Replies

Interesting clues.

SCOTUS needs to deal with whether a person can still Constitutionally be a “natural born citizen” if that person is NO LONGER a US citizen. Can a person be a non-citizen and a “natural born citizen” at the same time?

SCOTUS needs to rule on that, which is another reason why any eligibility bill needs to require documentation regarding CITIZENSHIP.

It is interesting to note, also, that the secretary who took notes at the meeting where the media heads explained to the on-air personalities that they had been threatened by Obama’s lawyers if they reported on certain things noted among those specific things any oath of loyalty. Why would an oath of loyalty be a forbidden topic if there wasn’t such a thing? Seems like Soros/Obama were concerned about the Indonesian angle, which suggests there is a “there” there.

But until we get at the actual records we don’t really know what all we’re dealing with. It’s WAY past time that these records were opened up.

Interesting clues.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is my cut at this question.

I will digress back to the actual words in Article II - “natural born Citizen”. Note - no hyphen and the C is capitalized. Citizen as a capitalized term is a defined term. It meant a Citizen of the of the states. So you do have be a Citizen to be president. AND you had to be a ‘natural born’ Citizen. So to be eligible from an Article II you have to be a (current) Citizen.

This is why the fuss over the ‘definition’ of ‘natural born Citizen’ is really bogus. Citizen IS defined - hence why it is Capitalized. Any legal person will tell you capitalized terms are explicitly defined entities and that is the case in the Constitution.

Now ‘natural born’. First note - no hyphen. It is not a special term or special word or unique phrase. The are not capitalized so the framers did not provide specific or unique definitions of these words. So lets look at each of these common adjectives to determine what they intended.

Lets use this website for answers:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

‘natural’
I think there is a definition that fits the Constitutional context:

“Not acquired; inherent:”

‘born’

Again - there is a definition that fits:

“possessing or appearing to have possessed certain qualities from birth” (note - “from birth”)

So we can replace ‘natural born Citizen’ with

‘inherent Citizen from birth’

and we have the same meaning.

So the Article II of the Constitution requires you to be:

A. A Citizen. A CURRENT Citizen.
B. A Citizen whose status was inherent and not acquired (i.e. naturalized - sorry Arnold)
C. A Citizen ‘FROM BIRTH’. Note - not AT birth as many indicated - FROM BIRTH.

Thus if Obama ever gave up his US Citizenship in total after the age of 18 then he is no longer a) a Citizen at that point in time and b) no longer a ‘natural born Citizen’ since you must retain your status ‘from birth’ just as a common dictionary says.

In summary:

The Framers did not ‘define’ ‘natural born Citizen’ (no hyphen, Capital C) because they did NOT need to. If you read those three words AS THEY SHOULD BE READ the meaning is clear. It is above.

This is the most monumental story in American history. The Usurpation of the Presidency.

When is the State Run Media going to realize they can no longer ignore this story?

I want to know what promted the HDOH to release their proclamations of Hussein’s credentials. There’s a communication trail there to the White Hut. There has to be.......

Also with ‘FactCheck’. It’s almost as if they were created in order to outright LIE for this POS illegal alien infesting the Presidency.

As soon as one SRM source covers this in any detail....the blood will be in the water. Hussein is finished.

He will be pushed to step down due to health reasons rather than cause national chaos.