Why are crazy "birthers" trying to tear down Obama's birthplace, since he'd be a US citizen anyways due to his mother?

Yeah, I don’t know it’s funny. And by funny, I mean it makes me sad.

Because Donald Trump is a dumbass and it’s effectively distracted the GOP from realizing Trump doesn’t know shit about politics.

I give the birthers about as much credence as the 911 truthers. Both sides have their extremist nutcases, and neither argument holds much water.

I am kind of disappointed in the media for giving these nuts as much coverage as they are.

In order to be a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires,both parents at the time of birth must be US citizens.
Minor vs Happersett

@lucillelucillelucille Summarized version from US law.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:

1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:

1. the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2. the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[7]

@tedd Not just a US citizen ,but a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires and as Minor vs Happersett defines.That is the law.That is the distinction.

He has to be born in the US or its territories to be President.

@lucillelucillelucille A “Natural Born Citizen” is defined by the US Constitution as a person who “becomes a citizen at birth.” Under the previously cited excerpts, Obama would be a US citizen at birth.

Natural Born Citizen does not mean born on US soil, it means born a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

I point it out all of the time.

Natural born citizen, the definition of it, has been challenged before, and it should be challenged and defined more clearly. Anyone born with an American parent in my opinion was naturally born a US citizen, the baby is a citizen at birth, even if born in China. People are so obsessed with hating immigrants who are citizens because they are born here, they think the only way to be a citizen is to be born here. Dumb! They sound dumb every time they call out “Obama is not an American citizen! Idiots.

But, there is an argument for someone born on foreign soil to be considered ineligible for the presidency.

Actually, he’s a U.S. citizen and a “natural born citizen” because he was born on U.S. soil, not because his mother was a citizen.

@tedd This is really the wikipedia article I think you want to be looking at if you want to start with wikiipedia

@lillycoyote Oh I’m well aware he’s born on US soil…. But I’m trying to meet the crazy birthers half way…. Ok he’s not born on US soil, he’d still be a citizen.

As I understand it, there’s been some… change over time, as it were, over what exactly makes someone a “natural born citizen”, and having one’s mother/parents be US citizens isn’t (or hasn’t been) always the rule of thumb. For example, there was a gentleman I read about a month or so ago who fought in WWII, always assumed he was a US citizen, both parents were citizens, but then recently found out that because he was actually born in Canada, he is not a US citizen, and ICE is trying to deport him back to Canada.

@MyNewtBoobs Read the article too…. The reason he wasn’t a US citizen is because his parents never properly reported his birth to the US government, not due to a lack of US soil birth.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/world-war-ii-vet-finds-citizen/ (I don’t trust fox “news” so here’s another) .... http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110324/us_yblog_thelookout/wwii-vet-discovers-hes-not-a-u-s-citizen

The specifics of overseas birth have changed, you’ll notice the excerpt I noted ends in 1986 for example. But Obama would be a US citizen under the laws during his birth. (and for that matter I believe the laws of today as well)

@tedd Well, have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, birthers aren’t really concerned with being factually right so much as finding some loophole to oust him from his job because he’s black? You can’t find reason where there is none.

@MyNewtBoobs I really think they hate any democrat. I think they are terrified he is Muslim, more than his race. Muslim is not secret code for black as many in the media have said, they really are terrified of non-Christians and especially Muslims and athests. There are birthers who just watch Fox news to much, and believe every right wing email they see, and are not raist, or anti-Muslims, many groups exist among the birthers.

@MyNewtBoobs Oh I agree…. I’m just more wondering why no one has ever called them out on the obvious counter to their argument.

@tedd Me too. I wonder that too.

@JLeslie Well, I think they are terrified of him being Muslim, but I don’t think they’d be afraid of that if he was white. There have been plenty of Democratic presidents, and they haven’t (mostly…) accused any of them of being Muslims, terrorists, etc. I think that he, for various reasons, seems to represent a “New World Order”, by which I mean what most of us would call “modern US culture since it stopped being 1910”, and it scares them that they aren’t going to be #1 anymore (as much, anyway).

@tedd People have. I actually see people countering birther arguments all the time. But just because you have a rock-solid counter-argument against what someone is screaming about doesn’t mean they’ll stop screaming, and you might then decide that really, you have a job to go to, kids to take care of, chores to do, and really, you don’t want to scream back at them how they’re wrong in their screaming, and you’d really just rather rest your voice.

@MyNewtBoobs Are you trying to say I have kids?!?! :)

@tedd You don’t need to meet the birthers half way. They’re nuts. They refuse to believe or accept the facts.

@MyNewtBoobs I disagree. Being black mught add to their disgust of him, but if he was white and Muslime they would be freaked still. I heard Christians freaked Romney was a Mormon, and they were Republicans! Extreme Evangelicals think it is a religious war just like the fanatic extreme Muslims. They use “Christian country” all of the time, and can’t stand the thought of any move towards secular government, worse Muslims at the top controlling things. See, the way I see it, they function in a place in their minds that Christianity should be in government and constantly in our lives reminding us of Jesus and to revere him. They feel all people should follow Jesus, and if they are in power they would help it along. So, they also think that all other people think like them about their own religions. I don’t say this about all Christians, just a particular subgroup of them.

@JLeslie Yes, but that would be if he was actually Muslim. I think they wouldn’t insist he’s Muslim, even after latching onto the Rev. Wright controversy like a starving infant latches onto its mother’s teet, if he wasn’t black.

@tedd Perhaps a pet, or even a cactus you’re managing to kill, then, instead of kids?

@MyNewtBoobs I have acquaintances here who really think he is Muslim. There are probably people who fit your description too.

@lucillelucillelucille I was hoping a Birther would chime in. Thanks. You do realize, do you not, that the case you cited had to do with women’s rights to vote, and with the state of Missouri’s right to deny same. The court wrongly claimed in that mid 1800s case that women were citizens but just not the kind that can vote. The case had absolutely nothing to do with defining Natural Born Citizen as opposed to Citizen. Every citizen has the right to vote whether natural born or not. This is a prefect example of the Birther claim to “evidence”. It’s evidence enough for those who can’t or will not read.

The constitution does make the distinction that the President must be a ”natural born citizen or grandfathered in by being a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So what that term actually means has been the topic of considerable case law up to and including the Supreme Court. It has been taken to mean a person born within the USA, its Territories or on a US military base even if it is on foreign soil. The Military Base inclusion is what qualified John McCain, as he was born in Panama on a Naval Base run by the US. Obama was very clearly born in Hawaii, which very clearly was not just a Territory but a State at the time of his birth. He is a natural born citizen by the legal definition.

@tedd To answer your question, I believe that the reason Birtherism resonates with so many Republicans today is that’s the party that adopted the Dixiecrats back in the 60s when Lyndon Johnson sent federal troops into Selma Alabama to enforce the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans saw a chance to spit the solid Democratic South away and adopt the Dixiecrats, and they made a deal with the Devil of blatant racism to accomplish that. Since then, they have used clever yet subtle dog-whistle politics like the Willie Horton ad and today’s Birther and affirmative action got him into Columbia and Harvard claims to appeal to white supremacists. And a clear majority of Republican primary voters either believe the President is not an American or aren’t sure. So if you want to win a GOP primary, you have to play to the racist in the party.

Obama sent a state certified copy of his birth certificate to the election officials, and that satisfied them. It is not a long-form because Hawaii doesn’t use long forms. It is not the original because states don’t send out the original. They send certified copies with an embossed state seal, and those are acceptable as proof of US birth anywhere in the USA for any purpose requiring proof of birth

You can know this phony controversy is driven by white supremacists by a very simple test. When have we ever asked a White President for copy after copy of his birth certificate? When have we ever charged that a White President didn’t deserve a college degree he had obtained, or any of this other insanity? Racism is insane. Don’t expect rationality of it, because it isn’t driven by rational thought, it is driven by visceral hatred and fear or otherness.

I am sure with all the white supremacists running around fanning the flames of this fake controversy, some people without a racist bone in their body get confused by it and take the far right of their party as being right on the issue without looking into it enough to realize how ridiculous the Birther claims actually are. To any that fit that description, read the truth here.

Why is it important that a president must be born a US citizen? I know it’s the law, and that’s why the requirement is there and must be met, but why is the law there? Why is it deemed necessary? What would be the danger of having a president who had become a naturalised US citizen?

@meiosis I am not a birther. I believe Obama was born in HI. The importance of being a natural born citizen is to avoid divided loyalties.

@optimisticpessimist Thanks for the reply.

I would have thought that the electoral process would root out and expose divided loyalties, and that voters could be trusted to choose the right person, regardless of the accident of their birth. The Australian PM was born in Wales to UK citizen parents, I’ve never heard a peep that she might be unfit for her office because of this.

@meiosis You also have to consider this was put into the US Constitution when the country was first being established and divided loyalty could have been highly destructive to the establishment of a new nation.

@tedd I’ve seen both sides of the argument on Fox news and believe it or not, someone on Fox did call them out like you suggest.

I think he was born in the US, but why the hell doesn’t he provide the really for real birth certificate? Whatever the hell that paper he provided isn’t the same. I think he could be trolling for the birther movement to grow and if and when it looks bad he could consider pulling it out to swing public opinion back his way.

If the event came up that he wasn’t born in the US then there would be a very interesting Supreme Court case that would redefine the issue, I still don’t think it would eliminate him from being President.

I see the news/President revealed it. Bravo, about time, I wonder what idiot conspiracy theorists will think of next?

@jlelandg The state of Hawaii does not release long form birth certificates. That is their state law. They release the Certificate of Live Birth with a state certification after the long form is reviewed by state officials for authenticity. Obama had no control over that. Because of all the stupid conspiracy crap, Obama made a special request to the state to waive the law and release a copy of the long form, which happened today.

Again, the salient point is that this is the 44th President of the United States, and none of the first 43 went through all this hazing and conspiracy theory speculation about whether they were really born in the USA or were some sort of Manchurian Candidate. One has to suspect that the difference isn’t in the sort of documents involved, but in the color of skin of the first 43 versus the otherness of this president.

@ETpro it might have been brought on by racists, however, it still was a question of constitutional law. I think the “Kenya-birthplace of Barak Obama” and the time spent abroad in his youth made people outside the racist realm really wonder. I can’t think of another President who enjoyed the same early lifestyle. The American people are resistant to change, when Kennedy became President there were idiots (not racists) who were up in arms about his Catholicism.

@ETpro They just released the long form today.

Do you really think the die hard birthers are going to believe the long form just released is indeed a the real deal and not forged?

As a side note for anyone who cares, my oldest was born in HI and the original certificate of live birth provided concerning Obama is the same format that was issued for my son.

@jlelandg The answers to all the questions have been out there since the primaries for president. Anyone who claimed they had serious questions either didn’t bother to inform themselves, or was unwilling to believe the truth, preferring a convenient lie.

@Cruiser That’s what I said above.

@JLeslie For true conspiracy theorists, more proof is only a measure of how incredibly deep the conspiracy runs.

Well, even Fox news threw in the towel. Or at least their News division did as Shep Smith declared “Fox news has confirmed that Pres. Obama is a US citizen”.

But Ill be surprised if that makes a dent for Hannity or Beck. Hannity MIGHT shut up about it for awhile but expect Beck to be one of the first to proclaim forgery, trickery or whatever.

Why let something like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory after all :)

And the beat goes on…

@Buttonstc That quote you gave from Fox News, it only says he is a citizen. Was Fox news actually saying Obama was not a citizen? Or, not meeting the qualifications to be president under the definition of how they interpret natural born citizen? College educated journalists actually said he was not a citizen?

@tedd -Art II sec I US Constitution: “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;”

Minor v Happersett : In their (unanimous) decision the court defined a “natural born citizen” as the founders represented as ;

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that (all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.) These were natives, or (natural-born citizens), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”)

@ETpro -You apparently didn’t read far enough.
Oh,and I am not a “birther”.
Art II sec I US Constitution: “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;”

Minor v Happersett : In their (unanimous) decision the court defined a “natural born citizen” as the founders represented as ;

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that (all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.) These were natives, or (natural-born citizens), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”)

@lucillelucillelucille Back then weren’t Native Americans born on Reservations not considered American citizens? Or, sometime in our history anyway. I think it is more important what has been decided in more recent cases. Under current law, and the law at the time of his birth having a mother who was a US citizen of HI satisfies the requirement, her children are American citizens.

@JL

I heard the clip on Imus but I can’t do links from iPhone. I’m sure you can find the precise clip on some websites.

My impression was that Shep was saying this in response to this latest release of the long form and confirming that this settled the issue. He is usually a pretty straight shooter since he’s a news guy rather than an opinion talk guy.

My impression was that he was confirming that as far as Fox News was concerned, that settles the issue. I didn’t get the impression of any evasiveness or hidden agenda.

But it’s best for everybody to listen to it themselves and be their own judge.

And obviously, all bets are off about how the rest of them will choose to spin it. Even tho the long form is the one that they were all screaming about.

Hopefully someone can post a link to Shep’s clip.

@JLeslie I’ve watched Shep for the past two years and I can tell you he does not believe the birther side of the story. He’s reporting on the issue just like any other news channel.

What I meant was not this person in particular, but were there reporters on Fox saying he was not a citizen? Not Beck and Hannity, who I do not consider to be reporters, but actual journalists who claim to be nonbiased?

I have never seen a journalist on Fox claim Obama was not a citizen, only persons they are interviewing that believe this. When they interview a birther, they also have someone with an opposing view to have (don’t laugh) a fair and balanced discussion.

@jonsblond What is odd to me is the opposition only says, “he was born in Hawaii, the certficate is real,” and never points out no matter what he is a citizen.

Except for the crackpots, I don’t think anyone ever doubted that he was a citizen, the question was, was he born on U.S. soil, (Hawaii) or somewhere else.
I’m glad that he finally showed the long form birth certificate, I wish that he hadn’t waited so long.
I think @jlelandg might be on to something with “I think he could be trolling for the birther movement to grow and if and when it looks bad he could consider pulling it out to swing public opinion back his way.”

@JLeslie -The Constitution states that the President must be a “natural born citizen”,meaning born within the US and of parents who are both citizens at the time of birth
This is the requirement to be a natural born citizen.
A native born need only be born here and does not require their parents to be US citizens.
There is a distinction between the two.
As for native Americans,IDK how that works.Are they not their own nation?Do they have dual citizenship? IDK.

You only need one US parent to be a natural born citizen the way I read it. That baby can be born in Taiwan and if his mother is American, and meets the requirments for time spent in America the baby is American. Native born is a child of noncitizens born here, as you stated. The baby born in Taiwan is not born on US soil, but is still American? Or is there some third title I don’t know about to classify those children?

Native Americans in the past were found to not be US citizens by the courts from what I understand, which obviously is ridiculous.

I’ll try to find info on the web about the Native Americans. My only point is old rulings by the court can be totally idiotic.

Here is some info:

Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a US citizen even though he was born on US soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.[11]
This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause

@JLeslie -Then you have read it wrong.;)
Here it is again…
Minor v Happersett : In their (unanimous) decision the court defined a “natural born citizen” as the founders represented as ;

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that (all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.) These were natives, or (natural-born citizens), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”)

@lucillelucillelucille What I am saying that is very nice that the particlar case you cite says parents, but what if that case means nothing know because of new and more enlightened law? I don’t know if that is actually case, but I do know that:

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:
1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1. the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2. the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[7]

As @tedd copy/pasted above.

All I can figure is your information is moot, much like the Native Americans being unable to vote in this country.

“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. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.”

“Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

* Anyone born inside the United States *

It doesn’t matter if his parents were Iranian leaders of the Taliban….if they came here to have the baby and he was born on US soil he is a Natural Born!! Why do you think so many Mexicans run the border to have the kids here?? Instant US citizenship!

@Cruiser But, the point we are making is there is an argument for natural born to be applicable even if born outside the US. For sure the person can be a citizen. You are defining only one way to be given automatic citizenship at the time of birth.

@Cruiser-Where in any of that is the term natural born citizen?
There is a difference between a person born in the US and one who is a natural born citizen.
For one to be a natural born citizen,one has to be born in the US of parents who are citizens.
This is the distinction

@lucillelucillelucille No, the constitution says:

“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.”

It does not define natural born citizen specifically.

Also, in the case you are so fond of it states:

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167–68):
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The final sentemce in that paragraph is just saying for sure those born in America to two US parents are citizens themselves, but it does no exclude other circumstance.

@Jleslie -Precisely.That is the law and the distinction!
I was referring to references given as to who is a natural born citizen or just a citizen.
There is a distinction.
In Vattel’s 1758 work,“Principles of Natural Law”,he explains natural born as “Natural born citizens,are those born in the country,of parents who are citizens.”
The founders studied Vattel and were working within this common law framework.
The 14th ammendment clearly defines citizenship but does not re-define the term natural born citizen as Vattel explained,the founders outlined, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
See Minor vs Happersett ;)

@lucillelucillelucille But, it isn’t clear that is the only way to be a natural born citizen does it? And, things change. There was a court ruling saying separate but equal was ok. BFD.

This is why I say over and over again on Q’s like this, the definition for natural born should be discussed and defined to avoid future confusion. You think for sure you know the definition, I say it has not been defined clearly in modern times.

How great that now the supreme court has ruled colored people can sit on the bus up with the whites. If we had not had that case, we could still go back and present case law, Plessy vs. ferguson saying it just fine and dandy to give them a separate section. in fact you can still go back to those ruling and try to argue they should hold up.

@JLeslie ....and if bullfrogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butts. The Law doesn’t deal in what if’s, it deals in what IS. None of the attempts at moral relativism you’ve offered has anything to do with the requirement that the US President be a “Natural Born Citizen”?

This is not at all unclear. In fact 15th/16th century philosophers and Law Professors like Christian Wolff and Emerich de Vattel made it perfectly clear that is the only way to be a Natural Born Citizen. The Founders were unquestionably influenced by the works of these men. “Born in a country, of citizen parents” = Natural Born Citizen, crystal clear.

Words mean things and Art II Sec I was specifically crafted in an overt attempt to protect the office of President from being co-opted by foreign influence. I gave you the example of First Chief Justice, John Jay’s concerns in his letter to George Washington outlining this very subject. There is more, but the point is already made.

The Framers understood the dangers this country would face well into the future and they understood well the nature of foreign influence their new country would face.

@lucillelucillelucille So you’re ok with the idea tha I have a baby early while on vacation on Mexico, and return home a week later, and the baby grows up their entire life in America, that baby cannot be president? I am not talking about the constitution, or Obama, I am just talking about you, your opinion, what you would think is an acceptable reason to deny someone the opportunity to be president.

@lucillelucillelucille ahem….the 4th 5th and 6th word of my post…FYI Sugar, they are one in the same
@JLeslie read the links I posted…they have the rest of the defs for all other scenarios. I thought we were fretting over the Pres who was born in Hawaii??

@JLeslie-I could live with that. :)

@lucillelucillelucille What does your answer mean? You can live with the baby being denied the opportunity to be president, or you can live with that person being allowed to be president?

@lucillelucillelucille Not so fast.

Once again, the issue of the Minor v. Happersett was whether a woman had the right to vote because she was a citizen. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with defining what “Natural born citizen” means from in Art II sec I US Constitution. Justtice Waits in his rambling circumlocution of logic used to conclude that women can’t vote, mentioned common law understanding of the term in passing. But you need to look elxewhere in case law for a definitive finding on what “Natural born citizen” means.

This Wikipedia link makes it easy to understand what the court said in Minor v. Happersett. Furthermore, that decision denying women the right to vote was later explicitly struck down by the US Supreme Court. This link takes you to Supreme Court cases that touched on birth citizenship.

Birthers are clever about garbing just a tiny shred of truth, twisting in far from anything remotely true, then posting it all over the Internet to make it appear to be the definitive story. And a Google search for this case demonstrates that effect. Here’s why this vile white supremacist nonsense makes me sick to the stomach. Bear with the source, and wait for the interview with a reporter named Goldie Taylor, who eloquently tells why this matters.

@Cruiser That information says Obama would not be considered a citizen at birth if he was born outside the US from what I can tell? But, a child of an American is an American, even if just one parent, I need to look it up on the USCIS site, see what it says. I am not arguing rising to the level of being able to be president, just arguing being born a citizen eligible for a US passport.

@ETpro -Did you not see the court’s explanantion of natural born citizen in it’s unamimous opinion in Minor vs Happersett? I can’t read it for you….
@JLeslie -;)
@Cruiser whoosh

@optimisticpessimist “You also have to consider this was put into the US Constitution when the country was first being established and divided loyalty could have been highly destructive to the establishment of a new nation”

Yes, that was then, but why not change it now? It seems irrelevant to the 21st century. Let the people decide who they want based on their fitness for the office, not the accident of their birth.

Divided loyalties exist in the 21st century. That is the reason for the law, and it is our law.
If someone thinks it should be changed then they need to go through the proper channels to accomplish that.

@meiosis I am in agreement with @wilma. From earlier posting, I guess you are Australian or live in Australia? It matters very little to me what Australian policies and politics are unless they are inhumane or morally abhorrent. It would matter to me if I planned to move there particularly if I planned on becoming a citizen.

Divided loyalties do exist today. I would hope the checks and balances put in place would stop the president from being able to act upon them, but I am not confident. I, personally, prefer a president who was raised American although I do realize that someone who moves to America may have a very strong attachment as they actually chose to move here. I am also very tired of hearing (reading), ”... like most other developed nations…” or things along this vein. I have no problem with the US implementing policies or practices that have worked in other countries, but only based upon the merit of the policy and its benefit to my country not based upon “because everyone else is doing it.” We teach our children not to do things just because “everyone else is doing it.”

I’m English @optimisticpessimist.

You’re country is free to do what it likes, of course, and I don’t think I have said anything along the lines of “like most other developed nations”. It just strikes me as odd (José Padilla is a natural born citizen…), and the question “Why?” is one that I never hear asked amongst all the birth-certificate froth.

I’m afraid that the USA’s imperial ambitions make it harder for us to ignore you than for you to ignore us

@meiosis Sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasn’t meaning you had said that. I guess I should have started a new response instead of just another paragraph. I don’t think most Americans have imperial ambitions, but I cannot say that about all of the politicians.

@lucillelucillelucille I really don’t understand why you are holding onto that court case after the information @ETpro has presented? Seems you can use current laws on the books and other case law to make your argument that are not based in inequality of our citizens in a basic way. The constitution does its best to treat all people as equal, why hold onto a decision of the courts that violated our constitution in a very obvious way.

@lucillelucillelucille You might as well quit denying you are a Birther they way you are carrying on about the Minor v. Happersett. Clinging to that straw after being provided ample evidence it is irrelevant puts you solidly in the Birther camp.

I pointed you to references that showed that:
1 — The decision had nothing to do with the issue of defining Natural norn citizens, it was about whether women as citizens have the right to vote.
2 — The decision was later struck down in a subsequent Supreme Court action.

If you really believe that the decision in Minor v. Happersett is correct and in force, please refrain from voting ever again; because that case said women are citizens if born here, but DO NOT have the right to vote. And since you believe subsequent decisions overruling it don’t matter, then you must ignore the 19th Amendment and obey Justice Waite and his eight misogynistic associates.

I actually think the birthers do help the Democrats get Obama reelected as President in 2012. Voters will avoid any stupid alternatives.

@mattbrowne I agree. They also open a window into the pathological thought process now being called Conspiricism. That pathological thought process has subsumed the GOP recently. As more and more Americans who can still think rationally realize this, we have some hope the GOP will put the reality based community back in charge of party platform or, if that proves impossible, that an alternative party of rational people who are true conservatives instead of radicals will arise and push the spin-bin aside.

The answer is obvious. Has nothing to do with his birth certificate or the Contitution.

#1— He’s Black

Don’t cry “race card”! This has been the issue from day one. But they can’t say it, so they go through ridiculous extremes to discredit him.

#2 He has a funny name.

#3 He’s a Muslim. Doesn’t matter if he is or isn’t. To those people intent on ousting the sucker, he’s a Muslim.

#4 He’s a Democrat.

#5 The 2011 Presidential Election. It wasn’t supposed to happen the first time, but this uppity Muslim out-smarted ‘em.

AIN’T NO WAY THIS (expletive) GONNA BE ELECTED AGAIN!

@SABOTEUR He just offed binLaden. Game, Set, Match. He’s a shoo-in for reelection.

@filmfann uh, navy seals killed bin laden. obama was home watching the game and waiting for a phone call.

@jonsblond He ordered it, and watched it as it went. Check out the intensity on his face.

@filmfann I had not seen that picture. Look at Hillary too. She looks so worried.

@filmfann Yes, he watched it as he was sitting in a comfy chair. The SEALs offed him. The SEALs deserve the credit here. I can sit on the couch and order my husband to make me a grilled cheese, but it was my husband that did the hard work, not me. ;)