Obama prooves citizenship

[Guest kjun12]

By releasing his birth certificate today President Obama has proved his US citizenship. What will the repiglicans do now?

[kokopelli]

Actually he had proven it previously but some just don't want to accept the truth. The repiglicans will likely keep sounding like a bunch of squealing pigs.

[Guest fountainhall]

Guess who's taking the credit? Reality show host and former failed developer (yes, he was once rescued from impending bankruptcy by Hong Kong billionaires), Donald Trump has turned his setback (didn't he say yesterday he had concrete proof to the contrary?) into victory.

 

“I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue," Trump said. ". . . I am really proud; I am really honored."

 

Cher was not impressed, On Twitter she called The Donald names which could not be published, then added she saw “him in Aspen with one Dcup chick after another. Everyone up there thought he was a complete idiot."

 

But another well-known female did take time to congratulate Trump. "Media, admit it: Trump forced the issue," former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/donald-trump.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01538e2add0f970b

 

Presidential hopefuls? Sickening!

[KhorTose]

Presidential hopefuls? Sickening!

 

The whole birth certificate issue is nothing more then hidden racism. One right wing commentator still questioned the birth certificate because it said Obama was an African American and he said it should have said Negro. What a crock. Not one word was said when Ford became President and he was not born in a state (Obama-Hawaii) but in the Panama Canal which technically was not part of the USA.

 

As for Trump's running for President, sadly it is no more sickening then W. Bush running and winning the Presidency twice.

[Bob]

The whole birth certificate issue is nothing more then hidden racism.

 

Exactly. The fringe can dress it up any way they want but that's the bottom line.

 

As for Trump, a bloated egomaniac who puffs (that's the polite term for "lies") about just about everything he's involved in doing. If I could pay the Republicans to nominate him for President, I would as I'd love to see Obama win by a landslide.

[Guest Steve1903]

What a load of nonsense that was yesterday. I've seen the same thing going on at boys football but for the US Pres to have to do that was an embarrassment to the entire country. Donald Trump should be dangled from the top of his towers and let go.

Do they really want HIM as Pres? Desperate.

[Guest]

The whole thing's very distasteful.

I'm not sure what it matters. Who cares if he was born elsewhere in the world, moved to the USA within his first decade and became totally assimilated into American culture?

The US electorate can make their own decisions. It's not like they're electing Osama Bin Laden.

 

There have been leaders in other countries who were born abroad.

Sadly, only the Austrian born Adolf Hitler comes to mind right now, but no doubt we can find some more successful examples.

 

At least the US did not have to suffer Gordon Brown.

[Guest Geezer]

At least the US did not have to suffer Gordon Brown.

 

…nor could they have.

 

The US constitution requires the president be a natural born (caesarians needn’t apply) US citizen.

[Gaybutton]

'm not sure what it matters. Who cares if he was born elsewhere in the world, moved to the USA within his first decade and became totally assimilated into American culture?

It only matters because the USA Constitution says it matters:

 

"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."

 

I agree with you in that retaining this law is a little ridiculous in this day and age, but unless and until an amendment to the Constitution is passed, then like it or not, that's the law.

[Guest anonone]

It only matters because the USA Constitution says it matters:

 

"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."

 

I agree with you in that retaining this law is a little ridiculous in this day and age, but unless and until an amendment to the Constitution is passed, then like it or not, that's the law.

 

There was some minor talk of trying to get it changed to allow for Arnold Schwarzenegger to try for a Presidential run, but the talk died out pretty quickly.

 

I agree it is a little ridiculous, but no more so than any of the US's immigration / citizenship policies. I hold little hope for any substantial changes. The US is too mired in partisanship to accomplish much.

[kokopelli]

 

There have been leaders in other countries who were born abroad.

Sadly, only the Austrian born Adolf Hitler comes to mind right now, but no doubt we can find some more successful examples.

 

Well, for starters, what about His Majesty, the King; born in the USA. So that would make him a US citizen and eligible to be President.

[kokopelli]

 

I agree it is a little ridiculous, but no more so than any of the US's immigration / citizenship policies. I hold little hope for any substantial changes. The US is too mired in partisanship to accomplish much.

 

I don't think it is at all ridiculous that a requirement for President is to be a natural born citizen of the USA. It is not unconceivable that a foreign born person could be a sleeper or mole with sinister motives. Not that a natural born citizen couldn't be a real threat.

[Gaybutton]

Not that a natural born citizen couldn't be a real threat.

John Walker Lindh comes to mind. Remember him? The 'American Taliban' who was caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was a natural born citizen.

 

On the other hand, since Arnold Schwartzenegger was mentioned, his politics might be controversial, but I don't think there is any doubt about his loyalties. He is not a natural born citizen. He can be governor of a state, but is ineligible to run for President.

 

That's why I think retaining the natural born citizen rule is nonsense in this day and age. I also think the electoral college system for presidential elections is nonsense in this day and age, but passing amendments to the Constitution is extremely difficult to do. If either of those rules are ever changed, I wouldn't bet on any of us living long enough to see that day come.

[Bob]

That's why I think retaining the natural born citizen rule is nonsense in this day and age. I also think the electoral college system for presidential elections is nonsense in this day and age, but passing amendments to the Constitution is extremely difficult to do.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. Where one is born doesn't seem to me to be that related to ability, loyalty, or the like. On the other hand, any notion of just eliminating the "natural born" requirement and replacing it with nothing is not all that appealing. Logically, at least to me, some time period of exclusive residency in the United States with some required time period of citizenship would seem to be reasonably required - so we're not electing people who have little knowledge or experience in the US and so we have some lengthy history that should give voters some idea as to the nature of the given candidate. Rather than say a presidential candidate must be 35 and natural born, maybe require them to have been a citizen for 20-30 years and having their "primary residency" in the US during that time period? [i use the phrase "primary residency" for a reason as it implies application of the usual rules that people living overseas involved in educational studies, military work, diplomatic work, and the like are still deemed to be primarily residing in the US.]

[KhorTose]

It only matters because the USA Constitution says it matters:

"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."

 

Actually this is far from the final word on the issue. Like all parts of the Constitution it has been subject to interpretation by the courts and Congress.

 

Natural-born citizen

 

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

 

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

 

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

 

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

_{* There is an exception in the law}

[KhorTose]

Since we keep mentioning Donald Trump in this tread, I thought I would share this great article by Johann Hari who comments on Trump and the Republican Party. For the non-brits who read this Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist who writes twice-weekly for the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers, and the Huffington Post. He also writes for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Le Monde, Le Monde Diplomatique, The New Republic, El Mundo, The Guardian, The Melbourne Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, South Africa's Star, The Irish Times, and a wide range of other international newspapers and magazines

 

Great article and a good web site to bookmark: http://johannhari.com/

Oh the article name is "Donald Trump's lunacy reveals an important truth about Republicans" It may not still be on the first page.

 

[kokopelli]

Reading some of the qualifications for natural born,it would seem that, even if the President was born outside the US, he would still qualify since his mother was a US citizen and she did live in the US for 5 years or more. Am I reading this correctly?

[kokopelli]

 

On the other hand, since Arnold Schwartzenegger was mentioned, his politics might be controversial, but I don't think there is any doubt about his loyalties. He is not a natural born citizen. He can be governor of a state, but is ineligible to run for President.

 

Actually I do question the loyalty of some naturalized (not natural born) citizens as possible presidential candidates. For example, many Cubans have moved to the US and have become citizens and hold elected office, but the Cuban community in Florida is very much aligned with the politics of Cuba and continues to stifle normalized relations. I really am not sure just where some of them stand.

 

Once the door is opened to other then natural born, where is the end? Naturalized citizens, legal residents, or anyone else in the world? Give the founding fathers some credit for their foresight.

[Gaybutton]

Give the founding fathers some credit for their foresight.

What makes you think the idea of doing away with the natural born rule would indicate the founding fathers lacked foresight? They had excellent foresight. They had foresight enough to know to include rules by which the Constitution can be amended. They understood perfectly that the world is not going to always be the way it was in the late 1700s.

 

I think the idea that a Cuban born president would be more loyal to Cuba than to the USA is prejudicial nonsense. When John F. Kennedy was elected, many feared he would be unduly influenced by the Pope because he was Roman Catholic. Many feared Obama would over-prioritize black issues because he is black.

 

Neither happened and I, for one, see no justification whatsoever in an assumption that a person who is otherwise fully qualified to be the president would be less loyal simply because he was born somewhere other than the USA. I also believe if those same founding fathers were alive today to see how the world has changed since their time, neither would they.

[Guest voldemar]

 

I think the idea that a Cuban born president would be more loyal to Cuba than to the USA is prejudicial nonsense.

I think Gaybutton misinterpreted the Kokopelli post who, as I understand it, states that Cuban immigrants are against normalization of relations with communist Cuba. That Kokopelli see as an obstacle for a Cuban immigrant to become the US president...

Well, I do not question US constitution but I have to say that at least in spirit I agree with Gaybutton. I, in fact, hope that one day Marc Rubio (who is a son of Cuban immigrants

and was recently elected the senator from Florida) will be the president of United States.

Of course, he is natural born US citizen and qualified to be president.

[Guest GaySacGuy]

 

On the other hand, since Arnold Schwartzenegger was mentioned, his politics might be controversial, but I don't think there is any doubt about his loyalties. He is not a natural born citizen. He can be governor of a state, but is ineligible to run for President.

 

 

Now there is what we need in Washington...another actor playing the role of President!

 

Didn't Regan screw our country up enough for everyone??

 

Clinton kind of put it back together and got us a surplus....but Cowboy George came along and really messed things up.

 

I'm not sure anyone can fix Humpty Dumpty now...he may be to broken!

[kokopelli]

Firstly, the reference to Cubans was only an example, not meant to be prejudicial. Likewise I don't believe my opinions are any more nonsense then that put forth by any other member of this forum. For me, I just don't see why it would be desirable to have other than a natural born citizen as President. Is the pool of qualified, natural born citizens that small to require expanding to foreign born citizens?

 

Now, if Germany only had a requirement for their Chancellor to be natural born, then Adolph, an Austrian, might not have gained control of Germany. There are some examples of other then natural born citizens taking over governments with bad results, such as Napoleon and Maximilian. Even Stalin was not a Russian but from Georgia, which had been annexed by Russia.

 

Arnold in California is a good example of how people got carried away over a popular, charismatic actor and elected him governor although not at all qualified and did not solve the state's problems. His predecessor, Gray Davis, Democrat, was was booted out of office in a virtual coup d'etat and replaced by Arnold a Republican. And then there was talk of changing the US Constitution just so he might have a chance as President. This could make for a great book about a conspiracy to take over the US by a foreign born person who even married into a prominent family to advance his political career.

[Gaybutton]

Is the pool of qualified, natural born citizens that small to require expanding to foreign born citizens?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the pool of qualified natural born citizens, although the natural born citizens who so far seem to be planning to run in the next election are not exactly impressing me.

 

If there are qualified people who would meet all the qualifications except where they happened to be born, then what's wrong with allowing them to run? Personally, I couldn't care less where someone was born. I care how good a president he would make.

 

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. So am I, and my opinion is disqualifying a presidential candidate in today's world simply because of his place of birth and simply because of an assumption that if his place of birth was somewhere other than the USA, he would be likely to let that influence his presidency, is both prejudicial and ridiculous.

 

And, in my opinion, saying that nobody born elsewhere should be allowed to run because there are already enough qualified natural born citizens is equally ridiculous.

 

Sorry Arnold - you can't run. Kokopelli has decided we already have enough qualified natural born candidates and he doesn't approve of the way you ran things as governor, so you're out. After all Stalin, Hitler, and Napoleon weren't natural born. Look what happened. If you or anyone else who was born someplace else is ever elected president, we all better watch out!

[kokopelli]

 

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else.

 

I agree we are all entitled to our opinions, I just don't see why it is necessary to label my comments as nonsense and ridiculous.

 

As far as the qualifications for President, as written in the US Constitution, the original drafters of the document obviously had good reason for including the natural born and age requirement. They, the writers, did allow for naturalized citizens to become Senators (30 yo and a citizen for 9 years prior to election) and Representative (25 yo and 7 years a citizen prior to election). They knew what they were doing and had good reason for their actions.

 

For sure, anyone could now go through the document, line by line, word by word, and revise and edit it to suit their personal views. Fortunately changes to the Constitution are difficult to make and should only be undertaken for just cause. (One not such good cause was the 18th Amendment/Prohibition).

 

Having wandered far off course from President Obama and his birth certificate I will cede further discussion to other posters.

[KhorTose]

I agree we are all entitled to our opinions, I just don't see why it is necessary to label my comments as nonsense and ridiculous.

 

I don't see why either. Earlier you ask about the child born to an American Mother, etc. Yes, you are reading it correctly. While you are entitled to your opinion, and I do not find it that far out of line with what many American's think; in the final analysis I agree with Gaybutton that the requirement to be a natural born citizen is ridiculous and should be changed.

 

The Constitution is not a document carved into stone. Gaybutton is correct in that the flounding fathers meant it to change with time. They made it difficult to change, but they did allow for change. Not only do we have amendments, but the Constitution was deliberately written in a broad manner to allow interpretation, and an instrument was set up to do that interpretation that has allowed changes over time. That instrument is the Supreme Court of the US. The Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court has the right to say what the Constitution means. If the Congress or the President do not like their interpetation they can pass an amendment to change it. (Yes, I know of the historic exceptions). Example: The Supreme Court rules that slaves are property and could be retrieved anywhere by their owners. This decision not only caused a civil war but lead to the passage of the 11-14th Amendments to the Constitution.

 

Now why did the founding fathers want a Natural Born Citizen to be President of the US?

Well when we look at what documentation we have---and there is little on this issue---their reasons appear to be of distrust of foreigners at that time. Especially, Baron Von Stuben who John Jay did not completely trust. Therefore, when the decision was made to make the President Commander in Chief a letter that John Jay wrote to the Convention lead to the adoption of this clause. In my opinion this is hardly a valid reason in today's world, and yes, it should be changed.

 

For reading on this issue: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm