Must See

Login or register to post comments Last Post 33786 reads   229 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 151 through 160 (of 229 total)

Sam –

Your link seems pretty clear to me. 

That’s precisely why Madeline Albright was removed from the succession of power chain back when she was State.  She was naturalized and therefore ineligible to become President iaw Article II. 

But the 12th and 14th Amendments clearly outlined why she was afforded all the rights of a US citizen – except being able to serve a s President.

 

Any experts on Constitutional Law out there? – I’m going on what I learned back in 1972.

[quote=gregroberts]

Hi Sam,

One of the things I find strange is that he won’t release his Hawaiian birth certificate, and I don’t trust anyone with this many aliases,

"The documents that we found when conducting our research into Barack Obama Jr.’s citizenship are displayed on this page. This is what we know about Barack Obama Jr.’s parents and his citizenship.

Barack Obama Jr. aka Barack H. Obama Jr. aka Barry Soetoro aka Barack Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama "

http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html

Greg

[/quote]

 

Greg,

With all due respect, I would have to say that I cannot accept the accusations that he is not a natural-born citizen.

After all, if the Clinton’s had even the slightest notion that they could derail him as not being a legitimate citizen, don’t you think they would have jumped on that in a NY heartbeat? And you know the McCain crowd would have been all over it. With the resources of the Clinton’s and the Republicans unable to disprove Obama’s citizenship, I cannot believe anyone else who claims otherwise.

[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile]

Sam –

Your link seems pretty clear to me. 

That’s precisely why Madeline Albright was removed from the succession of power chain back when she was State.  She was naturalized and therefore ineligible to become President iaw Article II. 

But the 12th and 14th Amendments clearly outlined why she was afforded all the rights of a US citizen – except being able to serve a s President.

 

Any experts on Constitutional Law out there? – I’m going on what I learned back in 1972.

[/quote]

 

Dogs,

That’s precisely why Madeline Albright was removed from the succession of power chain back when she was State. She was naturalized and therefore ineligible to become President iaw Article II. 

I think they screwed up when they did that. Unless someone can show me absolute documentation (settled law – like a Supreme Court decision, e.g.), I’m convinced that people have misinterpreted Article II of the Constitution (and Amendment 14) for the last 200+ years to suit their own biases.

(That ought to stir up some reaction!)  Wink

Sam –

No Supreme Court precedent exists as the issue has never come up.

I don’t see how Article II could be any clearer.  You have to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for President.  Naturalized is not natural born. 

And Amendment 14 doesn’t have anything to do with Article II – sheesh, it wasn’t even ratified until almost 100 years after Article II had been in affect.

"After all, if the Clinton’s had even the slightest notion that they could derail him as not being a legitimate citizen, don’t you think they would have jumped on that in a NY heartbeat? And you know the McCain crowd would have been all over it. With the resources of the Clinton’s and the Republicans unable to disprove Obama’s citizenship, I cannot believe anyone else who claims otherwise. "

Good points Sam, I really don’t know the answer, I’m just sharing information that I find, I agree that’s it’s unlikely but I’ll just wait and see.

Greg

Greg – your box of goodies goes out tomorrow.

I don’t see how Article II could be any clearer. You have to be a
natural born citizen to be eligible for President.  Naturalized is not
natural born. 

 

Dogs,

Logic requires that I disagree with you. (Hope that doesn’t cancel my future turkey leg!  Surprised)

Leave out the "natural born" portion of this discussion – that is a separate issue. The point I’m trying to make is that I don’t see how you could not note the underlined words below. Note that they explicitly use the words "or a citizen" – "or" being the operative word here.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States
, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United
States."

Also, note that Amendment 14 not only refers to "persons born … in the United States" but also to "persons … naturalized in the United States". Again, "or" is the operative word here.
It was intended, IMHO, to clarify the citizenship reference in Article II – regardless of how long after the original date of Article II above.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sam –

The "or a citizen of the United States" was written in 1787 and was in the Constitution to specifically address those who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution but who had been born in England.  This was also addressed by the second half.

"….neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

You can’t look at Article II and The 14th Amendment together.  The 14 Amendment was ratified in 1868 – long after the applicability of "or a citizen" had run its very narrow course.

Dogs,

I agree with your first and second paragraphs. However, the issue I have raised is that I cannot find anything in the Constitution (or the Amendments) that states only "natural born" citizens are eligible to be president. The wikipedia link I referenced earlier notes that the issue is still very unsettled. I tried doing a small amount of research into other references but found the same ambiguity as noted in the wikipedia link.

Therefore, I stand by my original assertion that there is no documentation that I am currently aware of that explicitly limits the office of the president and vice-president to "natural born" citizens.

If no one can prove otherwise, I’m running as an Independent in 2012!  Foot in mouth (Was born in the UK, don’t you know.)

Okay,  You have gotta watch this..  Are you kidding me?!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

Viewing 10 posts - 151 through 160 (of 229 total)

Login or Register to post comments