Good posting, V!
The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.
re: “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage
Well, in the case of the MSM, of course it’s missing. It’s directly from the playbook of liberal organizations to spin a story in such a way that those who aren’t paying attention, or have been educated in public schools, don’t understand the principles involved and can be sent off on a snipe hunt.
The question is not if he was born in Hawaii, but rather is he a natural born citizen! And that should be pointed out loud and clear EVERY time and ANY time the subject comes up.
“The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.”
That’s because they KNOW he’s not qualified. Dirty little secret that is too embarrassing; many blacks don’t really know who their father is..........
We couldn’t really bring embarrassment to our dear leader could we?
“The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, theres a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint...
... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf