Because the "two citizen parent" requirement of NBC is a load of bunk that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or established law. It is a fictional device created by birthers to be an eligibility standard that Obama couldn't possibly meet and enjoys support nowhere outside of birther circles.
On January 20th, 2009, a man whose foreign father is a matter of public record was sworn into the office of the presidency by the chief justice of the highest court in the land after a campaign where no one, not his opponents, not the previous administration, not the courts questioned his eligibility.
That's how much of a loser this "two parent citizen" definition of NBC is.
You might want to put some ice on that, it is likely gonna leave an owie for you.
Absolute lie. You need to read more and suck up to Obama less.
You, Drew68, are totally FOS.
You have ZERO understanding of Constitutional law, you are wrong about the requirements for natural born citizenship, and even if John Roberts seems absent a pair of stones, that changes nothing but our impressions regarding the nature of his manhood. It certainly doesn’t change the Constitution.
And, as to no one challenging his eligibility during the campaign, well, I didn’t know it was possible to stay asleep for that long. How did you manage it?
I agree that the “two citizen parent” requirement of NBC is a load of bunk, but its funny how the “he is the son of Malcolm X “posts had sort of dried up.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, . . in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”
Dear “Drew-Wrong-Conclusion”,
I usually don’t bother responding to ignorant trolls, but your Obamessiah was a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution bill 511 (along with several Demon-crats) who determined ‘unanimously’ that John McCain was a “natural born citizen” because he born on a U.S. Naval base and was the child of American citizens (plural ! ) and Hil-lar’-y-ass also consented to this ruling !
The only mistake they made was that they forgot to consult with you and your buddy, Non-Sequitur before passing this Resolution !
Because the “two citizen parent” requirement of NBC is a load of bunk that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or established law. It is a fictional device created by birthers to be an eligibility standard that Obama couldn’t possibly meet and enjoys support nowhere outside of birther circles.
On January 20th, 2009, a man whose foreign father is a matter of public record was sworn into the office of the presidency by the chief justice of the highest court in the land after a campaign where no one, not his opponents, not the previous administration, not the courts questioned his eligibility.
That’s how much of a loser this “two parent citizen” definition of NBC is.
***
You ignorant boor ...
1. The fact that no other candidate questioned his eligibility does NOT, in fact, mean that he is eligible ...
2. The courts do not produce “advisory opinions” in advance - they wait until cases are brought to them BEFORE they rule ...
3. There are many things “not found in the constitution” that have, in fact, been interpreted by the courts as being there ...
Cases in point, Gideon v. Wainwright (right of the indigent to a court-appointed attorney) ... Miranda v. Arizona (having rights read to a suspect) ... Roe v. Wade (implied right to privacy) ...
To assert that since it is “NOT SPECIFICALLY written in the Constitution” and, therefore, NOT what the Founding Fathers meant is assinine ...
4. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained in English Common Law. When the Constitution was adopted, they DID NOT write a whole new system of laws. They used English Common Law to the extent that they agreed with it, AND ONLY modified the laws they did not like. The term “natural born citizen [subject]” WAS NOT modified from English Common Law by the Founding Fathers ...
5. SCOTUS HAS NEVER ruled upon the definition of “natural born citizen” - this is why they need to take this case ... to put it to rest once and for all.
6. SCOTUS has ruled that it IS INDEED proper to reference English Common Law when the Founding Fathers’ intent is not clear ...
From Wong Kim Ark v. United States 169 U.S. 649 March 28, 1898:
” ... In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655] ...”
From Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162:
” ... The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts ... “
7. As for the “two citizen parent” rule - that is GENERALLY the most common way to prove natural born citizenship.
Per English Common Law, it natural born citizenship stems from TWO requrements ... being born within the sovreign’s dominion AND under the allegiance to that sovreign AND that sovreign ONLY ...
A person could possibly be a natural born citizen, born within the sovreign’s dominion, WITHOUT having two citizen parents - IF BOTH of those parents DID NOT owe an allegiance to any OTHER sovreign ... depends upon the prevailing law at the time.
In Obama’s case, he was born within the allegiance of the United States (14th Amendment) AND within the allegiance of Great Britain (British Nationality Act of 1948).