Trump Refuses to Back Down Over Obama's 'Very Strange' Birth

[tombogan03884]

Good point. Keep me honest 

The current law, via the USCIS:

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375

See paragraph (g). Current law has decreased the amount of time the citizen-parent must live in the U.S. after 14 to 2 years from the 1952 Act. Under current law, there would be no birther argument at all. Done. Nada. Zip, etc.

HOWEVER, via usa.gov (that's as official as it gets):

http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US

THEREFORE, Obama had to have been BORN ON U.S. SOIL to be qualified for the office of President.

These areas are pretty cut and dry. Are there still gray areas? Sure. The birth certificate produced is the short form, not the original signed by the physician and witnesses. Why not show the original and be done with it?

Cause Mommy was to young, he didn't qualify for citizenship ?

[MikeBjerum]

Bottom line:

1.  There is something fishy;

2.  If he was truly legal and correct, Pres. BHO could clear it up and make it go away very easily;

3.  Pres. BHO's minions love painting us as whack jobs for not letting go of it;

4.  Pres. BHO loves to watch us twist in the wind.

I'm done for this round!

[fightingquaker13]

Cause Mommy was to young, he didn't qualify for citizenship ?

Weren't we arguing about this last night? My point was if a 30 year old's kid is a citizen an 18 year old's sure as heck should be. Seems we agree. Scary. I'll try not to do that again.
FQ13

[LittleRed]

Weren't we arguing about this last night? My point was if a 30 year old's kid is a citizen an 18 year old's sure as heck should be. Seems we agree. Scary. I'll try not to do that again.
FQ13

Under current law, should could have been a minimum of 16. Back in 1961 the law was 5 years residency AFTER 14 making the minimum age 19. Does it make sense? No really. Have our citizenship laws grown more lenient? Yes. Would this matter in ANY other situation other then POTUS? No.

But our Constitution requires that that Commander-In-Chief be a natural-born citizen. Through the specific set of circumstances surrounding his parents, the only way for him to be a natural born citizen is through birth on U.S. soil.

As a hobby, a did some genealogical digging and was able to obtain certified copies of long-form birth certificates dating back to 1870, from Oklahoma, which wasn't even a state then.

Yet, we are told by the powers that be that were nut jobs, for asking someone to dig up a document from 1961, that shows a doctor's and witness's signature attesting to the claim that BHO is a natural-born citizen.

A few questions, then I'm done.

What IF it were true and evidence corroborates it?

Would he hand over the keys to the front door and be out on the street? Would all legislation he has signed, be thrown out? Would SCOTUS justices be removed from the bench? Would all executive orders be nullified?

Or, would we collectively say oops and accept things as they are.

For tomorrow's topic: Did we really land on the moon?

[fightingquaker13]

I guess to me it boils down to this. I don't care if he was born on the moon, and I'm not arguing pro-or anti BO. Lets call him candidate X. Is the child of a woman born and raised in the US, regardles of where the child was born, a citizen or not? My point is that the law is irrelevant. The 14A guarantees egual protection. You cannot justify a law that says you must be a resident in the US x number of years past your 14th birthday to give birth right citizenship to your kid. The equal protection clause on its face will not accept that a person a number of years over the age of majority enjoys more rights that one also over the age of majority with a fewer number of years when we are speaking about something as fundamental as whether her child is a citizen of the country she was born and raised in. You wouldn't last ten minutes arguing against a mother in this sort of case. The birther argument is a loser. The "natural born citizen" clause does not mean born on US soil. It simply precludes a NATURALIZED citizen from holding the office.
 Doubt me? The Constitution, pre-14A supplies the Answer. There was what is known as the "Hamilton Clause" in Article II. Alexander Hamilton was born in the British West Indies. He wanted to be President. As a gesture to him, and him only, the natural born citizen" clause had a corrollary. It said that "No person who is not a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION shall be eligible to the office of President". Clearly, the Founders werre proscribing naturalized citizens, not those born to American mothers. Sorry, but even without the 14A this argument doesn't fly. They made a clear exption to cover a particular circumstance. Yet by desribing the exception so speciffically, they made it clear that those who were not citizen's of other nations WERE eligible. Thus BO, love him or hate him, is a US citizen. Its not about politics, its about the law. Vote him out (I'll be joining you if I have a better choice, and if not I'll vote Libertarian), but don't try this "He's not a citizen" crap. It doesn't fly.
FQ13  

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Hey dumbass, the 14th A hasn't got shit to do with it. The Constitution doesn't regulate who can be a citizen.
If you weren't an over educated liberal you would realize that, since I have posted it on this forum about 12 times since you joined.
But since you suffer from liberal C.R.A.F.T. I will remind you it specifies that CONGRESS has the power to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If Congress makes a law that bans left handers from coming here it is perfectly constitutional.
Secondly, like I posted last night,The Mother, (a minor ) who was a US Citizen, was not deprived of anything, If under existing law her foreign halfbreed kid did not qualify then it had no rights to be deprived of 14th Amendment is irrelevant.

[fightingquaker13]

Hey dumbass, the 14th A hasn't got shit to do with it. The Constitution doesn't regulate who can be a citizen.
If you weren't an over educated liberal you would realize that, since I have posted it on this forum about 12 times since you joined.
But since you suffer from liberal C.R.A.F.T. I will remind you it specifies that CONGRESS has the power to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If Congress makes a law that bans left handers from coming here it is perfectly constitutional.

Umm, as usual, you are half right and half wrong. Congress can (and should) set requirements on who can come. Personally, I'd as soon go back to the pre-68 laws, but that's just me. Where you are dead wrong though is in dealing with a child born to an American citizen. Here, its not just about which forieners get in. It is about HER right to transfer her citizenship to her child. Spin it how you want, its about an American citizen's rights to bestow the most important thing she has, citizenship in this country. The 14A applies here if it applies anywhere.
FQ13

[LittleRed]

The equal protection clause on its face will not accept that a person a number of years over the age of majority enjoys more rights that one also over the age of majority with a fewer number of years when we are speaking about something as fundamental as whether her child is a citizen of the country she was born and raised in. You wouldn't last ten minutes arguing against a mother in this sort of case.

The age of majority in Hawaii in 1961 was 20. Here is a reference:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:V477oskhWT8J:www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/other/pcs1-3/PC_S1_-3.pdf+hawaii+voting+age+1970&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimgyAjFt_8RynENwblhuFHCFR709iltMW7RqnsngsVjJUXgYNBGXlEtSCAKZ9DnS_8RTE6t8VTQ5P9wcNSxplSr_sbsr6OlCmfInkM0IoVGR9jNQdJ34mqblSSRmltPXOPoSME&sig=AHIEtbQ5I-efkyytA-QjCtvLSvaM0AP-Vw

Under the law at that time, the 5 years after 14 (effectively 19) was actually allowing for a minor to pass on citizenship, which is more lenient than you suggest with the age of majority. I agree with your premise on an adult being able to pass on their citizenship. But laws are constantly changing and the current 14+2 years reflect that even more. At that time in history, she was a minor.

As far as soil, "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions" (from previous link)—I'll concede that outlying possessions may technically be more than U.S. soil.

Again, I won't, nor will I personally ever been shown the proof he was either born in Hawaii or not. I'm not that important. I can't personally confirm it either way, so I have to trust what someone else says. Am I saying he is not a citizen? No. What I am saying is the only thing he can cling to for his claim of citizenship is having been born in Hawaii. A fact he has done little to substantiate.

As far as the 14A, I don't think the govt. cares too much about that one. If so, TSA shouldn't be able to deprive me of personal property when it isn't a prohibited item—without due process. 

@FQ13, please understand all my posts are intended to spur on thought and not "win" a debate. I certainly see your passion for liberty and equal application of the law. Part of me want to see a true Libertarian take office, but I voted 3rd party before and ended up with Clinton (which I think most on this forum will agree, didn't do a lot for the 2A).

[Herknav]

Part of me want to see a true Libertarian take office, but I voted 3rd party before and ended up with Clinton (which I think most on this forum will agree, didn't do a lot for the 2A).

Surely, you're not suggesting your vote for a 3rd party candidate (presumably Perot) got us Clinton?  Even if you give all the Perot votes to Clinton, you don't swing enough states to win the electoral vote.  The Republicans forgot to dance with the one who brung 'em.

[LittleRed]

@Herknav,

I probably should have typed out a more complete thought. It was late.

While the actual votes would not have changed the outcome, I believe his campaign did more to hurt Bush's chances than Clinton's.

OK—really—Clinton playing the sax and appearing on MTV probably got him more votes than Bush lost to Perot. He reached out to a virtually non-existent voting block—twenty somethings.

For me personally it was like shock therapy—and now I have a conditioned response.