I was going to read all the newest posts in this thread....until I began seeing everything looping around in circles.

1) I agree with Msharmony that retroactively declaring Obama ineligible would indeed appear bigoted. He's the first BLACK President ever elected. He's also the first MUSLIM President ever elected. Given our race history and the events post-9/11, how could it appear anything but prejudiced to our foreign allies? It would appear the same way if Hillary Clinton had been elected as the first woman President and her citizenship status were called into question after the fact, all because she is a woman. However, because Obama broke TWO political barriers, declaring him ineligible will have a much more resounding effect. This would hinder our ability to accomplish much of anything regarding foreign policy.


2) Though no law has specified it, a natural born citizen is a person who was born and raised on U.S. soil for the bulk of his/her childhood. Technically, a child born and raised overseas by two U.S. citizens is not a natural born citizen. The term "naturalization" regarding citizenship means that hence forward any child born on U.S. soil of "naturalized" parent will be regarded as natural born citizens. The link in terms was intentional. Basically, a natural born citizen is a "native son". Additionally, there are requirements for the length of residence, prior to the child's birth, of the parent(s) for determining this. In Obama's case, his mother met these requirements.


3) Nowhere in the cited case law does it define that a natural born citizen as one born of two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The ruling simply states that the citizenship status of a person born under such circumstances has never been questioned, and therefore is always accepted as a natural born citizen.

The ruling cites a need for clarification regarding other circumstances, and that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to do so given the existing structure, i.e. the Court cannot write or rewrite laws....that is the power of Congress. In subsequent years since that ruling, citizenship laws have been amended and clarified repeatedly to resolve this issue. The reason for this was simple: U.S. Territories.

Indigenous populations of acquired territories had dubious citizenship status. Territorial governments also were not as formal or efficient as State governments. Prior to application for Statehood, many territorial governments were ad hoc or lacked a legislative body. Immigration within the territories was more or less unchecked. These two circumstances raised citizenship questions for anyone born in the territories because of the lack of bureaucratic oversight. Indigenous populations weren't the only people affected. There were foreign immigrants, be they migrant workers or otherwise, who had spent several years to most all of their lives within the territories. Some territories, like Alaska, Hawaii, and Arizona, didn't achieve Statehood for more than 50 years.

The government's solution was the citizenship laws now on the books, some of which have been amended even further when the territories finally achieved Statehood.

Consider this: Russia established settlements in Alaska prior to the U.S. We bought Alaska from Russia. The Russian settlers remained in Alaska. They had no citizenship, and only nominal allegiance to the U.S. government by sheer principle of the ground they walked on. Yet their children would be born on U.S. soil....one which lacked a formal government, and which was difficult to navigate. Their children would have children. By birth, they would be entitled to citizenship, but there was no documentation and only dubious testimony to prove they were indeed born on U.S. soil. So what do you do? They were there before the Americans....Do you not give them a say in how they are governed? Tell them to pack up and leave? Or do you err on the side of caution, and pass a blanket law giving them citizenship? The U.S. government did just this, but went a step further: anyone born in the territory was given full U.S. citizenship by birthright, a.k.a. natural born citizenship.

of course it does, not to be confused with ALWAYS, but also not to be swiped aside as never


those who are inconsistent in excusing him for things they didnt excuse non white presidents for are also influenced by race,,,in all likelihood

Edit after doing some checking on something I questioned after the fact...



Obama has claimed to be Christian. Because he has a "muslim" name, and because his father was Kenyan, Obama's religion has been questioned numerous times. Meaning that, the religion card has been played against him.

Here's an example of just how passively hearing a falsehood numerous times enables the mind to accept it as fact. I never paid much attention to the debate over Obama's religion, and yet I do remember hearing about it several times. In the end, I mistakenly thought he was Muslim, which he is not. Sadly, I have heard more about him being Muslim than being Christian when I think back on it. PR brainwashing in action...

lol,,,I was gonna post a question to you regarding why you believed he was a muslim,,,,,,

nice catch,,

It still doesn't change how post facto ineligibility would be viewed amongst our allies. The religion card definitely showed bias in the wake of 9/11. And now they are attacking citizenship....and he's the first black president (who's actually mixed race)....etc.

The motives will be questioned and viewed with suspicion since the element of bias was already introduced years ago....before his administration began.

The church that Obama attended wasn't a Christian church, it was "Black liberation theology". They don't view Jesus as God. Obama is most likely an atheist.

wow, I wonder why they call it Trinity United Church of CHRIST,,,,


amazing

Because nobody would go if it was called "Trinity United Church of Hating Whitey"?

They believe in Jesus, just not that he was God.

I just think that the definitions needs definitely to be put to rest once and for all. Personally, I don't care about his race religion or what have you. I just want to see it actually heard so that the judicial systems lays it to rest definitively. not this person saying this or this person saying that. A finite decision period, to shut everyone up.

what do you base this allegation off of?

and what is the relevance of it?

there are christians worldwide who dont agree on the interpretation of Jesus as GOD himself, or a manifestation of God, or the only begotten SON of God(as stated in the christian bible)


,, I dont understand how you go from that difference in interpretation to alleging ATHEISM , which is a disbelief in GOD...

I agree with that

amend the constitution to be more SPECIFIC And DETAILED in what constitutes 'natural born' citizenship

And to be honest even if he were found to be 'ineligible' of the Presidency because the justice didn't do what it should have done to begin with and place it to rest definitively. Everything should stand, as if Biden signed it. God forbid Biden be President out of this crapola.

thats not usually how it would work,, look at what happens when a police is suspected of having fraudulently stacked a case,,,ALL cases retrospectively become suspect

so if we had a president, whose signature on the four years of bills as PRESIDENT, was not really ELIGIBLE to be president

those documents would no longer stand as valid either,,,

I know, just would save a lot of BS

This is why I say we have become a nation of "spin", and it has to stop. This country should be governed with logic and common sense, not spin.

At the lower level, we could begin by making the testimony of professional witnesses inadmissible in a court of law. They are PAID witnesses, and more often than not, they have not examined the evidence themselves. They are brought in to give an "expert opinion", not necessarily to state facts as they pertain to the case. It's all about spin. They can have all the knowledge in the world, but if they don't have practical knowledge as it pertains - and is applied - to the specifics of the case, then they don't belong in that courtroom. Even more so if they are being PAID to be there.

How does this pertain to Obama's BC case? The OP cited testimony from a professional witness.

which has no bearing on the case,since there is no Religious Test required to stand for or hold Public Office in the USofA.

Geeze you guys really like to read between the lines or just plain make stuff up.

Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe I was replying to the post I quoted?

What allies are you so concerned about?

Are you talking about the ones in Europe that have little or no minority representation in the upper echelons of their governments?

I am curious as to why this is such a concern on your part..

Because I don't believe in isolationist policies.

Because lesser reputation amongst allies - who often have Most Favored Nation status - impacts trade, and increases the trade deficit.

Because it impacts the strength of the dollar.

Because it impacts the ability to conduct peace negotiations, or to get militant threats like North Korea to back down.

Because it makes it more difficult to put effective pressure on nations with gross human rights violations, like ethnic cleansing, without using military force.

Because it pushes us closer to China, whom we are already bound to much too strongly.

Because it becomes more difficult to encourage reform within the United Nations so it can be a more effective diplomatic body that reduces or eliminates the need for the U.S. to be a global police force.


Those nations in Europe have some of the largest economies in the world. Military intervention is supposed to be a last recourse. A loss in trade costs jobs. An ever-increasing trade deficit hinders the ability of American manufacturing to bounce back. A good portion of that trade deficit is with China. Anything that weakens the dollar increases inflation. Higher inflation plus a widening trade deficit most often results in an increase in the national debt. I haven't even touched upon the civil unrest any of this might cause at home yet...

It can get much worse than it is right now. Much much worse.

You had a much larger segment of the population in the US and abroad that considered Bush a selected President and not actually properly elected.

I don't find the doomsday scenarios you listed having happened.

Again, you are talking about countries being ruled by the white elitist class in Europe and I actually believe they have far more contempt for the fact that he was elected than you think.

Questions would have to be asked within these countries about why minorities have little or no representation within the hierarchy of these governments..

I don't believe he is ineligible and I believe this issue is a distraction from his abysmal economic record and the rest of his failed left wing policy decisions.

I want it to stop, but not because I am worried what the Euro elite is going to think..