Is that true? I have never heard that angle.
Were you born after 1965?
Many, many in-depth discussion threads on this subject at FR. Seeing your sign-up date and assuming you’re no troll and it’s a serious question, perhaps rxsid will bring you up to speed.
Only children born from the union of two US citizen’s is elgible to become our president.
“Is that true? I have never heard that angle.”
Neither have I. Some how I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. If it were the case, the “birther” movement wouldn’t exist because there would be no need to be questioning Obama’s birth place or the validity of any birth certificate.
Here’s a good article to start with.
“History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
Lot’s of evidence to point to the meaning of natural born citizen to require 2 citizen parents, but it has not been definitively decided in a court of law.
Congress could define it with a constitutional amendment, but never has. They did try to define it by statute, but the Supreme Court had some cases that rendered the 1790 statue moot, and it is inactive.
Is that true? I have never heard that angle.
It comes from the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article II, Section I of the Constitution.
Written in the original framers' understanding, a natural born citizen is born BOTH on US soil AND with a single, solitary allegiance to the sovreign [the US]. In most general terms, it means being born on US soil of parents who are US citizens.
If a child is born on US soil, his father being an alien, AND the father's country lays claim to the child's citizenship - that child is a dual national and DOES NOT have a single, solitary allegiance to the sovreign. The child is a citizen of the US by virtue of being born on US soil [14th Amendment], but he is NOT natural born.
In our times, since international travel is so prevalent, the framer's would probably agrre to dropping the "born on US soil" part - thus allowing a child born overseas to be natural born, AS LONG AS HIS PARENTS ARE US CITIZENS ...
Is that true? I have never heard that angle
I believe that any person is eligible who is (a) born in the U.S. or its outlying possessions (with parents of any nation's citizenship), or (b) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.
The first case is the definition of being natural born, the second case is described at the Dept. of State website
Since President Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, he would have to have been born in the U.S. to be a natural born citizen.
Is that true? I have never heard that angle.
Is that true? I have never heard that angle.
What do you think the Constitution means by a "natural born citizen"? Hint: "natural born citizen" cannot mean "citizen," because if they meant the latter, they would not have added the qualifying words, "natural born." The meaning must be defined within the context of the grandfather period the Founders provided for non-natural born citizens to hold the office. Note that the media conspirators never go to first principles on this matter.
No, it isn’t correct. Some people assert that there are multiple classes of citizens in between natural born and naturalized but nothing in US law supports that.
Founding fathers(congressional records): Children of Citizens(that mean both) shall be considered Natural born.
U.S. Supreme Court: Children whom Parents(both parents) are U.S. citizens are Natural Born.
To prove that obama is not a natural born citizen, you must first get a CERTIFIED COPY of his birth record showing that his father was a kenyan national. If obama was born in Hawaii to one parent U.S. citizen he is a Native born citizen and ineligible to be the president.
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 on his own fight the smears website, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
If Obama was a “Natural born citizen”, he would NOT be subject to the laws of a foreign nation. He was a British subject the moment he was born, and he is NOT eligible for the Office of President.