Trump Has 'Just a Little' Doubt Obama Was Born in America

FoxNews ^ | March 17, 2011

[maggief]

Potential presidential candidate Donald Trump says he has "just a little" doubt that President Obama is U.S.-born but his feeling doesn't make him an "idiot."

The mogul and TV reality star suggested in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Thursday that he's reluctant to discuss the topic because "everybody that even gives any hint of being a 'birther,' a word you didn't use, even a little bit of a hint like, 'gee, maybe you know, just maybe there is this much of a chance,' they label them as an idiot."

[GingisK]

I point to my post 29 because I already did the work to explain where and how it's defined. By the Congress.

Your post #29 does not say what Congress has ruled. Besides, I'm sticking with my own rule on this one: I don't accept Obama as my President.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"At the time the US Constitution was written, the phrase, "Natural Born Citizen" was understood to mean, 'one who owes their undivided allegiance to a country by virtue of their parentage, and birthplace.'"

Actually for the founders it had nothing to do with birthplace. It had to do with parentage. The first Congress passed a law in 1790 to ensure that American citizens having babies overseas would have their babies be born a U.S. citizen. The founders did leave it up to us to decide if it's one parent or both being U.S. citizens or what age constitutes conferring citzenship on the baby. These are things that laws and statutes have filled out.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I don't accept Obama as my President."

Okay, lets agree on that... : )

[Windflier]

Actually for the founders it had nothing to do with birthplace. It had to do with parentage.

Sorry, but the letters and writings of those who penned our constitution say differently. The office of president is the ONLY one in the Constitution where the Framers applied the NBC standard. They set the bar that high for very good reasons.

History and current events bear this out, starkly, and painfully.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Natural born has been defined by current U.S. statute.

Precisely! And the U.S. government's opinion on whether or not that statutory definition is sufficient is stated in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 7 - Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 81.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

(Emphasis mine.)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Sorry, but the letters and writings of those who penned our constitution say differently."

The only mention of natural born citizen that I know of by the founders was from John Jay:

"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen"

In there he never mentions birthplace. Do you know of another founder who said something else about natural born Citizenship?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

As noted in c. the original Congress allowed for the fact of persons born overseas to American parents were natural born citizens. That has since been refined by other laws and statutes enacted by Congress. However I would take that as more pertinent than a Foreign affairs manual which has no force of law.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I think we're in agreement. So, yes, peace.

U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 7, 7 FAM 1111 Introduction (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
U.S. laws governing the acqusition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles: 1. Jus soli (the law of the soil) and 2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline.)

[BuckeyeTexan]

As noted in c. the original Congress allowed for the fact of persons born overseas to American parents were natural born citizens. That has since been refined by other laws and statutes enacted by Congress. However I would take that as more pertinent than a Foreign affairs manual which has no force of law.

As noted in section d, that statute is no longer operative and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In fact, five years later in 1795, Congress removed the words "natural born" when it revised that statute by enacting the Naturalization Act of 1795. So if you put more weight in Congress' definition then it should be pertinent that they acted to narrow their definition to simply "citizen."

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs manual does have the force of law, specifically Title 22 of the United States Code - Foreign Relations and Intercourse. It is the official policy of the U.S. government in administering the prescribed laws of U.S. Code Title 22 as enacted by Congress. A decision made under the authority of the U.S. Department of State according to the Foreign Affairs manual must be disputed in a court of law.

[bluecat6]

Actually for the founders it had nothing to do with birthplace. It had to do with parentage. The first Congress passed a law in 1790 to ensure that American citizens having babies overseas would have their babies be born a U.S. citizen. The founders did leave it up to us to decide if it’s one parent or both being U.S. citizens or what age constitutes conferring citzenship on the baby. These are things that laws and statutes have filled out.

________________________________________________________________________________________

I struggle with the verbiage from the original act meaning that ‘only’ jus sanguinis was used. As I posted earlier, I view that this passage implies jus sanguinis as certainly stronger than jus soli. And that is very bad news for current holder of the office of President.

The passage says ‘shall be considered as natural born Citizens’. If the intent was to only rely purely on jus sanguinis then the passage should simply read ‘are natural born Citizens’. However, it does not. It clearly uses a comparative statement and not a equivocating one. It implies the following thought process:

‘we know they are not nbCs, but we are (by positive law) declaring them as nbCs.’

And this is why this is in a naturalization act. This is somewhat of a naturalization process.

They did use the precise phrase as in Article II. They certainly understood what they were addressing.

Of course they eliminated the entire phrase in later versions of the act.

Just some thoughts.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Look, I’m just not that interested to go do research to find the statute. This has been debated ad infinitum here on freerepublic. To be considered natural born, the current U.S. law is that one of your parents has to be an American citizen. At the time of Obama’s birth, the parent who was an American citizen could only confer citizenship on the baby if over 18 or under 18 and born in this country. That is the whole reason why people want to know where Obama was born.

If you think it is such an airtight case that he’s not natural born because both his parents aren’t U.S. citizens then why didn’t McCain’s camp bring it up? Or Hillary’s camp? Or Edward’s camp? Why is it that no “birther” conservative columnists has looked at this angle?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Congress can define “natural born citizen” however they want, but ultimately it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine if that definition is constitutional by interpreting what the FF intended.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Congress can define “natural born citizen” however they want, but ultimately it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine if that definition is constitutional by interpreting what the FF intended."

And the founders never defined what they meant, only stating that it was a qualification. The term is not a normal vernacular of the day such as well regulated can be looked up from the second amendment. I do find it interesting that many of the founders who were in the first Congress felt that it was constitutional to pass a law to refine it's definition by passing a law. Just as we have done in this day and age.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’m not a birther. I’m an anti-birther. I think their ridiculous conspiracies have damaged FR’s reputation - so much so that I started the Sanity Squad ping list to combat birthers’ misinformation and rumors. (See my home page.)

I don’t believe Obama’s citizenship status is airtight. It’s my personal opinion based on the research I’ve done that he isn’t a natural born citizen. However, unlike the birthers, I would accept whatever decision the SCOTUS made regarding Obama’s eligibility. They interpret the Supreme Law of the Land. If they say he’s a natural born citizen, then he is.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"They interpret the Supreme Law of the Land. If they say he’s a natural born citizen, then he is."

I don't think any Supreme Court would ever take the case of determining whether a sitting President is a natural born citizen. Look what they went through with the Florida recount.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I don't think any Supreme Court would ever take the case of determining whether a sitting President is a natural born citizen.

I totally agree.It ain't gonna happen. Obama is POTUS. Game over.

[rolling_stone]

If Donald Trump wants to beat down the “0bama isn’t a citizen” door, then he should provide some solid evidence that irrefutably proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 0bama isn’t a citizen. Anything less will destroy his own credibility and ensure that we are stuck with 0bama until 2017.

I’m listening, pray tell how does he get this “solid evidence”? Maybe he can bribe a judge or official with more money than Obama?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Good points all. Citizenship obtained by statute is naturalization, IMHO.

[Josephat]

I may have mixed up minor details,

Yes you did. That child could never be a natural born citizen if both parents were not citizens. Doesn’t matter if he was born in the White House.

[rolling_stone]

well for once I agree with you Congress rescinded their earlier law probably because they realized it would take an amendment to the Constitution, not just passing a law.

As for the State Department, what else do they say about eligibility to be President according to the Constitution?...