship" laws particularly as they applied to unmarried women who had children with unknown or undeclared fathers.

You are correct in that circumstance that Rutabega's son probably would be NBC since there is no father stated on the BC. My apologies Rutabega in seeming to come down so harsh in my zeal to protect the Constitution. But like you said old republic, with today's laws its now all convoluted.

On an interesting side note: My own daughter is living overseas her husband being employed by the State Department working out of one of our embassies. She had a baby last Fall born here in the states (she came home to have the baby). Did you know that the State Department advised her to do this???? They even PAID to put her up in a hotel for 3 months (your tax dollars at work). The reasoning? To insure that the baby would be a natural born American citizen without doubt - i.e, - jus soli and jus sanquis. She was told her baby would be a U.S. citizen if born overseas, but at some point may not be declared natural born, so they advised her to come home! True story.

Definitely needs to be resolved by SCOTUS. IMO they are committing treason by continuing to evade and duck this issue!

[Rutabega]

That is really intresting! The state dept paid as the employer, or just because they were being kind (I mean, if a non state employee, but part of an American couple living overseas wanted to make sure about having an NBC child. . .)?
I can see that being born overseas would leave more up in the air about naturalized versus natural born. My kids were born in the US, though, and I am a NBC.
I apologize for being snarky in my last post to you.

[conservativegramma]

The state dept paid as the employer, or just because they were being kind....

Employee perk. If its a non-employee the U.S. embassy just advises to go home at personal expense.

[sodpoodle]

With Arizona likely to pass the proof of Natural Born eligibility; this can no longer be dismissed as just a *right wing conspiracy* but a bona fide public issue.

This ought to generate more attention from the MSM and they are obligated to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that BO was born in the US, of qualified US CITIZEN PARENTAGE, without *paternal* primary fealty to another Sovereign State.

THEY SHOULD welcome such an opportunity to make *birthers* look foolish.

But they won’t because they can’t!!!!!!!

[Rutabega]

Makes sense. If my ex-husband and I had been in that position, I would have tried to give birth in the US because I had always thought that the birthplace was what mattered, only, in reference to NBC.
Plus, Sweden didn’t allow the use of epidurals unless there was a c-section. (According to my girlfriends there.) I did that with my first kid, but not with the next two. Much happier mom when the labor is very long like mine tend to be.

[TigersEye]

Thanks. I do.