His "birther thing" had EVERYTHING to do with his eligibility to be prez... and that was of little interest to you? Why have a Constitution at all?
3rd grade logic at best.... It seems you do not have the same skills the pre vacation zzz had. You are mixing and matching arguments which make no sense. 1. 1st... before you can be natural born - you would at least have to prove you are citizen.... When you dad is a Kenyan - you might have to prove you are a least an anchor baby. 2. If you were to prove where you were born to a judge in a law suit.... you would have to produce evidence which can be deemed the best form of evidence. While HI officials were stating they had the originals... the originals would have been needed. If there are no originals.... it will be a more interesting question as to what is proof of birth. 3. As to the birth certificate produced on the internet... that will probably take a a whole bunch of foundation before it is considered evidence of birth in a court of law. We have not ever seen Obama offer it as proof have we...
Dad could be Kenyan, mom American, born in America, thus natural born. Look it up. Yes, you have to provide proof of your claims...something the birthers have failed to do. They have established that a certain document is the only form of proof...but that has not been established in a court. So they are just being self righteous. Tell me, who will ultimately decide if a produced birth certificate is fake or real?
That BC on the internet couldn't have come from a state dept of heath because there is no such race as "African" and no state dept would put out a BC with a made up race.
are you taking meds... we just showed you with case law the exact definition of natural born has not been decide by the courts... but we do know if your dad is kenyan you would have to be born here to be a citizen. I am making no claims. I am just stating facts and law. And speculating that when texas and other states make it a law that you have to prove your eligibility it will be Obama bringing the law suits. I am not predicting outcomes because I have no idea where he was born. Therefore I believe it will be the courts who decide. Perhaps the Texas Supreme Court or Perhaps a Federal Court.
This is why I previously stated the birth certificate issue is being kept alive as a diversion tactic. Letâs assume Obama was indeed born on US soil. Because Obamaâs father was neither born in the US or a citizen of the US, by legal definition, Obama is a native born 14th Amendment American citizen. In other words, as you point out, he is an anchor baby, and an anchor baby is not a natural born citizen by any stretch of the definition. As such, where Obama was born is a moot point, as he cannot meet the eligibility requirements for POTUS on any level.
To understand the legal meaning of Natural Born, one must first look back at the intent at the time of the writing, which was, sole allegiance to the US. The founders were trained and experienced in Old English Common Law, and the term Natural Born can be found as far back as the sixteenth century. Furthermore, the meaning was clearly described in Law Of Nations authored by Emmerich de Vattel, who wrote "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizensâ. Note the plural use of parents and citizens. There are many references by the framers themselves and many justices to Vattelâs writings as precedent. The odds of the high court hearing Obama's eligibility while he is sitting president is slim to none.
To distract attention away from the real issue at hand; Obama's dual citizenship at birth. This breaks the natural born intent of sole allegience to the US, which is clearly defined by the framers.
Besides it showing poor grades especially when the liberals say he is soooo intelligent ,the release would include papers he wrote. Obama was a hard core Marxist at that time and his papers would show that. This is the reason for hiding his records