quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Back on page3. In there are described a few opinions as to what it should be. I'm of the mind the original intent had some influence from the then current happenings. Being at odds with England and having a lot of people intermingled with the population who may have had softer leanings toward their homeland, it stands to reason there would be some question concerning loyalties.

Taking that as a possible hindrance to political fidelity the framers intended a more restrictive gateway to the occupant of the presidency.

Yes, you are right Davdah, on all points!
I did read the whole thread, just saying that I am sure that the Senate knew what kind of toilet tissue this woman used. We have been shown nothing to clarify who this man is in the higest office of the land, commanding our troops, alleged multiple SSN's, sitting in church for years and does not listen, etc, etc, etc. Big money, powerful people = static.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rapunzel911,

What about the recent alleged terrorist plots davdah? They were from home-grown USC's. Not much allegiance going on there. So much for your assertion that because they were born here, they must automatically be loyal to the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Back on page3. In there are described a few opinions as to what it should be. I'm of the mind the original intent had some influence from the then current happenings. Being at odds with England and having a lot of people intermingled with the population who may have had softer leanings toward their homeland, it stands to reason there would be some question concerning loyalties.

Taking that as a possible hindrance to political fidelity the framers intended a more restrictive gateway to the occupant of the presidency.

I see, you are referring to this:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

What it says is that military bases and consular facilities are not jurisdictions of US within the meaning of 14th amendment (which is very reasonable, or else any pregnant woman could walk into embassy or military base and give birth to "born Citizen").

But you fail to notice that in case of one parent being USC(min 5 years lived in US) one does NOT acquire Citizenship through 14th Amendment. One is born US Citizen, just as one born to parents of any status within US jurisdiction, however the Citizenship inherited from USC parent not the jurisdiction where birth is given.

One is born Citizen by means other than 14th amendment (and evidently requirement of 14th amendment is not the only way to be born Citizen).

This further confirms my opinion that "born Citizen" means "natural born Citizen" ,within the context of law and it is by virtue of the same law that both McCain and Obama were born US Citizens ergo eligible to run and hold office of President (just as if they were born to non-citizen parents but within US jurisdiction).

What seems to matter is the status at the time of birth.
And i already quoted CFR 8 1401 where it spells clearly what are the requirements for "born Citizen" status are (among those: having at least one USC parent who lived min 5 years in US).

Obama obviously knows this lawsuit is worth less than paper it's printed on therefore doesn't pay any attention to it except joking. Even if he was born in Antarctica he would still be born Citizen by virtue of inheritance and thus case is moot.

P.S. Obama certainly has shorcomings. It appears as if there is no President at all. It seems like he is having lots of fun on 4 year long paid vacation with no plans to run for second term. No matter if you liked Bush or disliked, there was always action, it was clear who was in charge.

But one thing you can't say is that he wasn't born USC and thus not eligible to hold office to which he was elected.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OldE,

quote:

P.S. Obama certainly has shorcomings. It appears as if there is no President at all. It seems like he is having lots of fun on 4 year long paid vacation with no plans to run for second term. No matter if you liked Bush or disliked, there was always action, it was clear who was in charge.

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:

quote:

P.S. Obama certainly has shorcomings. It appears as if there is no President at all. It seems like he is having lots of fun on 4 year long paid vacation with no plans to run for second term. No matter if you liked Bush or disliked, there was always action, it was clear who was in charge.

E, I did catch the variants in the 14th etc. There is a distinction between natural born and merely born. I wasn't so much referring to the first notation cited as the intent of the original implications of Art II. The five year rule does not bestow the essential element of natural. Otherwise it would say so. They're still three classes of citizenship, natural born, born, and naturalized, with the first one having more grounding than the others.

No, the distinction is not between natural born and merely born.
As you noted earlier, at the time they had no unnatural birth procedures.
The real distinction is between born Citizen and naturalized Citizen (natural born, as in born, being opposite of naturalized).

Now, there are different ways and means of being born Citizen.

For instance someone born in US soil to non-citizen parents is born Citizen under 14th amendment only.

Someone born to USC parents AND in US is USC by virtue of 14th amendment (by default) but also through the parents.

Someone who is born overseas , to at least one USC parent is just as well born USC, as those above, only the inheritance is through parents Citizenship not the jurisdiction of soil.

Moreover, if what you say was absolutely correct then evryone would cease to be eligible for office of president if 14th amendment was ever repealed or didn't exist.

As to 5 year requirement, it's on Parent not on the born Citizen. It means as USC you can't live in US for less than 5 years and then have your child inherit your status. You must be present at least 5 years in US and after that no matter where you live and where your child is born, he or she is born a USC (as if they were born in US soil, only irrespective of your status).

Again, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Natural born is born on US soil. Being born without the natural part would apply to those who derive their status through lesser means. Like McCain being born from USC parents but not on US soil. Then there are those who qualify through naturalization. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Frenchy, McCain was born on US soil. The Panama Canal Zone was US territory when he was born there.

Obama still hasn't released his original birth certificate, therefore no one on this forum has any knowledge as to his U.S. citizenship.

Actually no, McCain was not. The location of his birth was outside U.S. jurisdiction and was under Panamanian sovereignty. Technically, and probably more correctly, he is a second tier U.S. citizen. He was endowed the prefix natural born by senatorial resolution after the fact for the purpose of the election. A bending of the rules for sake of convenience. He should have stepped aside instead of asking special consideration. How much more difficult has it just become to adhere to an intentionally defined narrow precept when permissible use of waivers has now been established and accepted.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Again, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Natural born is born on US soil. Being born without the natural part would apply to those who derive their status through lesser means. Like McCain being born from USC parents but not on US soil. Then there are those who qualify through naturalization. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

But where does it say that "natural born" is only applicable to one born on US soil ?
Where does it say that born Citizen is not the same as natural born? Where do you get that from?

the only reason i am coming back to this site from time to time is to amuse myself with the extent of davdah&co ignorance

oy vey, the framers forgot to include the term "second tier" citizens!

quote:

Originally posted by frenchybee:
the only reason i am coming back to this site from time to time is to amuse myself with the extent of davdah&co ignorance

oy vey, the framers forgot to include the term "second tier" citizens!

Don't worry, in ignorance he is not superior to most of mankind.

I still try to educate him, as a hobby.

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:

quote:

Originally posted by frenchybee:
the only reason i am coming back to this site from time to time is to amuse myself with the extent of davdah&co ignorance

oy vey, the framers forgot to include the term "second tier" citizens!

Don't worry, in ignorance he is not superior to most of mankind.

I still try to educate him, as a hobby.

True, he's average compared to some others here and outside the forum. What can you do about it? Nothing really.
Which tier of US citizens do you belong to OldE, coach or first class?

quote:

Originally posted by frenchybee:

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:

quote:

Originally posted by frenchybee:
the only reason i am coming back to this site from time to time is to amuse myself with the extent of davdah&co ignorance

oy vey, the framers forgot to include the term "second tier" citizens!

Don't worry, in ignorance he is not superior to most of mankind.

I still try to educate him, as a hobby.

True, he's average compared to some others here and outside the forum. What can you do about it? Nothing really.
Which tier of US citizens do you belong to OldE, coach or first class?

No, nothing i can do about it. His brains are his destiny.

As to me, I am a Great Genius. Something far above of what you mere mortals are judged by.

Read the wikapedia article posted by Brit. It gives a fairly good summary of things. If you still don't get it, well, maybe you need to hang around another 20 or so years to get an understanding of this country. Being foreign born and a self proclaimed elitist has in fact made you an idiot. More the side kick than the principle.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Read the wikapedia article posted by Brit. It gives a fairly good summary of things. If you still don't get it, well, maybe you need to hang around another 20 or so years to get an understanding of this country. Being foreign born and a self proclaimed elitist has in fact made you an idiot. More the side kick than the principle.

Davdah, I am not the President of this country. It's not about me.

The wikipedia quote Brit posted only has bearing on citizenships derived through 14th amendment.
As i noted, 14th amendment is not only means of acquiring citizenship at birth.

I know it's hard to be reasonable and davdah at the same time, but try at least.

Read it again. That's all I can say. If neither of you are capable of separating obvious analogies from stated fact, then I don't know where to go except to suggest a course in American English. Prior to divvying out insults that to the audience at large makes yourselves look pitiful, think first, if it's possible.

I am not insulting you when i say you are not reasonable or that your brains are your destiny.
It's a fact.

Now, as to American English, please show me where exactly it says that "natural born" is only applicable to one born on US soil ?
Where does it say that born Citizen is not the same as natural born? Where do you get that from?
Why don't you answer the simple questions?

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
I am not insulting you when i say you are not reasonable or that your brains are your destiny.
It's a fact.