Replies

Again, you’re reading comprehension and ability to think logically is failing you. 1) We don’t know where Obama was born. 2) Place of birth wasn’t the reason why I cited the Natuarlization Act of 1790. The point was to demonstrate that natural born citizenship and basic citizenship were fundamentally tied to the status of the father - something you’ve failed to refute, so I accept your concession on that point. Thanks. 3) The 14th amendment didn’t redefine nor invalidate the original definition natural born citizenship, which was what Justices Waite and Gray both told us Minor and WKA, respectively. Sorry, james, but once again, 3 strikes and you’re out. BTW, thanks for punting on the Madison argument too.

You may not know where Obama was born but the state of Hawai’i says that he was born in that state at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961. Even the outgoing Republican Governor of Hawai’i says that.

As you may have noticed, Obama doesn’t need to prove where he was born, those who oppose his eligibility have the burden of proof.

There’s no sense in repeating myself, I said and I mean that James Madison’s words are definitive for me: place of birth to determine allegiance is what holds in the United States and “therefore it is unnecessary to examine any other.”

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—Supreme Court of the United States in the majority opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Thank you Mr. Madison!

You may not know where Obama was born but the state of Hawai’i says that he was born in that state at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961.

Wrong. A jpg on a website says this - not the state of Hawaii.

Even the outgoing Republican Governor of Hawai’i says that.

The outgoing Governor of Hawaii lied about the DOH making a statement that Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital. Why do you hang your hat on the words that are obvious lies??

As you may have noticed, Obama doesn’t need to prove where he was born, those who oppose his eligibility have the burden of proof.

No, actually all they have to do is challenge his eligibility under ballot laws such as the one in Hawaii. The burden of proof is still on Obama.

There’s no sense in repeating myself, I said and I mean that James Madison’s words are definitive for me: place of birth to determine allegiance is what holds in the United States and “therefore it is unnecessary to examine any other.”

Mr. Cherry Picker, Madison's words don't stop at this point, as I've shown you three times now. He was explaining that Mr. Smith was eligible for the House, not the presidency.

Thank you Mr. Madison!

What?? Mr. Madison didn't write the Wong Kim Ark decision. What you quoted supports MY argument because it only talks about Constitutional 14th amendment citizenship. Natural born citizenship according to that same legal decision is from OUTSIDE the Constitution. "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." Read again what YOU quoted. "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."

Now to help you really understand, we'll cut out the extraneous language and put these definitions side-by-side.

"The Constitution does not ... say who shall be natural-born citizens."

" ... citizenship by birth is established ... under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."

Do you understand yet?? NBC NOT defined in the Constitution. 14th amendment citizenship at birth IS defined in the Constitution. It's talking about TWO different concepts and admits they are defined two different ways: outside the Constitution for the former and inside the Constitution for the latter.

Don't thank Madison. Thank edge919 for teaching you a valuable lesson.