View Full Version : Is Obama A Legal Citizen ?
kdown
July 28th, 2008, 06:32 AM
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986. Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal US Law very clearly stipulates: 'If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but after age 16. It doesn't matter after. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
mistersinister
July 28th, 2008, 08:58 AM
hey that's great news! hurry and let's get a petition to washington and get him thrown out!
Brian K Beckett
July 28th, 2008, 09:02 AM
Dose this mean Hillary is back in the race? or do we get a do over?
kdown
July 28th, 2008, 09:22 AM
Maybe thats why Clinton just SUSPENDED her campaign
Jeremy
July 28th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Clever. However, if a child is born on US soil, they are a citizen by right regardless of the national orgin of their parents. Obama was born in 1961, at Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became a state in 1959. He's a natural-born citizen of the United States. McCain wasn't born on US soil. Obama was.
kdown
July 28th, 2008, 10:03 AM
Whew ! I'm glad you cleared that up.......LOL
JRbickley
July 28th, 2008, 10:16 AM
You may as well just draw straws between the two for the difference it will make.
Bengals_Mama
July 28th, 2008, 11:57 AM
You all have too much time on your hands..LOL (Just kidding)
3rdfloorstudio
July 28th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Clever. However, if a child is born on US soil, they are a citizen by right regardless of the national orgin of their parents. Obama was born in 1961, at Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became a state in 1959. He's a natural-born citizen of the United States. McCain wasn't born on US soil. Obama was.
Just out of curiosityhow long has that been the law tho? It sounds like it wasnt always.
I had a friend (who passed away several years ago) who was born of military parents in Europe in the late after 1952. His parents had to have paperwork done to secure his citizenship even tho they were both American citizens born here.
What kdown presented says that was the law then... so dont you fall under the law at the time you were born? just asking?
tkcomer
July 28th, 2008, 07:37 PM
The law goes back to the very early days of the United States. It's been pretty much recognized if both parents are U.S. citizens, their children are automatically citizens at birth. No matter where they are born. The big question that some have brought up is if the child is born on U.S. soil. So far, all are considered U.S. citizens. But some legal scholars claim those parents must be in good standing for that to be legal. In their thinking, guests of this country or awaiting to become legal citizens, the child is a U.S. citizen. In other words, according to them, if you are here illegally, then the child is not a legal resident. It's an argument that is slowly gaining steam because of all the illegal immigrants coming here and having children. One things for sure, the law is not that clear.
brewsterbop
July 28th, 2008, 11:06 PM
LOL - don't you realllly think that they would have figured out something like this before he was even allowed in the campaign if it were in fact true. geez! thanks jeremy for clearing that up for some people who really need to check the facts of what they read.
mark
July 29th, 2008, 12:00 AM
............probably doesn't matter anyway.
Neither dem candidate is very appealing.........see ya mark
landlord
July 29th, 2008, 12:23 AM
Like McCain is?????? lol
mark
July 29th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Like McCain is?????? lol
....nope,
Due to Obama being basically "clueless" & is being run my the democratic handbook, he scares me to death.
My suggestion is......make a concerned effort to get all your debts paid ASAP if Obama gets elected. You read it from me 1st !!!
Regarding McCain.... well, he is basically the lessor of two evils.........see ya mark
landlord
July 29th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Yeah, kinda sucks either way!
acj
July 29th, 2008, 12:53 AM
Obama can't be any worst for this country than 8 years of George W. Elect McCain and you elect George W all over again. God help this country if that happens. Obama has my vote.
wmjsmallwood
July 30th, 2008, 12:24 AM
Amen! Obama will help this country more that either bush did ,,!YEA! he gets my vote ,,hands down,,,unless they ban him
mark
July 30th, 2008, 09:55 PM
Obama can't be any worst for this country than 8 years of George W. Elect McCain and you elect George W all over again. God help this country if that happens. Obama has my vote.
I suggest you get all the debts you can paid off before & after the election.
We know that there will be no drilling for oil = high gas prices.
He will put in universal health care = higher taxes for all, yes, even the middle class.
Taxes will go up on the rich = less business growth & since 80% of all business in the US has fewer than 50 employees, you'll possibly be out of a job.
Gov't bailout of private businesses, especially lending organizations = higher rates for all.
Sorry, I don't want any of that, do you??...........see ya mark
JRbickley
July 30th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Gas is going up no mather what, less is more. Neither one of the guys can stop it, at least long term. With all of these companys going globel (markets) we all will be equalized. China will come up and we will come down. Your seeing that know if you look.
acj
July 30th, 2008, 11:10 PM
I suggest you get all the debts you can paid off before & after the election.
We know that there will be no drilling for oil = high gas prices.
He will put in universal health care = higher taxes for all, yes, even the middle class.
Taxes will go up on the rich = less business growth & since 80% of all business in the US has fewer than 50 employees, you'll possibly be out of a job.
Gov't bailout of private businesses, especially lending organizations = higher rates for all.
Sorry, I don't want any of that, do you??...........see ya mark
Bottom line is that someone needs to take control of this country and get us out of the recession. McCain is not the person to do that because he is a Bush want to be. The rich should be paying more taxes...they can afford it.
We had no reason to invade Iraq....again McCain will continue to pour money into that black hole just like Bush has. Obama seems very willing and very able to sit down and communicate with people...which is better than being a bully and a liar. Bush is a bully and a liar.....not sure about McCain, but from all indications he wants to continue Bush's policies, etc.
And we need some type of affordable health care in the county....people should not die in a county as rich as the USA because they can't afford health care.
Being a liberal I would not have a problem with paying some extra tax dollars for the good of the whole.
People just need to consider that this country was in a much better place 8 years ago than it is today....we do need a change.
McCain comes from a privileged background.....Obama does not....I would much rather have someone from Obama's background making decisions for me, than a man who has never walked in my shoes.
I'm done...I will work to get Obama elected....I will vote for Obama.
mark
July 30th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Being a liberal I would not have a problem with paying some extra tax dollars for the good of the whole.
Get ready, we are already paying waaaay too much in tax & if Obama wins, you & everyone else will pay more in taxes.
I'm done...I will work to get Obama elected....I will vote for Obama.
There hasn't been a dem in my lifetime that has been for lower taxes & I doubt Obama will be any different.
I'll have all of debts paid ( except mortgage ) & I'll be prepared for the rough economic times ahead.
Good luck, maybe your side will win.
I'll be ready......see ya mark
landlord
July 31st, 2008, 03:08 AM
Some people wanted a woman in office, some people want a black man in office, some people want a wealthy person in office, some want a commoner, someone like them, SO I see this as the only option.
http://fametastic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/oprah_winfrey_01.jpg
She meets all the qualifications and I feel she would do better than either current candidate and if not she could definetly find or hire the help.
hhowe
July 31st, 2008, 04:16 AM
I am of the opinion that to be commander and chief one should have to have served in the military. I think that should be a requirement to be president. It’s all well and good to say you want to serve your country, but being a senator doesn’t have the same meaning as having to follow orders, as well as give them.
I also can not vote for someone that supports abortion, what would be the differences' to my children if they were aborted or if I chose to kill them today? Being a Christian I can not support abortion.
I don’t think government run health care sounds like a good ideal either. If I were Ted Kennedy I guess it would be alright, but I’m on the bottom of the totem pole. I know that health care is out of hand, but the government can’t control even basic problems.
Well that should be enough for now to get more responses than I’ll be able to counter for sometime.
mark
August 1st, 2008, 12:21 AM
I am of the opinion that to be commander and chief one should have to have served in the military. I think that should be a requirement to be president. It’s all well and good to say you want to serve your country, but being a senator doesn’t have the same meaning as having to follow orders, as well as give them.
I also can not vote for someone that supports abortion, what would be the differences' to my children if they were aborted or if I chose to kill them today? Being a Christian I can not support abortion.
I don’t think government run health care sounds like a good ideal either. If I were Ted Kennedy I guess it would be alright, but I’m on the bottom of the totem pole. I know that health care is out of hand, but the government can’t control even basic problems.
Well that should be enough for now to get more responses than I’ll be able to counter for sometime.
well said.....someone else here making some sense............see ya mark
tkcomer
August 1st, 2008, 01:29 AM
Not quite what our founding fathers had in mind. They wanted a civilian government in charge of the military. They'd seen too many countries where the military was in charge. Didn't end well for the population.
hhowe
August 1st, 2008, 02:17 AM
Why did they vote George Washington in as the first president of the United States if we were supposed to have a civilian government?
drago
August 1st, 2008, 04:33 AM
well the main reason George Washington got the job was because he was the most popular person in america at the time...he was probably the only person with enough influence with everyone to pull all the states together into one country. also being in the military was a little different then than it is today...if you were old enough to use a gun more likely than not you were part of some militia.
on a side note the reason Geroge Washington was best suited to be president was because he didn't want the job in the first place lol.
hhowe
August 1st, 2008, 09:42 AM
Gorge Washington as a military man was in a do or die situation, if the war was lost he would have been hung as a traitor. As president he just continued to set a course for the country to follow. I think he also would have been opposed to abortion.
I find very few men that today would put their life on the line for our country, but I have known many who have, and they are the ones I think of when it comes time to vote.
tkcomer
August 1st, 2008, 11:19 AM
Ya gots to remember, most of the founding fathers were involved in the war. An they thought of the presidency of more of a ceremonial spot. Not a big decision maker. The president actually has very little power, if the constitution is followed. Of course it's not. A president is not allowed to start wars or "covert" actions against foreign countries. He can't tax anyone. Unless approved by congress. A person in congress swears to uphold the constitution. When they shirked their duty and gave Bush the power to declare war on Iraq, they violated the very oath they swore on the bible to uphold. To me, violating your oath of office should be punished by expulsion from any office. McCain violated his oath. He shouldn't be allowed to walk the halls of congress, much less the white house. The fact that he so willingly violated his oath should tell more about his character then anything.
Jeremy
August 1st, 2008, 11:39 AM
When they shirked their duty and gave Bush the power to declare war on Iraq, they violated the very oath they swore on the bible to uphold.
What's messed up is that officially, on the books, this isn't a new war and Bush didn't have to declare anything. On the books its a continuation of the first Gulf War. Officially there is no new war.
SilverFox
August 1st, 2008, 11:51 AM
Anyone who is willing to turn this Country into a socialist nightmare just to get back at our current President, is so misguided they are without hope. Our current President, George W. has kept us safe for 7 1/2 years. A great many Americans are just a bunch of whiners who never want to deal with problems. The economy is up and down and just because we are in a downturn, no reason to give up. We have a democrat Congress that refuses to even discuss drilling for oil here at home. Why is that? Whose pocket are they in? barry hussein is a dangerous man and don't be fooled by his "charming" rhetoric. He and his wife are militant and appear to hate America. They want to change us. Well, I don't think we need to be changed. We need a Congress that works for the people, not special interests. We need a President who is not a sniveling coward who governs by polls. We had that for eight years with clinton and terrorism was allowed to grow and thrive. This opened the door to 9/11. I don't want another 9/11 or something far worse. Stop believing the propaganda from the far left that we are hated by all other countries. Conservatives have been elected in Germany and France and they sure don't appear to hate us. Don't think for one minute the cowards in Europe don't thank God every day for George W. Bush and his courage in defending this Country and them against the murdering monsters who want to kill us all.
tkcomer
August 1st, 2008, 11:57 AM
Maybe I'm wrong on this but, why did congress vote to give the authority to Bush to invade as he saw fit? In the first war, congress voted to invade to push Iraq out of Kuwait, not an outright invasion of Iraq. That's why we didn't drive to Baghdad, because our work was done. We then started the no fly zones because of the mess we had started. They can put any type of spin on they want. Congress has to authorize the invasion of another country. They didn't. They should be banned from office.
Jeremy
August 1st, 2008, 08:48 PM
Well, that's just it. I mentioned this before, but according to the Congressional Resolution (the only legal authorization for the conflict) they said it was a continuation of the first war and that he was authorized to enforce the UN sanctions. That's done. There is no way Iraq is going to be developing any mass destruction weapons or avoiding inspectors in it's current condition. Technically, the "contract" is fulfilled.
landlord
August 2nd, 2008, 02:15 AM
Back to the thread topic: Has anything been settled on the state of Obama's citizenship status? I too was under the assumption, any child born on US soil was automatically a US citizen.
tkcomer
August 2nd, 2008, 12:08 PM
Yes, Obama is a U.S. citizen. He was born on U.S. soil. End of story.
Now about that Congressional Resolution. I went and read that crap. Any lawyer that knows anything about the constitution would tear that document apart in a heartbeat. Playing connect the dots like that document did doesn't make it true. In legalese it looks to me like #1, they're hiding behind a document to shirk their constitutional duty and #2 are trying to absolve themselves from any war crimes that could arise. They cite all these U.N. resolutions to support handing over their war powers act but left out a biggie. The U.N. statement to not invade Iraq. Thanks for bringing up that document. I hate incumbents even more now.
Jeremy
August 2nd, 2008, 01:48 PM
Back to the thread topic: Has anything been settled on the state of Obama's citizenship status? I too was under the assumption, any child born on US soil was automatically a US citizen.
Yes, Obama is a U.S. citizen. He was born on U.S. soil. End of story.
Yes, what tkcomer said. I just wanted to add that the whole reason it was a pseudo-issue is because according to the Constitution, a person up for President must be a "natural born citizen". McCain was born at the Panama Canal, so there was a question of whether "natural born citizen" meant US occupied areas were included. At the time, the Panama Canal zone was under US control. McCain is thus a natural born citizen.
For some reason, on the Internet, that got reinterpreted as Obama not being a citizen, despite him actually being born in a US state, Hawaii.
Both Obama and McCain are natural born citizens, by law and by right.
Incidentally, the wording of Article II of the Constitution, what sets out these rules, is a little strange. Here it is:
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.
Because of where the commas are placed, at least to me, it reads as no one can be President unless they were a natural born citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution! The comma placement makes "or a citizen of the United States" a further description of what is meant by "natural born citizen". Take this sentence as an example: "His car, a 1965 Ford Mustang, was parked at the lot." The 1965 Ford Mustang is a further description of "his car", set off by commas.
What the heck?
I'll leave the "old man" jokes to the side about how McCain might still qualify, but seriously, the way it's written, grammatically the only qualified candidates must 221 years old! :eek:
Foxy
August 7th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Here is the SNOPES.COM take on it...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
airhead
August 9th, 2008, 09:25 AM
Bottom line is that someone needs to take control of this country and get us out of the recession. McCain is not the person to do that because he is a Bush want to be. The rich should be paying more taxes...they can afford it.
We had no reason to invade Iraq....again McCain will continue to pour money into that black hole just like Bush has. Obama seems very willing and very able to sit down and communicate with people...which is better than being a bully and a liar. Bush is a bully and a liar.....not sure about McCain, but from all indications he wants to continue Bush's policies, etc.
And we need some type of affordable health care in the county....people should not die in a county as rich as the USA because they can't afford health care.
Being a liberal I would not have a problem with paying some extra tax dollars for the good of the whole.
People just need to consider that this country was in a much better place 8 years ago than it is today....we do need a change.
McCain comes from a privileged background.....Obama does not....I would much rather have someone from Obama's background making decisions for me, than a man who has never walked in my shoes.
I'm done...I will work to get Obama elected....I will vote for Obama.
Everyone has their freedom of choice. What's your take on unemployment? If it keeps going at the rate it is, how will the unemployed pay more tax dollars if they are unemployed. This is a vicious circle. The more technology that comes our way, the more unemployment there will be. Then there is the overseas market. That's where our jobs are going. No president will be able to help this economy. It's just a race, like any other race. Someone will win and someone will loose. Four years from now it will be worse and people will be saying the same thing as they have for years. It's a proven fact. Just think about it. Read the Bible about things to come. You will find your answers there.
Chuck
August 9th, 2008, 01:23 PM
Or read Nostradamus or the Mayan Calender or the 1500 other people that predict the end of the world.
I told you so doesn't work if it is predestine. The end of the world in the day you die, not a day sooner.
Nothing will help the economy until we lower the national debt and reduce the national deficit.
That won't happen till we get our jobs back from other Countries that the past
presidents and congress has given them.
That won't happen till we elect real people and not parties.
Guess What? That won't happen because we elect people on false promises and popularity.
Make your vote count. Look at the other candidates running and DON'T Vote Obama or McCain.
JRbickley
August 9th, 2008, 02:20 PM
I don't believe that on July 25, 1787 Presiding office of the Consititutional convention John Jay that used the term Natural-born citizen in the Consititution would agree either canidate is a Natural- born citizen, however; the consititution does not define the term. Law makers can make it mean what ever they want. I believe he was saying born on US soil and to two US citizens, not and / or. Any mixture of that may get you citizenship but does'nt make you natural born. Thats just how I see it.