Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This is the clearest explanation I’ve read in a long while. I found it in the comment section of this American Thinker piece.

“See if I can get this covered in one response…

RE: The Founders feared usurpation of the young republic by foreign interests, and erected a number of safeguards. Foremost among these was article II, section I – the natural born citizen clause – which clearly states that the vice-president and president must be American citizens, born of parents who were native to this country, i.e., born on U.S. soil.

As far back as 1795, the U.S. gov’t has recognized that children born to citizens abroad were considered natural born citizens. Furthermore, the applicable part of the law states….

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

I keep seeing references to what the Founders meant but even Hamilton did not initially reference “natural born citizens.” Opinions can differ on the interpretation but I have yet to see where the Congress is not authorized to provide further clarification on what a “natural born citizen” is. As it stands, they have declared that Stanley Ann Dunham’s status as a U.S. citizen in August 1961 makes Barack Obama a U.S. citizen regardless of his paternity or place of birth. You can argue woulda, coulda, shoulda but the debate is going nowhere in a court of law.

RE: To be a natural born citizen both parents should be long-standing citizens. The reason was so there could be no question of loyalty.

I think we can pretty much agree that your parentage is a piss-poor loyalty test. Just about the entire Democrat delegation in both houses of Congress should be dismissed on loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and I doubt many of them weren’t born to two parents who were natural born citizens.

RE: It may well be that modern-day Americans no longer see a need for the NBC clause and feel that it should be overturned. OK, fine – but if that is the case, do it the right way – by amending the constitution – and not by the use of dirty tricks, legislative fiat and the like.

What bothers me and others of similar views is the manner in which Obama ascended to his present position – via the use of fraud, disinformation, propaganda, purposeful exploitation of loopholes in the constitution, and outright lying and deception.

Absolutely agree with the above. While I truly believe that Obama is hiding some explosive secret concerning his birth, I don’t think it is eligibility to be President per the citizen ship clause. Expanding on that, I’m not sure that whatever lie he’s hiding from the public with the help of a biased and complicit media actually disqualifies him. Unfortunately, politicians lie and they always have. That’s incumbent on the voters to be more engaged and learn the truth. Sad to say, that’s not happening in today’s society.

Finally, once again, my point is not to convince you of my position. Only to point out that just because others (commentators, pundits, other conservatives like myself) do not feel as passionately about the issue does not make them “naïve” or sellouts looking to promote their own agenda. We’re looking at the topic and coming to a conclusion that we’d rather point out his incompetence in several areas…or the corruption rampant in his administration…or the hypocrisy in his treatment by the media, etc., etc. If you want to keep pressing the issue, please do. Even if I think you’re wrong about his citizenship status, maybe one day somebody will investigate it enough to discover the real truth.”