If Obama has no Natural Born Citizenship problem why did Congress try to fix it?

coachisright.com ^ | Feb. 5, 2012 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

[philman_36]

Congress accepted the Electoral College results, based on their understanding of the law.
That's not what I asked.

@The Sense of the Senate Resolution was appropriate in that case and it conflicts with nothing I have posted, here.

@Is that Sense of the Senate Resolution law?

[Las Vegas Ron]

I’m not defending Obama, and I never have. If anything, I’m defending the Republicans who were wrongly accused in this thread of trying to protect Obama.

That is the most convoluted bunch of BS I've yet see here.

How's jamses777?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Hard to believe coming out of the revolutionary war, that the founders wanted the child of a british citizen to become president.

According to some posters here, Chavez/Castro/Che/Putin/Bin Ladin/the devil his self could have a child in the US and he/she would be Constitutionally eligible.

I guess the war of INDEPENDENCE was just a catch phrase.

Can't fight/fix stupid.....

[bushpilot1]

[Kleon]

I have no idea who you’re talking about.

[RegulatorCountry]

Understand the origin of the word and understand the applicability of it to yourself, Kansas58. Fighting liberals and RINOs your entire life is admirable, however if there is no foundation upon which to stand, only shifting sand subject to whatever way the wind blows, what is it that you’re fighting for? An opinion? One that can be overridden by Congressional vote?

No, you’re fighting for bedrock principles immutably enshrined in the Constitution that can only be amended not defined away, but you don’t grasp the nature of those principles, nor the deliberate obstacles placed in order to make altering them a difficult thing to do. You just keep trying to pull it back to the one issue, as if there is only one issue of Congressional and Executive overreach into areas that are unconstitutional.

I’ve provided you with two examples of just why your strange belief that Constitutional terms can be redefined or even altered by legislation is wrong, wrong, wrong. On issues near and dear to you, but you still don’t get it. And regrettably, you won’t.

So, enjoy the overbearing, out of control government that you’ve helped to create, in your naive belief that the Constitution can be altered via legislation. You made this bed, now lie in it. Your fighting has been flailing to no purpose, because you never understood what you were fighting for.

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

[Las Vegas Ron]

Play your game with some one else, obot troll.

[Kleon]

According to some posters here, Chavez/Castro/Che/Putin/Bin Ladin/the devil his self could have a child in the US and he/she would be Constitutionally eligible.

I can think of some pretty awful people whose children would pass any birther's test for eligibility. Do you really think we should revise our legal understanding of natural born citizenship to prevent something that will never happen?

[bushpilot1]

Dicta...sure..lol Have checked if Justia edited this..

[Las Vegas Ron]

I can think of some pretty awful people whose children would pass any birther's test for eligibility

Who?

Do you really think we should revise our legal understanding of natural born citizenship to prevent something that will never happen?

Never happen, you mean like your boy obama?

The *ucker who sells this Country out every chance he gets....that guy, a foreigner?

Are you really that *ucking stupid?

[bushpilot1]

I guess this destroys your claim Vattel had nothing to do forming this country and is limited to Iternational law. Gordon Wood and kansas58

[bushpilot1]

This obliterates your ridiculous claim Vattel is limited to International law.

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

If Obama obeys the laws he must resign..Webster said Vattel is law in the US. Hamilton and Madison agree with Webster.

[bushpilot1]

Law of Nations: natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“They knew that barring the presidency to all except those who were born on American soil, to two US citizen parents, was the strongest insurance they could impose against someone of divided loyalties assuming control of that office.

That is the entire simplicity of the Natural Born Citizen clause.”

Correct. If the intent of the founders was to prevent, to the greatest degree they could, the possibility of divided loyalties (and it certainly was) in the person holding the presidential levers of power, then natural born citizenship derived by birth on US soil to US citizen parents represents the gold standard. This is not difficult logic.