It is amazing that you still resort to vulgarity and personal attacks to "try" to make some point (likely a sign of a debased and stunted personality). I HAVE posted links to various references that support my understanding of what the term "natural born" citizen means. Did you bother to read these articles? No need to answer, of course you didn't. The knowledge you might gain may threaten your preconceived notions regarding Obama's citizenship status.

Again, for the mentally slow (yes huh?, that means you), the term "natural born" citizen was clearly understood by our founding fathers and representatives to be a child who is born on US territory to parents are both US citizens. Here is a recent confirmation that this understanding is still correct:

-=-=-=-

EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)

Chairman Leahy. "We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe-and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind-I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?"

Secretary Chertoff. "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."

Chairman Leahy. "That is mine, too. Thank you."

-=-=-=-

The natural born citizen requirement for the president was to ensure that there would no divided loyalties with another foreign country. For example:

-=-=-=-

St. George Tucker:

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. ... The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box."

and,

President George Washington:

"passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,"

"Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

-=-=-=-

So, it is foolishness to think that citizen = natural born citizen as some do when they bring up the US vs Wong Kim Ark court case. If the two terms meant the same thing, the natural born citizen requirement would not make any sense.

Marshall, I must say you are the most entertaining, ignorant piece of shit that's posted up here in a long time.

It is amazing how you can repeat the same thing over and over and over and believe it's true without a single shred of evidence. Seriously. AMAZING.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/judgement_day_birther_taitz_fined_20000_for.php?ref=fpb

Andrew Jackson was "grandfathered" in to be eligible.

'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.' Article 2, 1.

Since he was a citizen of the US at the time the constitution was adopted, no problemo. Note that no natural born citizen would have been old enough to be eligible for the presidency until 1824 (1789 + 35 = 1824).

And yes, I cut and pasted that section from the Constitution.

There is no "debating the issues" with birfers. You have proven this. There are no issues. The only reason that this nonsense gets any attention is because it is a welcome distraction, a bit of fluffy gossip before going to work. At least, that's what it is for me. Birfers love to cut and paste non-legal documents "proving" all kinds of things about natural born citizens. And it's hilarious!

Here's a question for you: if a president has to have both parents born in the U.S., how could Andrew Jackson have been president (both parents born in Scotland)?

For a fairly good overview of the "natural born citizen" non-issue, look here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp.

Now I'm going to go do work. But I'll check back some time, because this stuff is just too damn precious!

Come on in and join the fact free crowd. Remember to always attack the person and never debate the issues. This is a constitutional issue not a political issue (I'm not sure McCain is a natural born citizen either). Besides, it was first brought up by one of Hillary's supporters not the Republicans. I'll let you in on a secret, I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain last year because both are kiss'n cousins as far as their philosophy goes (socialism). But even that doesn't matter in this issue. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or he is not. From my research, I think he could be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If you've got something meaningful to say I'll listen. Otherwise....

You didn't give a link for your post, so I was not able to verify the information and how it was presented in the original document. However, after reading what you posted, it did not say anything about a "natural born" citizen, it only discussed how to be a "citizen". And yes, I contend they are not the same thing.

The following clipped section from one of my referenced articles is what I think is the correct understanding of "natural born" citizen:

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

-=-=-=-

@huh?

Thanks for agreeing to stop the childish insults. You only missing and socking yourself anyway. The evidence you seem to have missed is in the quotes and links inside the referenced articles, not necessarily the articles themselves (though the arguments and explanations are quite helpful).

-=-=-=-

One final note, when you boil down the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court only declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen (I think wrongly, but it is what it is) not a "natural born" citizen which is the question at hand. Here is the pertinent section:

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for by our law, as solemnly declared by congress, 'the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,' and 'any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States, which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent wth the fundamental principles of the republic.' Rev. St. 1999, re-enacting Act July 27, 1868, c. 249, 1 ( 15 Stat. 223, 224). Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, during his minority, could have the same effect, is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about 17 years old, and the otherf or something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States; and 'that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [169 U.S. 649, 705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.'

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

You are correct, when you point out, we have facts and evidence, while they have insults and myths.

We can point to the CERTIFICATION they claim is true, but they can't see the original vital statistic records, which they claim are unnecessary, that can answer the question.

We want the truth, and they trust a liar.

We can point to hard documents signed by Nancy Pelosi, and notarized, claiming she vetted her candidates, while they all think Pelosi, or some mythical entity vetted their candidates.

We have hard evidence from Arizona, signed by Barack Obama, claiming he is constitutionally qualified for POTUS, and they trust him, while he hides his records from scrutiny.

How am I doing so far?

They voted for a person because of his color, we voted for the character with experience and qualifications.

Where the fuck is your evidence. Stop giving us your bullshit analysis of Supreme Court decisions and give us your proof. Blogpostings are not evidence.

Essentially what you are saying is that you want to make up any definition to "natural born" that you want. You are pathetic.

This is my last posting about this because I'm tired of bashing you, though I wish that I could keep it up.

Now is the time for you to formulate a plan for moving out of your mother's basement. Once you hit 50, it will get harder and harder.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is an attept to get around the moderation delay, it is cut and pasted from the response that is waiting for approval

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@R

It almost brought tears of joy to my eyes to finally see someone show enough curiousity to do a little research. On the other hand, “Angry Al Gonzales” you are to go to the corner, put on a dunce cap, and are given 10 demerits for your ignorant factless outbursts.

Now starting with your finding:

“I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at h**p://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649).”

My research strongly indicates that the SCOTUS pulled a boner on this case and got it wrong. For example see: “Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?”

h**p://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

This atrocious decision purposefully ignored all legal precident and created out of thin air a new meaning for the words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. I don’t think this case will stand up to an unbiased legal review by the SCOTUS. Also see:

h**p://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

Your statement:

Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.

In response:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” -George Mason

It is true that the common law of England considered all born in their domain to be “natural born subjects”. However, our founding fathers vigorously rejected that definition in the US. Instead they used the concept of “Natural Law” or “National Law” to define natural born citizenship. In fact, several said they took much of their inspiration for US law from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, not the common law of England. See this article for more details than I can provide in this short reply:

h**p://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

This article includes numerous quotes from the founding fathers and later representatives regarding the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement and why birth on US soil alone is not sufficient to be considered a natural born citizen. The citizenship of the father (Jus sanguinis) is the controlling factor in the citizenship and allegiance of the child.

Finally to @creativemeat, argue with some facts that are convincing and I might just change my mind. I am not dogmatic about this issue, only convinced (so far) by the evidence that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.

@ANRepublic

Great desciption of how you can be a US citizen, but it still doesn’t describe a “natural born” citizen.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@R

It almost brought tears of joy to my eyes to finally see someone show enough curiousity to do a little research. On the other hand, “Angry Al Gonzales” you are to go to the corner, put on a dunce cap, and are given 10 demerits for your ignorant factless outbursts.

Now starting with your finding:

“I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649).”

My research strongly indicates that the SCOTUS pulled a boner on this case and got it wrong. For example see: “Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?”

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

This atrocious decision purposefully ignored all legal precident and created out of thin air a new meaning for the words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. I don’t think this case will stand up to an unbiased legal review by the SCOTUS. Also see:

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

Your statement:

Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.

In response:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” -George Mason

It is true that the common law of England considered all born in their domain to be “natural born subjects”. However, our founding fathers vigorously rejected that definition in the US. Instead they used the concept of “Natural Law” or “National Law” to define natural born citizenship. In fact, several said they took much of their inspiration for US law from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, not the common law of England. See this article for more details than I can provide in this short reply:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

This article includes numerous quotes from the founding fathers and later representatives regarding the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement and why birth on US soil alone is not sufficient to be considered a natural born citizen. The citizenship of the father (Jus sanguinis) is the controlling factor in the citizenship and allegiance of the child.

Finally to @creativemeat, argue with some facts that are convincing and I might just change my mind. I am not dogmatic about this issue, only convinced (so far) by the evidence that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.

@ANRepublic

Great desciption of how you can be a US citizen, but it still doesn't describe a "natural born" citizen.

Here is the data. Try reading:
Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

-Anyone born inside the United States *

-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.