Post
holloway64 holloway64 46-50, M 8 Answers Dec 19, 2012 in Hobbies

Your Response

Cancel

Well, when Obama was born in Hawaii, the state law did not allow a mother under 18 to convey natural born citizenship. Since his father was no a us citizen he could not either. Therefor, by virtue of being born in the us, he is by definition a a naturalized citizen. It's a subtle distinction but does disqualify him constitutionally. Of course we don't really follow the constitution.

Best Answer

And how come the entire Supreme Court miss this point?

Best Answer

There was never a case brought before them. States are supposed to review the records but they rarely actually do.

Best Answer

There was a case brought to the courts. The Supreme court ruled that Obama had a valid birth certificate.

Best Answer

Holloway64 - Because he is the first half-black president, they cannot sully his legacy..look at the multiple scandals he has been involved in..I mean, he freaking missed a subpoena date and no one cared.

Best Answer

As I said, he was born in Hawaii. That's beside the point. It is who could convey natural pen citizenship in Hawaii at that time. That's the point you're missing. Also, it never reached the Supreme Court.

Best Answer

Correction. initially they refused to hear th case and let the lower court ruling stand. There's a new case that they will hear. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/supreme-court-obama-birth-certificate-case_n_1586695.html

Best Answer

It's really a moot point and there is no interest. The lower courts threw it out on technicalities because it was such a political time bomb. The us Supreme Court will never hear it. It will never make the docket. Obama is the president who was selected by the people. I'm just telling you what the law said at the time. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate.

Best Answer
Best Answer

I could quote the refusals of the Supreme Court to hear the cases. The most recent was in June. They also refued in 2008.

Best Answer

The 14th amendment confers citizenship on all persons born in the US. State law cannot change that.

Best Answer

You are right they refused letting the lower court rulings stand.

Best Answer

The federal court refused to consider the case. Not their job, they said.

Best Answer

That's my point. The 14 th amendment confers citizenship, bu in this case not natural born citizenship. The subtle difference is between natural born and naturalized. You don't have to agree or acknowledge it, but that's the law.

Best Answer
Best Answer

Look. This is over. The constitution is clear. What's amazing is people just won't accept the reality that we bypassed the constitution. It isn't the first time. The patriot act and the undeclared wars are other examples. I just wish people would acknowledge the facts and stop name calling at those of us who point them out.

Best Answer

If he was born on US soil, according to the 14th amendment, he is a citizen regardless of the status of his mother. He would not need to be naturalized. Children of illegal aliens, as long as the child was born in the United States is a US citizen. That is the law.

Best Answer

That's your error! You nailed it. That's the whole issue. Now you know. You just won't acknowledge it. Have a good day. Gotta run.

Best Answer

You agreed that Obama was born on US soil. So what error are you talking about

Best Answer

here are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[6][7] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[9] According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[8] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[10][11] However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.[12][13][14]
Senator James Rood Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[15] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[16][17]
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[18]
The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descen

Best Answer

Guess the FBI fukked up too, and the dozen times his birth certificate was shown by the state of Hawaii must have been a great Photoshop forgery.
Point is in a big country there will always be a fringe, hate-filled lunatic element that sees little green men descending on their property and our president as a non-citizen.

Best Answer

And also a large group that will fail to read the law before making a determination. That's much scarier than the fringe group that does.

Best Answer

or people who like to go to fringe conspiracy theory sites that have their own special interpretation of the 14th amendment, ignoring the hundred years of court construction.

Best Answer
19 More Responses

Ohhh. That question is soooooo RACIST!



Odumbo's "birth certificate" is a very badly done Photoshop forgery. His Social Security number was issued to some guy from Connecticut who died a couple decades ago. He's a fraud and an impostor. Shame on the idiots who ignore his history.

Best Answer

If it is so bad, How did the republican party and all the federal courts miss this

Best Answer

The courts didn't miss anything. They chickened out, refused to consider the case, and said it was the responsibility of Congress. The Republican party only controls the House. The Senate won't consider any questions of Obama. So Congress is blocked. So none of the evidence has ever been officially been reviewed.
And of course, the crap media won't talk about it other than to hurl insults at anyone who questions Saint Odumbo.

Best Answer

It wasn't the entire party. It was the thick headed morons who, at any cost, wanted to unseat the current occupant.

Best Answer

lol

Best Answer

What?

Best Answer

Related Questions