it wont look incompetent? That we had a president for FOUR years who was , retrospectively, not eligible to be president?

and, retrospectively, what does that open up for any and all legislation he has signed as a president, if he was never REALLY the sitting president because of ineligibility?

if thats not incompetence, I dont know what is


it wont look bigoted? to make a decision that anyone born in america who doesnt happen to have TWO citizen parents (not enough for the mother that carries them and births them to be american), wont be permitted to become president after they GROW UP IN and contribute to this country?


,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,,

Dictators respect strength, Obama bows to every dictator he meets. We'd be more respected in the world if we threw the bum out of office and elected someone with a backbone. We screwed up and he got onto the ballot. I think he has to stay there until the next election and then the Democrats should find a new candidate. It's actually a good thing for them, because they can run Hillary or someone else who has a chance of winning in 2012.

Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind?

How so, when if two people become citizens and have a child together their child is a Natural Born Citizen.........Legislation and court fights take time to be determined.....they found and did what was necessary by law.......They may decide he is and they may decide he isn't, but it is still the judicial branch doing its job competently.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.



children is plural, parents is plural

I am a us citizen, therefore my child being born here can easily be interpreted as 'natural born'

unless some clause says that one parents citizenship nullifies the others in the case of their childs citizenship or EXPLICITLY states BOTH parents must be us citizen

which in this day of international travel (quite a different environment from the founding days when people still owned slaves and oppressed women) would make no logical sense

the JUDICIAL branch being competent wont make up for the SYSTEM being incompetent enough to have an alleged INELIGLBE presidency for four years,,,,,

Nothing in there says anyone isnt a citizen, I think what they are saying of parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens.......It depends on how the court sees a natural born citizen.....and by early definitions citizenship became different from natural born citizens in defining those able to run for President of the United States......The only job defined between the difference of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Whichever way its been determined, it needs to be defined going forward in order to put such matters to rest once and for all. Don't you think??

sadly , yes,

although I would think it was common sense,,,but I know thats not so common anymore,,,,

Do you think a child born in the US to two non citizens should be eligible to be president?

Or One non-citizen and one citizen?

Then you have both parents as citizens not being contested as a natural born citizen. That is why it must be defined forever going forward. You have a naturalized citizen, you have a citizen and you have a natural born citizen.....I think they should all be defined by the courts clearly going forward.

they should be eligible in either of their parents 'homelands'

with a focus placed upon which land they are raised up in


for instance, if one is from france and the other is italy and they have and raise the child in italy,,that should imply natural born italian citizenship


likewise, if one parent is american and the other is not, but the child is born on american soil and raised on american soil,,,that should imply natural born american citizenship,,


and should not be voided because of ONE parent in lieu of the childs actual lifetime participation , birth, and contribution to America,,,,

according to USCIS, you are either a citizen one of two ways (ONLY TWO WAYS)

AT BIRTH
or
AFTER BIRTH


I would suppose becoming one AFTER birth, would not be considered 'natural born' and being one AT birth would,,,


but maybe thats too simplistic for some,, and perhaps it does need to be spelled out more specifically in the law to appease everyone,,

But by placing the Natural Born Citizen clause was to ensure that no foreign parent or government entity could influence the domestic happenings in the United States through the office of the Presidency. You do see the purpose of the differentiation?

My question was if both parents are not citizens and they have a child born in the US and is considered a citizen, should that child be eligible to run for President.

I want to know your personal opinion not the legal definition.

yeah, every dictator, like Bin Laden and Ghadaffi,,,,and all those others huh?

check world opinion polls, to see how respected we are now compared to the eight years prior,,,,

respect doesnt come out of unfair treatment, it comes from diplomacy just as often as it does from arrogance

no, I dont think that case implies automatic natural born status as NEITHER parent is an american,,,

Bin Laden wasn't a dictator.

Obama never met Gaddafi.

no, I have heard the assumption though

but since the founders arent here, I guess we cant ask them why they put 'natural born' as opposed to just born

in my opinion, a born citizen would sound just as ambigious because we all have to be BORN somewhere , so perhaps natural born was to distinguish those born here as opposed to those born elsewhere which is further clarified elsewhere,,,

[edit] Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21

Again you have it here......

(expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens)

yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well

negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership)


I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed

others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,,

that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,,