[calenel]

"The legitimate and primary source is the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, and a correct reading of it which should not be hard to do if one is of rational mind and understands the English language. To me its meaning is crystal clear. Obama is not a natural born citizen. And, as Berg states in his suit, not even a U.S. citizen. His whole presidential election is based on fraud and deception. "

I presume you are specifically referring to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which says:

"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does this contradict my position? If you look at the first clause "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" it describes two, and only two types of citizen: born or naturalized. Where is this apocryphal 'born a citizen but not natural born' type? Where is the redefinition of 'natural born' that means something other than 'having [that] attribute from birth'? Regarding the second clause,

"Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas.' according to the SCOTUS. From FindLaw

[John Valentine]

"Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation..."

Contemporary commentary I have read indicates that the phrase was intended to reach the children of anyone who did not fall within the complete and unitary "jusrisdiction thereof", in other words, no competing jusisdiction existed.

This encompassed many classes of individuals beyond those described.

[flaglady47]

“How does this contradict my position? If you look at the first clause “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” it describes two, and only two types of citizen: born or naturalized. Where is this apocryphal ‘born a citizen but not natural born’ type? Where is the redefinition of ‘natural born’ that means something other than ‘having [that] attribute from birth’? Regarding the second clause,”

I’m not going to do your research for you. Go read what our founding fathers had to say about this clause and then get back to me. You obviously are having trouble figuring out the meaning by reading the Constitution itself. I can’t help you, or should I say I won’t help you. Now don’t be lazy about doing the research. You asked the question, you research it to figure out the answer if you need more proof. Will be looking forward to hearing the results of your research.