This is the issue that needs to be determined in court. Is a child born within the jurisdiction of the US, to a citizen mother and a father who is a foreigner constitutionally eligible to be president?
After much research, I have concluded that the answer is no - that was not the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Article II of the constitution.
However, it has never been determined definitively in a court of law, and legal scholars as well as the American people differ on their opinion of the issue.
Many people assume that just being born in America or having a parent who is a citizen is sufficient. When told that it might not actually be that way legally, they shrug and say well it should be.
I believe that a conservative court would be inclined to be stricter and uphold the original intent, but not at this time. I believe the courts are likely to dodge the issue, as being appropriately a question for the legislature.
Further more, the media reported the BC issue,(in a ridiculing way) Obama freely admitted his father was a British citizen, and the American people voted for him anyway. The people are Sovereign, and the people have spoken, courts will not be willing to overturn an election.
I truly believe the only way to insure this does not happen again, is for the states to address it in their election rules. The secretary of state for each state should certify the eligibility of candidates.
The legislatures of each state should specify by statute what the necessary documentation is, and what their interpretation of the term natural born means. Court challenges to the state laws might wind up in the Supreme Court, but at least the issue would have been determined.
Another way would be to amend the constitution to define the term, and have the states ratify. Passing a statute is not sufficient. Congress has the power to specify naturalization laws, but not to determine what is constitutional.
I find the legal issue to be interesting, and so I like to follow whats happening, but the main goal we all need is to make sure conservatives replace liberals and socialists in 2010.
"Further more, the media reported the BC issue,(in a ridiculing way) Obama freely admitted his father was a British citizen, and the American people voted for him anyway. The people are Sovereign, and the people have spoken, courts will not be willing to overturn an election."
I would ask, how many of those citizens were informed enough about his being born with British Citizenship?
Prior to the election, I would venture a guess that perhaps 10%, maybe 20% of the voting population knew about the questions surrounding his B.C. and perhaps 1 to 2% of them knew about him being born with British citizenship. Prior to the election, so far as I know, Berg's lawsuit was the only one around (that some folks knew of), and he focused on the B.C. issue.
Sure, many knew his father was a foreigner. But did they "connect the dots" and realize (or read in their local rag) that he was born a citizen of the English crown? I doubt it.
Furthermore, simply because the state run media convinced the uneducated sheeple that Barry was the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean there is a legitimate issue there that needs to be addressed.
Don't forget that over 7,000 (presumably) voting age citizens (in 5 states) exercised their choice for someone that is clearly not Constitutionally qualified. That being Roger Calero, a foreign born green card holder.
Rational approach. Actually, I believe that if just 3 or 4 states got with the program, that would be enough. Right now, the issue is a waste of our time in many ways.
Our problem is not Obama, but the total absence of leadership and planning for the Republican takeover, which is rapidly degenerating into a "business as usual" RINO deal. Be a damn shame if all the Tea Party did was make a seat safe for a bozo like McCain.
Let's put aside the minutia and concentrate on the main event. Saving the country, hobbling Obama in his last 2 years, and picking a great candidate for 2012.