Canadian citizenship hurdle to be U.S. president?

Posted: 02/24/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Michigan governor pooh-poohs concern over dual allegiances


Posted: February 22, 2010
11:26 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The governor of Michigan has pooh-poohed concern over her allegiance to Canada – she was born there and has dual citizenship in the United States and Canada – and whether that would impact her candidacy if she chose to run for president.


Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm

“Come on,” Jennifer Granholm said while being interviewed, along with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

The discussion was about what’s going on in Washington and how it impacts states. At the end of the interview, Wallace asked Granholm about her plans.

“Your two terms are up at the end of this year. Do you have any interest in moving here to Washington and working in the administration?” he asked.

“Are you offering me a job? No, I …” she said.

“Yes, because I’m a conduit for the Obama White House. Exactly,” Wallace joked.

“No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment,” Granholm said. “December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.”

Wallace then pointed out that she would be unqualified to run, anyway.

“We should point out Gov. Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president,” he said.

“I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship,” Granholm corrected him.

After bantering about who she supports in the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Granholm said, “I left Canada when I was 4. Come on.”

The issue is one of the points of contention in some of the many legal challenges brought over President Obama’s eligibility for office.

Attorneys have argued the framers of the U.S. Constitution excluded dual citizens from eligibility when they required a president be only a “natural born citizen.”

Obama’s own writings confirm his father never was a U.S. citizen and was subject to the governance of the United Kingdom and later Kenya on its independence. When Obama was born, some argue, he was subject to U.K. citizenship through his father. His mother, an American, apparently made him a dual citizen.

Granholm had been promoted by at least one pundit to be Obama’s vice presidential candidate in 2008, a position that ultimately went to Sen. Joe Biden.

At the Radio Patriot, radio host Andrea Shea King said, “Granholm’s response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a U.S. citizen, she’s eligible.”

“This woman took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has she even read it?” King wrote.

“With this willful disregard of our founding document, is it any wonder that we have the son of a Kenyan-born British subject in the White House???” she asked.

WND reported when the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raised during the National Prayer Breakfast this year by Obama himself.

“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship,” Obama said.

The video:

WND has reported on efforts to raise the question of Obama’s eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility.

Before and since Obama’s election, numerous lawsuits have been filed alleging he did not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” The lawsuits primarily have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth. They also claim he chose to remain a citizen of Indonesia by renewing a passport from that nation.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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.”

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama’s birth could be obtained.

Key to the arguments over Obama is the fact his original long-form birth certificate never has been released. A second significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.

Besides his actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Thirdly, another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.


“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. ann1 says:

    Re: “This thread is about a dual-nationalist BORN in CANADA! “

    I agree that she, and others who were born out of the USA (except for the children of two US parents born outside of the USA) is not a Natural Born Citizen. Since this is clear, I focused on the other discussion on whether Obama, who WAS born in the USA (as proven by his Hawaii birth certificate) is eligible. He is, of course. She is not.

    Re: “What ignorant Federal Court decided that a child born to aliens was NBC? “

    Lots of them.

    Here is one (I may have quoted it before, if so, sorry):

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    The two children are natural born citizens. Both parents are not, but they are. Why? Because they were born in the USA.

    And this:

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    And this:

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    What makes the third child and only the third child a natural born citizen? She was born in the USA.

    And this: Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.”

    And this:

    Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.”

    I have some more, but that should be enough. All these stem from the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats). This should hardly be surprising. If you search for the phrase Natural Born in the searchable books of John Adams, Hamiliton, Wilson, Madison, etc. you find that the meaning is always “born in the country” and never “born in the country to two citizen parents.”

    Oh, and by the way, wonder where Scalia and Alito’s fathers were born? Not in the USA. Sure, the justices MAY (I’m not sure) have been born after their fathers were naturalized. But they are likely to think that they would have the same viewpoints and be just as loyal if they were born before the fathers were naturalized.

    You can reply, and I agree, that it is still worthwhile to bring a Constitutional case on the issue. But if four justices do not think that it is even an issue, then the case would not be called. I suggest that there are not even four justices who think that this is an issue. I hope you do not rant that Alito and Scalia are “Libtard to outright Commie Judges.” They are not. I suggest, however, that they know from the dozens of historical quotes from American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution that Natural Born simply meant born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats.)

  2. Longknife 21 says:

    Obots-
    This thread is about a dual-nationalist BORN in CANADA! I know you want to make all the sick, lame, and lazy Liberals & other economic parasites of the world= US citizens, because that is the only way the Usurper and his Lying Legends will ever win another election!
    What ignorant Federal Court decided that a child born to aliens was NBC? I don’t doubt it, with the Libtard to outright Commie Judges that have been appointed in the last two decades, but I would like to know who and which court.
    We need a law to settle this argument, maybe even an Amendment to stop the Libtard International Socialists on some Federal Courts!
    Libtards gonna lose!
    MOLON LABE!! Now more than ever!

  3. ann1 says:

    Re: “Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated Native born, I thought, “

    He was adjudicated Natural Born and hence a citizen. All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The ruling made clear that all native born children, except for the children of diplomats, fall under the category of Natural Born.

    Re: “ If the other “Federal cases” quotes are true, they need to be quickly appealed, overturned, and the judges impeached , tried, convicted, and turned out of office, because it is a clear misinterpretation of REAL LAW!”

    The quotations are accurate. That is the law. You are welcome to try to file appeals, of course. You can also try to impeach the dozen or so judges, but you do not have a chance.

    Re: “ You and others like to make Natural Born and Native Born the same, if that was the original intent, why make the difference?”

    The big difference is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the phrase Native Born was not popular. I do not know why. I suspect it was because some people thought that it implied being born of the natives. In any case, Natural Born was the common expression. It was used all the time, and it was NEVER used by any American leaders at the time to mean anything other than “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

    Re: “ Do you think destroying America will somehow benefit you?”

    We got along just fine under the presidency of Andrew Jackson and NEITHER of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

    My point is that the Constitution allows for the children of foreigners to be president so long as they were born in the USA. To be sure, Andrew Jackson was grandfathered, meaning he was eligible because he was born before the Constitution. But, what if he were running today? Do you think that he should not be eligible because neither of his parents were born in the USA? He was born in the USA; that is sufficient. AND, he was a loyal and good president.

  4. ann1 says:

    Re: “Why would the Constitution even mention a higher form of citizenship required for president if it wasn’t intended to differentuate from Native born Citizen! “

    The distinction was between an ordinary citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Naturalized citizens fall under the category of ordinary citizen. Natural Born Citizens are a higher category, which Naturalized Citizens cannot enter.

    As I said, the American leaders at the time of the Constitution always used the term Natural Born to mean born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats), and they never used it to mean “two citizen parents” or even “dual nationals are excluded.” That’s what it meant.

    And, by the way, Natural Born has also been used that way in common language for many years. As late as World War I, registrants for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were naturalized citizens or natural born citizens.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Re: “Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated Native born, I thought, “

    He was adjudicated Natural Born and hence a citizen. All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The ruling made clear that all native born children, except for the children of diplomats, fall under the category of Natural Born.

    Re: “ If the other “Federal cases” quotes are true, they need to be quickly appealed, overturned, and the judges impeached , tried, convicted, and turned out of office, because it is a clear misinterpretation of REAL LAW!”

    The quotations are accurate. That is the law. You are welcome to try to file appeals, of course. You can also try to impeach the dozen or so judges, but you do not have a chance.

    Re: “ You and others like to make Natural Born and Native Born the same, if that was the original intent, why make the difference?”

    The big difference is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the phrase Native Born was not popular. I do not know why. I suspect it was because some people thought that it implied being born of the natives. In any case, Natural Born was the common expression. It was used all the time, and it was NEVER used by any American leaders at the time to mean anything other than “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

    Re: “ Do you think destroying America will somehow benefit you?”

    We got along just fine under the presidency of Andrew Jackson and NEITHER of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

  6. ann3 says:

    Re: “Why would the Constitution even mention a higher form of citizenship required for president if it wasn’t intended to differentuate from Native born Citizen! “

    The distinction was between an ordinary citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Naturalized citizens fall under the category of ordinary citizen. Natural Born Citizens are a higher category, which Naturalized Citizens cannot enter.

    As I said, the American leaders at the time of the Constitution always used the term Natural Born to mean born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats), and they never used it to mean “two citizen parents” or even “dual nationals are excluded.” That’s what it meant.

    And, by the way, Natural Born has also been used that way in common language for many years. As late as World War I, registrants for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were naturalized citizens or natural born citizens.

  7. ann3 says:

    Re: “Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated Native born, I thought, “

    He was adjudicated Natural Born and hence a citizen. All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The ruling made clear that all native born children, except for the children of diplomats, fall under the category of Natural Born.

    Re: “ If the other “Federal cases” quotes are true, they need to be quickly appealed, overturned, and the judges impeached , tried, convicted, and turned out of office, because it is a clear misinterpretation of REAL LAW!”

    The quotations are accurate. That is the law. You are welcome to try to file appeals, of course. You can also try to impeach the dozen or so judges, but you do not have a chance.

    Re: “ You and others like to make Natural Born and Native Born the same, if that was the original intent, why make the difference?”

    The big difference is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the phrase Native Born was not popular. I do not know why. I suspect it was because some people thought that it implied being born of the natives. In any case, Natural Born was the common expression. It was used all the time, and it was NEVER used by any American leaders at the time to mean anything other than “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

    Re: “ Do you think destroying America will somehow benefit you?”

    We got along just fine under the presidency of Andrew Jackson and NEITHER of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

  8. ann1 says:

    Re: “Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated Native born, I thought, “

    He was adjudicated Natural Born and hence a citizen. All native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The Wong ruling made clear that all native born children, except for the children of diplomats, fall under the category of Natural Born.

    Re: “ If the other “Federal cases” quotes are true, they need to be quickly appealed, overturned, and the judges impeached , tried, convicted, and turned out of office, because it is a clear misinterpretation of REAL LAW!”

    The quotations are accurate. That is the law. You are welcome to try to file appeals, of course. They will be laughed out of court.

    Re: “ You and others like to make Natural Born and Native Born the same, if that was the original intent, why make the difference?”

    The big difference is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the phrase Native Born was not popular. I do not know why. I suspect it was because some people thought that it implied being born of the natives. In any case, Natural Born was the common expression. It was used all the time, and it was NEVER used by any American leaders at the time to mean anything other than “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

    Re: “ Do you think destroying America will somehow benefit you?”

    We got along just fine under the presidency of Andrew Jackson and NEITHER of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

    Re: “Why would the Constitution even mention a higher form of citizenship required for president if it wasn’t intended to differentuate from Native born Citizen! “

    The distinction is between an ordinary citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Naturalized citizens fall under the category of ordinary citizen, which includes both naturalized and natural born citizens. Natural Born Citizens are a smaller category, which Naturalized Citizens cannot enter.

    As I said, the American leaders at the time of the Constitution always used the term Natural Born to mean born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats), and they never used it to mean “two citizen parents” or even “dual nationals are excluded.” That’s what it meant.

    And, by the way, Natural Born has also been used that way in common language for many years. As late as World War I, registrants for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were naturalized citizens or natural born citizens.

  9. Longknife 21 says:

    Ann1,
    Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated Native born, I thought, you have twisted so much you are almost up there with smrstrauss for Zombieland Promoter Queen.
    If the other “Federal cases” quotes are true, they need to be quickly appealed, overturned, and the judges impeached , tried, convicted, and turned out of office, because it is a clear misinterpretation of REAL LAW!
    You and others like to make Natural Born and Native Born the same, if that was the original intent, why make the difference?
    Do you think destroying America will somehow benefit you?
    MOLON LABE!!

  10. Longknife 21 says:

    yo,
    Greetings and welcome! Thanks for your comment, you are right. Unfortunately it does not specifically state it IN the Constitution, that’s why these Socialist Zombieland Promoters keep up with their twisted arguments against 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions! And history! And common sense! Why would the Constitution even mention a higher form of citizenship required for president if it wasn’t intended to differentuate from Native born Citizen! It had a clear meaning back then.
    But these Idiots refuse to recognize it. Like the word ‘militia’ is the (Federalized) National Guard? lol. And “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is way beyond their ability to read standard English. They are so blinded by their Anti-American agenda, and the Obamasseah, that they can’t read and comprehend anything that conflicts with their agenda.
    We can’t teach pigs to sing. It wastes our time, and annoys the pig. Smrstrauss is about the worst of a bad litter.
    The time is coming for a Bar-B-Que!

  11. ann1 says:

    Re: “they can’t quote the constitution. It’s because the constitution doesn’t support their argument. All that supports their argument is quotes from people who believe that the constitution “evolves”. IE (means whatever they want it to mean).”

    Here is the section of the Constitution that you are referring to:

    “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. ”

    As you can see, it does not say that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents, and the meaning of Natural Born at the time was simply “Born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats”). That is the original meaning of the phrase, and that is the way that it was used by the writers of the Constitution and other American leaders at the time. The meaning did not evolve. That was the meaning then, and it is the meaning now.

  12. ann1 says:

    Re: “The constitution has explicitly stated that people who are born in the US with two citizen parents are natural born citizen. It has never said that anything less is a natural born citizen.”

    NO it hasn’t. The words “Two citizen parents do not appear.”

    Re: “The constitution has explicitly stated, in four different opinions, that a natural born citizen is a person who has both been born in the US and has two citizen parents. It has NEVER said anything less is a natural born citizen. ”

    No it hasn’t. Not one single case has held that to be a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. The Wong Kim Ark case ruled, however, that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, and so when a citizen is Natural Born, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    That is why there are FEDERAL court rulings like this:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    As you can see, neither parent is a US citizen, but their two children are natural born citizens.

    and this:

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    What makes the third child different from the two older children and hence a natural born citizen? She was born in the USA.

  13. ann1 says:

    Re: “We must force Congress to pass legislation defining NBC as 2 US citizen parents & born in US!.”

    Until then, however, the rule is that any child born in the USA is Natural Born, and when she or he is a citizen, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Re: “The clear intent was 2 citizen parents& born in the US.”

    That is not clear at all. The meaning of Natural Born at the time was simply “born in the country,” and there is evidence that the framers believed that birth in the country was sufficient to create allegiance. More important, the writers of the Constitution and other leaders at the time never used the phrase Natural Born to indicate “two parents and born in the country.” They only used it to mean “born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats.)”

  14. Longknife 21 says:

    Back to the Article.
    So this Canadiene Dual-Nationalist Libtard thinks by pushing the Obamunist BIG LIE, that she is also ‘eligible’ for Prez!
    The ACLU’s Favorite Russian Lesbian Dwarf, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, says her grandchild, born in Paris of US parents is NBC! See, if they get away with it once it becomes the standard!
    We must force Congress to pass legislation defining NBC as 2 US citizen parents & born in US!
    Also, children born to illegal alliens, & tourists, like foreign Diplomats are NOT under US JURISDICTION and therefor have NO claim to US citizenship.
    It is Freaking Ridiculous to claim citizenship for an illegal alien child born here in DEFIANCE and AGAINST US Jurisdiction. They are invaders. They are being rewarded for breaking the LAW!

  15. yo says:

    The constitution has explicitly stated that people who are born in the US with two citizen parents are natural born citizen. It has never said that anything less is a natural born citizen.

    Let me be perfectly clear. The constitution has explicitly stated, in four different opinions, that a natural born citizen is a person who has both been born in the US and has two citizen parents. It has NEVER said anything less is a natural born citizen.

    Isn’t it lovely that people trot out law dictionaries and everything else under the sun to describe what a natural born citizen is, but they can’t quote the constitution. It’s because the constitution doesn’t support their argument. All that supports their argument is quotes from people who believe that the constitution “evolves”. IE (means whatever they want it to mean)

    In addition, someone who was not born in the state of Hawaii can get a Hawaiin birth certificate. There is no way of knowing if this happened from the short form. The long form, which Barry has spent a kings fortune to HIDE, will give evidence if that circumstance may have taken place.

  16. Longknife 21 says:

    Smrstrauss,
    YOU AGAIN?!? You are a fool, a liar, and a paid agent!
    Obama is a excellent reason why the Forefathers made the stipulation for NBC as a requirement for Prez. The clear intent was 2 citizen parents& born in the US, NO LOYALTY TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY or POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY because the Prez is also Commander-in-Chief and safety of the Nation rests on his decisions to defend this Nation against all threats, foreign and domestic. Because this requirement was not enforced, we have an Usurper Dictator that is destroying the Nation and the Constitution. HE:
    1. Anti-capitalist- wants the Gov’t to control the Economy under incompetent and unConstitutional Czars
    2. Anti-Constitutional- ignores the Constitutional Contract and places an oppressive centralist/international/socialist Federal Gov’t over the States and People. He ignores Separation of Powers and installed Czars- answering only to him at all Departments and levels. He ignores Eligibility and with idiot minions like you, uses a Big Lie policy to change custom and law.
    3. Anti-Christian- Raised an atheist and a Muslim, he denies this Nation was established as a Christian nation. He is an Islamist, apologises too and supports a movement that OPENLY seeks to destroy and convert us to a foreign, backward, and violent ‘religion’. He support the Homosexual Movement that seeks to destroy our last vestig of Morality and corrupt the children for their perverted use. This is an awful paradox for the Muslims will execute the homos!
    4. He is a Black Racist. Deny this all you want, but read his writings and previous speeches, see who appoints to power, and judge his actions.
    5. He wants America to be subserviant to the UN and its Bureauracracies.
    I could go on and on how he has intentionally (I believe, no one is so stupid they could make that many mistakes) destroyed the Mortgage Banking industry, the Automibile industry, the value of the Dollar, our economy, made us ridiculous to allies and enemies, supported and defended declared enemies, caused more division and destroyed more investments and savings of our Citizens than any enemy of previous Administration.
    Now you want to use quotes of Political goobers and opinions to defend your stupid and intentionally damaging position on his ‘Eligibility’ to continue his war on Constitutional America? Is that it?
    MOLON LABE!! NOW MORE THAN EVER!!

  17. smrstrauss says:

    Not only did the writers of the Constitution not exclude dual nationals from being president, they did not believe that dual nationality affected loyalty so long as the person was born in the USA. They believed that birth in the USA was the sole criterion of allegiance, as Madison said. And Blackstone, the British legal expert popular among the writers of the Constitution, held that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country where she or he was born.

    In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

    As you can see, only one criterion of allegiance, not two, and that criterion is the place of birth.

    A Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who has not been naturalized. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Why not? Because the writers of the Constitution believed that they would still have some allegiance to the country where they were born. Natural Born Citizens, those who have not been naturalized, are eligible. US born children of foreign citizens are eligible regardless of the number of their parents who were citizens at the moment of birth.

    The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:

    ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

    All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

    The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s