Much has been written about McCain purportedly having a problem being a “natural born” citizen under the US Constitution. But is this really a problem? From what I have seen, it is not.
What is more surprising is that Obama, the Constitutional Law lecturer (Obama apparently was never a professor, as he has claimed, or assistant or associate professor), may not be qualified. This argument needs careful consideration by the Democratic Party. If he is not qualified, then the Democratic Party could end up with no president at the hands of a Supreme Court that has clearly not shown a propensity to vote in favor of Democrats.
This issue is not as straightforward for those who believe this country allows anyone of any parentage, whether a US citizen or not, to be considered “naturally born,” an essential element of any US president. Indeed, as I have written elsewhere and been attacked by typical personal venom, there is almost undoubtedly a valid Constitutional argument that Obama is not qualified despite the many statutes and precedents that one could cite to the contrary.
ROFLMA
It was John McCain who wasn’t born in the United States (Panama) you dumb ass. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, which WAS absolutely part of the United States of America. Every citizen born in ANY state of the United States is automatically a natural born citizen. That’s what it means. But if like John McCain, you’re NOT born in the United States, but in a foreign country or territory, it’s a bit murky.
And since Republicans can’t get any “facts” right, it was Keith Ellison was is the Muslim in Congress (not Senate) who was sworn in on the Korean, not Obama. Do Republican’s not have fact checkers?
I read the referenced material and the comments. Maybe I’m getting sleepy but the rules are clear to me while Obama’s parents status is not.
Was Barracks father a citizen? Seems like he was not?
How long was Mother outside of the country?–Seems she spent one year in the USA within the 6 years of Baracks birth?
I’ll guess and say that Baracks Mom qualifies him as a citizen, but the facts aren’t laid out clearly one way or the other?
Ellison was sworn in on “the Korean”? Exactly which Korean? I know quite a few.
Much ado about nothing…
Bush and Cheney have no intentions of ever leaving office. They did not greatly expand the powers of the Federal government with the intentions of handing it over to a rival party.
Jus Soli and Jus Sanguine.
By soil and by blood.
#1–Lol==indeed. What got me thinking Obama was born in Kenya?
Must be because if he was born in Hawaii there was NO FREAKING ISSUE AT ALL?
God Damn those false prophets and ne0-cons. Nothing is below them.
This article is little more than a hit piece. It basically sums down to this.
“Between the time the Constitution was adopted in the eighteenth century and the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, Congress passed laws dealing with naturalization and citizenship. One such law was the Naturalization Law of 1790 which provided: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose ((fathers)) have never been resident in the United States.”
He is not talking about citizenship but his status as natural born. It is not really a well constructed argument.
Actually, lol, you should have read the article more carefully. I agree that the time to get the hair-splitting out of the way is now.
In essence, anyone born inside the US is considered a citizen, but the language of the provisions that determine what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’ (the actual requirement of office) would appear to require that both parents be naturalized citizens, themselves.
What the article omits is what remedy might be sought to curtail the issue before it can be made into fodder for the republicans. Not a substantial issue, in my view (it would confuse too many people to be an effective wedge), but certainly worth considering.
And I’m an Obama supporter. For the record. 😉
Max Bell:
You’re totally 100% wrong. Natural born doesn’t have anything to do with the ‘contiguous’ states, it’s ANY state. Hawaii and Alaska are NOT foreign nations or territories. Hawaii and Alaska ARE part of the United States. ANY person born in Alamaba, Alaska, Illinois, Ohio, Hawaii, or Maine is a natural born citizen. There is NO legal argument in the history of our nation that Hawaii is not “really” a state. LOL
Funny… Being a natural citizen is required.
Being competent is not.
#3 Mike
I think I need a fact (spell) checker. I meant “Koran”. Nice catch. 🙂
#10 – OFTLO,
Being competent might be a hindrance these days. Why would any corporation pay good money to buy a competent president who would then, by being competent, represent the people?
“There is NO legal argument in the history of our nation that Hawaii is not “really” a state.”
No argument since 1959 anyway, when it became a state. It’s not a lesser state, or partial state. Being born in Hawaii is legally identical to being born in Iowa. Just because it’s an Island doesn’t make any difference. It’s a full state.
BTW, as I read the article, the question is whether a person who is born in the U.S. with only one parent as a citizen is a “natural born citizen”. Law does hinge on such minor technicalities. Of course, my answer is that yes, he is a natural born citizen. With 5 judges appointed by Reagan/Bush, the answer becomes less clear. I’m neither a law professor nor a supreme court justice. So, I cannot predict how the supremes will see it.
Hillary’s Cheatin’ Ace in the Hole…where she is presently. Or, The Clinton March Surprise.
Leave it to you Dems to screw the pooch with your own candidates. It doesn’t really matter, Osama Obama or, HillBilly will get their butts handed to them this November.
#9, 13 – LOL,
Where did you get the idea that anyone had any question about Hawaii not being contiguous? You seem to have pulled that issue out of some orifice of yours that I’d rather not hear from. Let’s all drop the Hawaii issue please. Hawaii is a state in the union. In fact, even if it were not a state, it would be likely not an issue, what about someone born in DC?
Even if there is truly a legal argument here for Obama not being “natural born”, who in the right mind would bring such a suit? You would ostracize every naturalized voter in the country. I simply cannot imagine either Hillary, McCain or other Republicans bring this up without committing political suicide.
If he was born in Hawaii then there is NO problem.
As long as he satisfies the other requiments “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”
Move along, nothing to see here.
Aren’t you a natural born citizen even if neither parent is a citizen? This is much ado about nothing, though it would help if the article explained the basis for his complaint. He gives some fancy legal reasoning, but nowhere do I see facts relating to Obama, as to why this reasoning applies to him.
Barack Obama is a citizen, and never naturalized, therefore he, like McCain, is natural-born citizen.
ROFLMAO! Sorry.
Silly argument to put more fear in people about Senator Obama – http://tinyurl.com/y8rgk8 US Citizenship and Immigration Services
I knew as the race got tighter and tighter, it would get nastier and nastier.
Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered and out of wedlock Islamic radical half-robot alien man-dog hybrid?
I’m not saying it’s TRUE, I’m just “asking”…ahem…
(courtesy of Karl Rove)
# 22 this one is better http://tinyurl.com/y3bor6
“Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:”
* By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents, or”
* By Naturalization.”
This to me makes John McCain and Barack Obama. Natural Born Citizen. Natural Born= from birth.
McCain born to “U.S. citizen parents” both his parents being U.S. citizen not matter where he was born. Obama being born “either within the territory of the United States” regardless of his parents status.
Now if someone can show that Obama was not born “within the territory of the United States” than questions can be raised. Or that both of McCain’s parents were not “U.S. citizens”. So if Moma McCain was with one of the hired help and not the Admiral than some one can have fun with this issue.
BTW I though I read some where that the mother had to be facing a certain way and the baby conceived at the full moon with permission of the Pope to be Natural Born. You also have to go all the way though the birth canal and non of that Test tube stuff.
This has been the dumbest issue I have read so far. Your either Citizen at birth (Natural) or by Naturalization (become one after birth). If your not either one your not a U.S. citizen
This coming from a Republican
But is he black enough?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13154
If any candidate won the election and was denied the Presidency because the Supremes decided some obscure law meant he was ineligible, I don’t think they would stand a chance. You would see a nation of laws rebel against the Supreme Court to regain the status of being a Nation of Laws.
#27 I’d hope that’d be the case. I don’t think we have to worry though as this isn’t an obscure law.
He was born on U.S. soil. Doesn’t matter about his parents.
Is “dumbasses” one word or two?
Black enough, religion or natural?
If these are the worst things Clinton and McCain can drum up on Obama then he deserves to be President by default for being the cleanest politician on record.
Voters are fed-up with this kind of politics and if they truely want “change” then send a message to them by not voting for Clinton or McCain. They will get the message real quick.