Thanks for you input, but I don’t see how the 14th Amendment applies. It takes away stature from the states, making state citizens also U.S. citizens. It says nothing about people born elsewhere being “natural born” citizens.

As to the claim that “Laws passed since the constitution are more specific about who is a citizen at birth,” well, laws do not trump the Constitution. Only Constitutional amendments can alter the provisions in the Constitution.

Dave

Agence France Presse (AFP) ran an article about this today. Here is an excerpt:

“The US constitution provides the framework for the law on who is a citizen, saying in the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“Laws passed since the constitution are more specific about who is a citizen at birth.

“They include anyone born inside the United States, a person born in a US possession if one parent is a citizen and lived in the United States for at least a year; and anyone born outside the United States to at least one US-citizen parent who has lived in the US for a minimum of five years.”

I grew up in San Antonio, Texas, which was (and is) a military town with 4 bases in the area. Most of my schoolmates were moved around, all over the world. Many of them were born in foreign lands where their fathers were stationed – either on military bases or even in local hospitals. No one ever asserted that they were anything other than natural born American citizens (although one had dual citizenship by virtue of having been born in Canada when his father was stationed there). Any of them could run for President today if they got the political support.

If Obama had to reapply for citizenship at any time, then this whole argument might carry weight. As it is, this is a distraction, and simply another crazy “Patriot legal theory.”

“Patriot legal theories” are concocted arguments, based upon speculation, usually without any reference to actual case law. My favorite was one circulated in the 1990’s to the effect that the use of a Federal ZIP code on your mail somehow mysteriously invoked Federal jurisdiction over your property. No proponent of that theory ever cited a single statute, administrative ruling or court case to back it up. So why did thousands of people believe this stuff? Beats me.

I didn’t vote in the election, because I, like you, don’t think it matters who is president. But I won’t waste time with silly theories, and neither should you.

Cheers!

I do find it interesting that the Gov was arrested right after he proposed ceasing doing business with BofA over the Republic Window fiasco. Shades of Elliot Spitzer …

I can’t help but think that the way politicians are kept in line is that the intelligence agencies dig up dirt on all of them and trot it out if the politicians don’t follow the playbook.

Dave

The worst (my oppinion) is the solicitation, by oyr current governor, to the highest bidder, to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat. But there is also extortion of the Chicago tribune, and then, your run of the nill pay to play.

The evidence Fitzgerald has is outstanding.
It seems logical this governor will tender his resignation in the comming days. His administration has been laden with corruption, allegations of corruption etc.

Here in Spfld, people are practiclly dancing in the streets. I myself, see no cause for celibration. The governor prior to this one is now sitting in an Indiana federal prison for his gubonortorial corruption.

The State of Illinois is about to fiscally colapse, and that is no understatement.
It’s damm serious and nothing to celibrate but there can be releif that this corruption crime spree has been stopped.

Yours is a different understanding than mine. My understanding is that a natural born person is simply one born within the territorial limits of the United States, as opposed to a naturalized citizen. Beyond that I cannot elaborate further, as I’m no expert on the Constitution.

However, I searched the Constitution and I can find no mention of “corporations” or “legal persons.” So perhaps you’re overthinking it; maybe it’s as simple as my intuitive understanding.

Dave

Please let me start with what I think I know:

The law defines just two types of persons:
a). A “natural” (born) person and
b). A “legal” person.
The first is a living human being, while the second is typically a corporation.

From this, it is obvious that the framers of the Constitution wanted to unambiguously exclude corporations from holding the Presidency! It seems to me that if being a “natural born person” is the extent of the legal requirement to legally hold the Presidency goes, then even Governor Schwazenegger qualifies.

So, is there is an American law stating that the “natural born person” must be born to American parents or within an American state or territory to be considered a U.S. Citizen? That would be a different kettle of fish.

Please tell me what’s wrong with my understanding and provide references that can illuminate my thinking.

Thanks – Herb

This case could become some sort of flash point, not unlike the 2000 election and the “hanging chads” fiasco.

On the one hand, if the Supreme Court decides he’s ineligible – frankly, I don’t see how it has the authority to decide either way, but that’s another matter – and “O” is not allowed to become the president, then I would not be surprised to see widespread rioting, ala the Rodney King riots. Blacks might see the disqualification of “O” as yet another attempt to suppress them. (By the way, I thought Rodney King’s attackers were unjustly acquitted, but I also condemned the rioting that followed.)

On the other hand, if he becomes president with so much doubt in the minds of Americans, he won’t be seen as legitimate. Moreover, it might be just the thing to push some people over the edge to seek secession or other such things.

I think the Supreme Court will pursue the path that will produce the least turmoil, regardless of the Constitution, which would be to ignore the whole issue or rule him eligible without any proof.

Dave

EXCUSE ME!! Can somebody point me to where FT SUMPTER IS?

I agree: just show us. Is that asking so much. Instead he has lawyered up, apparently to prevent any such disclosure. Hello?! Does he have any idea how suspicious that appears to us peons?

Dave