Replies

Regardless of what one thinks of Tribe and Olson, both are recognized Constitutional scholars and both have been listed at one time or another as possible SCOTUS justices. Note that they interpret the Constitution and related cases to mean that natural born citizenship includes birthright citizenship (jus solis) and by blood, (jus sanguinis.) -------------------------------------------------------- That is simply their opinion... "Natural born Citizenship is specified and defined in the Constitution: 1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a „natural born Citizen‟shall beeligible to the Office of President; 2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by thePeople) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against theLaw of Nations; 3. The Law of Nations says that: a. „The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country(jus soli), of parents who are citizens’ ; b. „As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than bythe children of the citizens, those children naturally follow thecondition of their fathers(jus sanguinis),and succeed to all their rights’ ; c. ‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’ ; d. „To be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of afather who is a citizen;for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it willbe only the place of his birth, and not his country.‟ This requirement can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, which has yet tooccur. The 14th Amendment does not mention „natural born Citizen‟, and is thereforeunrelated to and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for the Office of thePresident. Additionally 4 Supreme Court cases have re-inforced the issue that an NBC is born of parenst who themselves are citizens. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55105383/Executive-Summary-Re-NBC-Defined-in-Constitution-Plus-4-SCOTUS-Cases

I saw that, but you and I are not arguing before the Supreme Court. We have someone in the WH who had a UK citizen father and just presented his alleged birth certificate showing him being born in Hawaii. Obviously, he is the President and has been for more than two years. If the law and precedent are so clear, why was he put on the ballot and elected? Unless he is challenged in the courts and SCOTUS rules, we are both just offering our opinions. In the meantime, Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States.

If the definition of natural born citizen was so cut and dried and a matter of settled law, then why is this guy in the WH? Or why did the Senate feel it was necessary to pass a resolution and get an opinion from two noted constitutional scholars of different poltical persuasions to justify McCain's eligibility, which is also not settled law?

We need this issue resolved, i.e., natural born citizenship needs to be defined specifically as it applies to Article II, Section I of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can do that wih any finality and specificity.