What happens if indeed Obama is not a U.S. born citizen?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 11, 2008 8:02:00 PM PDT
Would he have the integrity to admit it? And would congress have the stones to remove him?

Posted on Apr 6, 2009 6:14:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2009 6:16:10 AM PDT
What happens if Obama IS a US citizen? What happens if Obama, in order to get a US passport to travel to Indonesia with his mother, showed an authentic birth certificate from a hospital in Hawaii?

Michael Chaplan

Posted on Apr 13, 2009 7:52:34 AM PDT
Tess 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 Apr 14, 2009 4:57:11 PM PDT
In order to get a passport, you have to present a legitimate birth certificate. Obama has a passport. If Obama's passport were not valid, the place to check on the validity would be where he got that passport, which is Hawaii.

But what difference would it make, anyway? The reason the "native born American Citizen" requirement was put into the Constitution was to ensure that Alexander Hamilton never become president. The requirement is nonsense, at this point.

Posted on Apr 14, 2009 7:46:23 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2009 1:45:52 AM PDT
Sorry, Mr. Adcock. You are wrong. My children both have dual citizenship. It is easy to do if you are an American.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2009 7:49:51 AM PDT
K. saba says:
Not all countries allow for dual citizenships.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2009 5:04:49 PM PDT
America allows for dual citizenship. Proof: my children have dual citizenship.

Posted on Aug 30, 2009 5:15:12 PM PDT
But did Obama NEED an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan? My US passport only restricts me from traveling to Cuba and North Korea. For proof that Obama could very well have used his American passport to visit Pakistan, check here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp

Posted on Nov 4, 2009 4:09:06 PM PST
What has been produced by Hawaii so far is not accepted as valid proof of citizenship for a passport. They give a registration of birth, not the actual birth certificate. In Hawaii they would allow a registration of birth if it was requested within a year of birth no matter where the child was born. The sorry part of this whole affair is if he has a valid birth certificate why not just produce it like john McCain had to do when they tried to disqualify him for being born in the Panama Canal Zone.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2009 12:17:38 AM PST
I quote you: "(Hawaii) give(s) a registration of birth, not the actual birth certificate."

The logical next question is, "can people born in Hawaii get valid US passports with this registration of birth?" It seems that many people born in Hawaii have valid passports, so one can only assume that the US Passport service accepts (Hawaiian) registrations of birth as valid proof of birth in the US.

If Hawaii gives, as you say, a registration of birth, not the actual birth certificate, then how would you expect Mr. Obama to get the actual birth certificate?

As for why Hawaii should have this procedure, this is an irrelevant question. Hawaii has the procedure. Period. Obama, as President of the United States, must follow the law just like everybody else.

Michael Chaplan

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2010 9:29:15 AM PST
VintageChick says:
Michael, my state does the same thing. After giving birth you are first issued a registration of birth which is followed by the actual birth certificate. In order to enroll you children in school, obtain a passport etc, you must produce the birth certificate.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2010 5:22:50 PM PST
But the question is not "what do they do in MY state: the question is "what do they do in Hawaii?" Can people from Hawaii get passports using their "registration of birth" (as opposed to birth certificates)? If they can, then that is the end of the discussion.

Unless all people born in Hawaii are not really born in the United States, and Hawaii is not a state of the United States.

Posted on May 25, 2010 10:17:13 AM PDT
There is nothing in the Constitution referring to "US born" - only to "natural born US Citizen"
For example, John McCain was born in the country of Panama, but nothing barred him from running for President.

"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"

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2010 4:36:01 PM PDT
John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, not in Panama. The Canal Zone is (or was) part of the US. Therefore, McCain is a natural born US citizen.

The reason that sentence exists in the Constitution was to prevent Alexander Hamilton (who was born in England, but was a US citizen) from becoming President. Hamilton was not a "naturalized" US citizen. Naturalization didn't exist then.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2010 9:49:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2010 10:42:58 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
@C. Adcock
That is false. American's can have dual citizenship. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Obama had or used an Indonesian passport, nor any reason for him to need to use one. To bad, your facts are bogus and no one cares because it is a senseless conspiracy theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2010 10:34:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2010 10:49:00 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
A natural born citizen can be born in Iraq, Iran, Guatemala or Guam, Russia, or Rwanda. There are many different criteria for being a natural born citizen. Obama is a citizen simply because his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. Being born in Hawaii is just a bonus. Citizenship is defined, as allowed by the Constitution, in Title 8 Section 1401 of the U.S. Code. See end of comment for what these criteria are.

And exactly how is it that Alexander Hamilton was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Chaplan, you admit that Hamilton was a citizen. If Hamilton was a citizen, he was eligible for the Presidency, as explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Constitution states:

"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"

It clearly says "or" a citizen at the time of adoption.

Is your argument that Hamilton was not a citizen at the time of adoption? When did he become a citizen? The idea that the wording of the Constitution was created to bar Hamilton is apocryphal. There is no good evidence that supports this theory. Hamilton was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution even though he was born in the West Indies, not England. Hamilton was opposed because of his preference for a monarch like president, not because of his birth place.

Furthermore, regarding the definition of "natural born citizen":

"Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the
sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . ."

It is quite clear what the framers intended by "natural born."

However, according to law today, what is a "natural born" citizen?

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.

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.

This whole thing is hoax, Schweikart knows it, and he should be ashamed for not having more integrity. But then after reading "48 Liberal Lies" I am not even a little surprised by this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2010 9:04:28 PM PDT
What Hendrix says is logical to me. The only thing I am not sure of is why Hamilton was not considered eligible for the Presidency. However, I could be wrong about that. I learned it in high school many decades ago, and always assumed it was true. Thank you, Mr. Hendrix, for going to the trouble of writing your informative post.

Michael Chaplan

Posted on Jun 6, 2010 5:51:31 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Mr. Chaplan, thank you. I do not think there is any good evidence that Hamilton was not considered eligible for the presidency. I am unsure of why there is such a controversy regarding "natural born", such as with McCain and even Obama. I think, if you look at the sources of the controversy, it is more clear. Notice that the government, such as opposing members of Congress, do not engage in the debate. Do you think that if the Republican Congress could challenge Obama's citizenship, they would not? Same goes for McCain and the Democrats.

This "controversy" is really nothing more than a conspiracy theory. The same kind of nonsense that Schweikart attributes to "liberals" in his 48 Liberal Lies. Then he goes and promotes another "lie" through innuendo with a thread like this. I bet if he writes a sequel to 48 Liberal Lies it will have this lie, attributed to...you guessed it, liberals. As a historian, I would hope that he would have better ethics and more maturity. I highly doubt he is unaware of the information I posted, so that means he is just baiting the uninformed. He has a purpose. To get people involved and working against liberals, even if it requires inflammatory or misleading information. His means are quite suspect and speak to his character.

Posted on Jun 8, 2010 2:38:15 AM PDT
I am certain that you are right in every respect. As for Hamilton, I got this from <Answers.com> when asking the question "What state was Alexander Hamilton born in?"

Alexander was not born in any of the states in the United States of America. He was born in Charleston on the island of Nevis in the West Indies (now the island of St. Kitts-Nevis in the Virgin islands.) It is believed that the clause allowing residents of the US at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to become president (as opposed to native-born Americans) was added especially for Hamilton, who was not a native of the American colonies.

He actively supported ratification of New York. His "Home State."

You may well ask, "believed? by whom?" and I would answer "by whoever taught my American history class five decades ago."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2010 8:25:31 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Mr. Chaplan, regardless of whether or not the information is correct, I think it is excellent that you remember what you were taught in high school fifty years ago.

I may be confused, but I think I understand. Correct me if I am wrong.

In my post, I said Hamilton was born in the West Indies, but was a U.S. citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution. You agree as per Answers.com. As such, he was certainly eligible for the presidency, as the Constitution explicitly states, and as I previously argued.

In your earlier posts, you said that the "sentence in the Constitution existed" for the purpose of BANNING, or preventing, Hamilton from ever becoming president. I said this claim was apocryphal, and you said you learned it in high school.

But now you say that you have found information (Answers.com) that says the same sentence was placed in the Constitution in order to make Hamilton ELIGIBLE for the presidency, and this is what your American History teacher taught 50 years ago. Is this what you learned in high school?

"It is believed" that the Constitutional clause ALLOWING residents such as Hamilton to BECOME president was addend with Hamilton in mind, is what you say. Correct?

I think this claim is quite more likely, and is even plausible. But the evidence for the claim that it was made with Hamilton specifically in mind is still shaky.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable the the clause was created to specifically allow people LIKE Hamilton to be president. That was one of the premises of my argument in my first post. How could the law that specifically made Hamilton eligible be made with the intention of preventing him from becoming president?

These are very different points of view. One argues that the clause was to prevent Hamilton from being president, the other says the purpose was to make Hamilton eligible. Admittedly, the idea that the clause was added specifically for Hamilton is consistent. Still, I am not aware of any evidence that says the clause was made specifically with Hamilton in mind. If you find any credible source, please post it, I would be interested to see it.

Have I understood you correctly?

I have read that it "may" have been Hamilton that proposed the clause, or it may have been John Jay. There is some evidence regarding the debate over the clause and its purpose. It went through a few changes. I do not think the evidence for this particular clause is very clear or abundant. I give you a link below if you are interested.

Hamilton was not natural born, but he was a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and thus eligible for the presidency.

To me, it seems pretty clear what the founders intended. The Oxford Dictionary at the time defined natural born as having a citizen for a parent, not based on location of birth. English law was based on parents citizenship, not place of birth, regarding the term "natural born." The Congress had already defined natural born as having citizen parents, not based on place of birth. The current law defines natural born as having a single citizen parent...but, controversy makes for interesting news and drama....

If you are interested, here is a link to an excellent essay on the subject. It examines evidence and interpretation regarding the creation of the clause in question during the convention.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

I have to amend my opinion a little. It seems that the controversy regarding what a "natural born" citizen is goes deeper than just conspiracy theorists. There are scholars and lawyers who disagree about the interpretation.

I also came across some information that said Hamilton would not run for the presidency because he was exposed in a scandal, where he was forced to admit to an affair and publish love letters he had written. The affair is well documented, and of course it would affect a run for the presidency.

"Hamilton might have risen to the presidency if not for a scandal in 1797. A pamphlet published that year revealed Hamilton's affair with a woman named Maria Reynolds and linked him to a scheme by Reynolds' husband to illegally manipulate federal securities. To prove his innocence, Hamilton resorted to publishing love letters he had written to Maria Reynolds. This cleared Hamilton of financial impropriety, but badly damaged his reputation. " http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande06.html

Posted on Jun 8, 2010 4:57:17 PM PDT
I don't think you have understood me correctly, but that is irrelevant.

I really am not interested in whether not being "natural born" made Hamilton ineligible to be president. I've seen enough information to indicate that there are many reasons why Hamilton might have declined to run for President.

I also have reason to doubt that my history teacher of half a century ago might not have been in her right mind. Regardless, telling a classroom full of impressionable youngsters something that something was a fact which was in fact a rumor could destroy their innocent lives. (There are no smilies in this discussion board, so I cannot indicate sarcasm.)

The recent article by Yinger you put up here properly showed (smilie for Thank you!) that the "natural born" argument is extremely complex. What you indicated earlier in the 8 conditions of being "natural born" says clearly that if Obama's mother was, in fact, his mother, then the existence of his birth certificate is irrelevant. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN, AS LONG AS HIS MOTHER (AN AMERICAN CITIZEN) WAS HIS MOTHER.

In fact, my two children have a Japanese mother. They carry American passports because I (an American citizen) am their father. Because I am their father, they did not have to be naturalized. If they don't have to be naturalized, then they are natural born.

Posted on Jun 8, 2010 9:01:50 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Mr. Chaplan,

"I don't think you have understood me correctly"

It would not be the first time I made that mistake, but it seems we are on the same page now nevertheless. :-) <(makeshift smiley face)

"I also have reason to doubt that my history teacher of half a century ago might not have been in her right mind. "

That is too bad. Sounds interesting, and possibly devastating. It does not seem to have had an adverse affect on your political sensibilities, and I assume you turned out just fine in other respects as well. Right? :-)

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN, AS LONG AS HIS MOTHER (AN AMERICAN CITIZEN) WAS HIS MOTHER."

That is right.

"In fact, my two children have a Japanese mother."

So, they can have dual citizenship, are natural born, I expect at least bilingual, and bi-cultural? Sounds excellent. :-)

Posted on Jun 9, 2010 12:52:33 AM PDT
Now we are on exactly the same page. My kids are bilingual, but I have learned (the hard way) that being bilingual is the easy part. Being bi-cultural may be impossible. I can't get my kids to CARE about who is President of the US.

Posted on Jun 9, 2010 6:41:04 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
"Being bi-cultural may be impossible. I can't get my kids to CARE about who is President of the US. "

Being bi-cultural is probably more difficult depending on where one grows up and to what degree each culture is represented. Have your children been raised in Japan? It certainly may be more difficult to strongly identify with part of your culture when you are immersed in another.

How old are your children? (I don't mean to be nosy and don't expect an answer) I only ask because if they are still relatively young, or young adults, that can be normal. Are they interested in Japanese politics but not the U.S., or just not interested in politics at all? I did not become even remotely interested in politics or care who the president was until I was in my thirties. Now it is an obsession for me. I think everyone should care who the U.S. president is now. We have such a huge influence and affect so many, whether they, or we, like it or not.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[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
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  11
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Oct 11, 2008
Latest post:  Sep 9, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School)
48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School) by Larry Schweikart (Hardcover - September 4, 2008)
3.4 out of 5 stars   (125)