[Fantasywriter]

If it's a matter of allegiance, then Obama doesn't qualify. He has more allegiance to his foreign half than to the USA. This is the problem w arguing that the Framers were fine w the children of foreigners who happened to be born on US soil: divided loyalties. The idea that they actually endorsed divided loyalties for the office of POTUS, or even undivided foreign loyalties [as in a person born of two foreign parents on US soil] is ridiculous.

[New Jersey Realist]

How can you say that? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

On July 4th, 1776 everyone became a citizen of the U.S. - a natural born subject to a natural born citizen.

According to the Constitution everyone already a citizen (even if a naturalized one) on the day before ratification was eligible for the office – once he met the 14 year residence requirement.

There were a LOT of people that didn’t approve of the separation or the war against England, Loyalist and such – much more than today.

So why in Pete’s sake do you thing there is a restriction on future generations and not then?

A Russian, English or German citizen naturalized the day before the Constitution was ratified would have been eligible to become president.

Use your brain. Don’t listen to these kooks!

Obama must go, absolutely, but IF HE WAS born in Hawaii, he IS NBC. Get rid of him by voting the bum out or prove he was indeed born in Kenya!

[New Jersey Realist]

Also I might add, Madison made this statement after the Constituion was written:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”