Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Obama is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen. Therefore he CANNOT run for POTUS.

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Feb 17, 2012 11:54:04 AM PST.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 181 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 18, 2012 9:29:34 PM PST
Unless you were the doctor that delivered MY PRESIDENT your so called information has NO VALIDITY !

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 10:43:06 PM PST
mzakal says:
I AM a lawyer. You're completely wrong and out of your mind. Goodbye.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012 12:29:38 PM PST
Kevin Flynn says:
US foreign military bases are NOT considered US soil, not ever. Even the military will tell you this. McCain's claim rests on a statute passed when he was 2 years old that retroactively extended "citizenship at birth" to children born in the Canal Zone to US citizen parents.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 12:58:54 PM PST
Tom-BMer-cat says:
"I'm not a lawyer but I am a well educated critical thinker. "

We have another satisfied ITT Tech graduate.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:05:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012 2:07:02 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:11:04 PM PST
Thomas, if you put everybody on ignore, who is going to be left to have a conversation with?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:14:39 PM PST
The Return says:
He doesn't put anyone on ignore, don't kid yourself.

;-)

Posted on Feb 19, 2012 2:24:32 PM PST
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 - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

I have to post this yet again.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012 2:28:55 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:42:17 PM PST
It will be just like his sex life, a solitary affair with the ocassional helping hand from rover.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:55:59 PM PST
What does potus mean? Sounds like a secret acronym.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:57:33 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 2:57:38 PM PST
Yes, I have a copy of it on a coffee mug.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:26:22 PM PST
Lisa E. says:
--"Obama is not a legitimate president because Hawaii is not really a state..."--

You conceded ONCE that Hawaii was a state and are now back to denying it again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:28:24 PM PST
MisterTee says:
I just want to know what the dang toll is, to cross the dang bridge.

Sheesh.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:35:22 PM PST
Lisa

Hawaii was actually a real live state before Obama was born. There is no stupidity left untried in the birther nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:36:37 PM PST
"When American service personal and their spouses have children, on an American base, the base is considered for all intents and purposes the same as having a child on one of the states and the child is considered, without equivocation, to be American."

Where the child is born is irrelevant. If the parents are US citizens, the kid is a natural born citizen.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:37:30 PM PST
MT

It is pretty expensive because you have to pay to the bridge built. I'm sure you can find a representative or senator to ear mark the money for you.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 3:56:46 PM PST
Lisa E. says:
--"Hawaii was actually a real live state before Obama was born. There is no stupidity left untried in the birther nonsense."--

I know that and you know that but read this:

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2011 4:02:50 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:

Hawaii is not technically a state....
Your link doesn't prove anything...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 4:02:28 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 4:04:35 PM PST
"Technically, Hawaii is not a state."

Then why do they have representation in Congress?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 4:13:15 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 19, 2012 4:16:45 PM PST
obama was naturally born, unless his mom had a c-section.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 4:19:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012 4:25:39 PM PST
1. FLCs?
2. An argument that bases itself on a code of the United Nations charter isn't valid, as it is not legally binding to the United States. Sorry, try again.
3. As for Public Law 103-150, the argument presented is a gross misrepresentation of the text. Let me show you where the chink in the armor is:

"the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States"

The weakness is in the word "directly". Yes - the indigenous Hawaiians didn't DIRECTLY relinquish their claims. But they did so indirectly, by acquiescing to the American military forces that took their lands. Doesn't make the actions moral or right - but they did take place. The indigenous Hawaiians weren't all that sovereign, since they fail to meet the very definition posted:

"The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed"

They were neither supreme, absolute nor uncontrollable when they rolled over and handed the reins to the US.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012 4:25:28 PM PST
TOPICWAQ says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
2845 3 days ago
Krugman Uncovers Amazon's Conspiracy with Conservatives! 218 22 seconds ago
Kids have become right wingers 220 24 seconds ago
Remember and Celebrate December 21: The Day the Pilgrims Landed! 3 3 minutes ago
McCulloch knew witnesses lied 1 23 minutes ago
Obama: Sony Made A Mistake In Cancelling The Movie 43 32 minutes ago
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal handed out prayer rally pamphlets that blames abortion and gay people for Hurricane Katrina. 314 1 hour ago
Oldest U.S. black college on verge of financial collapse - Help save them you lefties - !!! 40 1 hour ago
Ferguson Protester Accidentally Burns Down His Own House 241 1 hour ago
Socialism 161 1 hour ago
Well, here's some Good News 16 2 hours ago
Taxation without representation... I don't live or work in California! 11 2 hours ago

Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  47
Total posts:  181
Initial post:  Feb 17, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions