Birther roll call

peepnklown said:

Chuz, your PMs are off.
I suppose Obama was born in Hawaii but, sadly this still does not qualify him for POTUS. The majority of the American people do not know the difference between natural born, native born, and US citizen. This is a big problem!
I say, let’s suppose Obama was born in Hawaii and focus on teaching people the definition of natural born citizen.
McCain by definition is also not a natural born citizen.

Click to expand...

Good idea.

peepnklown said:

1. If you continued to quote the final decision paragraph you would see that Wong was considered a US citizen which is different from a natural born citizen.
2. A natural born subject is different from a natural born citizen.
To quickly see the difference, England was under a king while America was not of course!

Click to expand...

If you read the except I cited, you would have noted it also said this: and continues to prevail under the constitution as original established.

Chuz Life said:

Some of you already seen this post (#269) that I PM'd you with.

If you are going to research the issue. Please let me know what you think of the observations I made on it.

POLITICO Forums:2010: Whispers persist despite election - POLITICO.com

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I tried to PM back, but your PM's are turned off.

I did look at the PM and the post you mention.

Personally, after reading up a bit on the whole issue...

It seems that "natural born citizen" has never really been defined.

But many people seem to have the opinion that "natural born citizen" = someone born to at least one (1) US citizen parent, no matter the location.

That, at least, was my understanding of the situation.

But I have yet to find any definitive definition of the phrase.

--------
Following your post on the other forum, it would appear that your whole argument hinges on the question of “was Pres. Obama born in Hawaii?”

If he was, then he is eligible for the office of POTUS.

If he wasn’t, then according to that post and the list that you linked in reference, this clause (from that list) is the only one which might apply, as his father is (was?) an “alien”, and the other clauses cannot apply:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

• honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
  
• employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

Click to expand...

Did not, in your opinion, apply to Pres. Obama because:

(g) Would not apply because (while Barry Hussein's momma) Ann Dunham was indeed an American Citizen who lived at least five years in the U.S. prior to barry's birth... with at least 2 of those years taking place after she was over the age of 14,.... Ann Dunham was NOT in the military nor under the guardianship of parents who were actively in the Military.... Nor was Barry Hussein's momma (Ann Dunham) in Kenya.... serving in any capacity for an "international organization" as defined by U.S. Code, Title 22, Section 288.

Click to expand...

So. Basically, your argument was:

IF Pres. Obama was not born in Hawaii, THEN (under the clause above) he is not eligible for POTUS.

I follow the logic, and agree that you seem to be correct.

Regarding the clause mentioned:

Immediately after reading it, one of my first thoughts was “damn, that’s a cumbersome phrasing”…

It looks like the clause was written and the “Provided, That…” was tacked on the end.

So, a question:

Would you, Chuz Life, have an issue with a change in the law removing the “Provided, That…” part?

And if so, why?
--------

Sorry for the wall of text.

The Mark said:

I tried to PM back, but your PM's are turned off.

I did look at the PM and the post you mention.

Personally, after reading up a bit on the whole issue...

It seems that "natural born citizen" has never really been defined.

But many people seem to have the opinion that "natural born citizen" = someone born to at least one (1) US citizen parent, no matter the location.

That, at least, was my understanding of the situation.

But I have yet to find any definitive definition of the phrase.

--------
Following your post on the other forum, it would appear that your whole argument hinges on the question of “was Pres. Obama born in Hawaii?”

If he was, then he is eligible for the office of POTUS.

If he wasn’t, then according to that post and the list that you linked in reference, this clause (from that list) is the only one which might apply, as his father is (was?) an “alien”, and the other clauses cannot apply:
Did not, in your opinion, apply to Pres. Obama because:

So. Basically, your argument was:

IF Pres. Obama was not born in Hawaii, THEN (under the clause above) he is not eligible for POTUS.

I follow the logic, and agree that you seem to be correct.

Regarding the clause mentioned:

Immediately after reading it, one of my first thoughts was “damn, that’s a cumbersome phrasing”…

It looks like the clause was written and the “Provided, That…” was tacked on the end.

So, a question:

Would you, Chuz Life, have an issue with a change in the law removing the “Provided, That…” part?

And if so, why?--------

Sorry for the wall of text.

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh,... I don't think anyone has ever given a lengthy post of mine that much consideration before.

Your summary is spot on!

As for changing the code to remove the "provided that... " portion?

I honestly don't know how I would feel about that. I would like to read some of the arguments that lead to it being incorporated in the first place.

Thank you X10 for the serious consideration you gave my posts on this.

It would have been all too easy to yell "birther" and not even consider it at all.

You've made a pretty good day even better.