Replies

You’ve already posted showing that you understand that the issue of the mother’s age only matters if Obama was born outside the country.

So I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make here.

We all agree that Obama’s mother was a citizen. And it appears that you understand that as a citizen, if she gave birth to a child within the country, that child is a natural-born citizen.

Which, if true, means that the ONLY question to be answered is whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.

The Court does support the concept of anchor babies. But frankly, I should not have brought it up, as it is not applicable in this case. Obama does not gain citizenship as an anchor-baby, he gains citizenship because of the assertion that he was born in this country and one of his parents was a citizen.

I have seen no credible dispute over the citizenship of Obama’s mother, so I fail to see what axiom I am “assuming” (frankly, I am not sure what that means, as the point of an axiom is something that is assumed for the argument, I thinkn the complaint is that I am assuming what I am trying to prove).

I take it as axiomatic that Obama was born, and that he was born to a mother who was a citizen but under 21, and a father who was NOT a citizen.

Given those assumptions, he is a natural born citizen if the birth took place on US soil, and he is NOT a natural born citizen if the birth took place outside of the US.

Is there anything I just said that you disagree with?

"And it appears that you understand that as a citizen, if she gave birth to a child within the country, that child is a natural-born citizen." You are a practiced deceiver. I understand the issue of natural born citizenship and understand that you want it to include anyone including anchor babies born in the U.S. I also am absolutely certain that a person can be born in Canada and obtain a valid Hawaiian birth certificate which presents only that the person is an American citizen via Hawaiian validation. I also understand that you just tried once again to assume as axiomatic that which you wish to prove to be an axiom -- that is purposed deceit in the form of circular reasoning which you thought you would get away with.

You have yet to cite a single SCOTUS case which defines natural born citizen as it applies to prwsident eligibility as required by the meaning of the term in the Constitution. Your haughty condescension is telling.

Now I suppose you're going to try and take as axiomatic that the Wong Kim Ark case is the proof of your faulty reasoning, ignoring Perkins v Elg and other cases where the terminology is buffeted about. You're a deceiver. The fraud and deception and outright lying of Barack Obama as a tyypical democrat is the issue. You will try to squelch the realities and steer this thread into the areas of fog you have devised, but I for one will now ignore your posts hereafter because you are an outed deceiver.

“We all agree that Obama’s mother was a citizen. And it appears that you understand that as a citizen, if she gave birth to a child within the country, that child is a natural-born citizen.”

Actually, there is a large consensus that since he was born the subject of a foreign country, that excludes him being a “NATURAL BORN” citizen and merely just a CITIZEN.