Comments on: Barack Obama and His Birth Certificate: Evidence Enough? http://sharoute.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/up-on-the-hill/ The blog of William J. Nash-McAdam Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:57:40 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: sharoute http://sharoute.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/up-on-the-hill/#comment-6242 sharoute Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:33:23 +0000 http://sharoute.wordpress.com/?p=265#comment-6242 Thanks for your comment. The reason that the lawsuit exist is because, according to the U.S. Constitution, the term "natural born citizen" is not defined. The definition that you described may be in some official documents floating out there somewhere (please share the source if you have it), but it is not from the Constitution. Regardless of what happens, what is actually in the Constitution (not merely what we would like to be in there) is what needs to matter. It has been long-standing custom to understand "natural born citizen" to mean a citizen who was born in The United States ... taking this and the fact that one of his parents was a citizen into account, I'd say that Obama is on fairly solid ground. It should be noted that Obama (as mentioned in the post) was merely born with, and never actively pursued, British citizenship. He denied his option to continue it at 24. This really should be an area of the Constitution that should be defined further with legislation to mean one or the other, not just left up to individual interpretation based on our preferences. In any case, I think it's a bit late for this election. With three candidates - including the two primary - having citizenship issues, I think if this is truly an issue, than the individual parties dropped the ball a bit on enforcing this. Thanks for your comment. The reason that the lawsuit exist is because, according to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” is not defined. The definition that you described may be in some official documents floating out there somewhere (please share the source if you have it), but it is not from the Constitution. Regardless of what happens, what is actually in the Constitution (not merely what we would like to be in there) is what needs to matter.

It has been long-standing custom to understand “natural born citizen” to mean a citizen who was born in The United States … taking this and the fact that one of his parents was a citizen into account, I’d say that Obama is on fairly solid ground. It should be noted that Obama (as mentioned in the post) was merely born with, and never actively pursued, British citizenship. He denied his option to continue it at 24. This really should be an area of the Constitution that should be defined further with legislation to mean one or the other, not just left up to individual interpretation based on our preferences. In any case, I think it’s a bit late for this election.

With three candidates – including the two primary – having citizenship issues, I think if this is truly an issue, than the individual parties dropped the ball a bit on enforcing this.

]]> By: sportsone234 http://sharoute.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/up-on-the-hill/#comment-6241 sportsone234 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:24:12 +0000 http://sharoute.wordpress.com/?p=265#comment-6241 Barack's acknowledgment of British citizenship at birth makes him automatically ineligible for the office of president. BTW, Bill Richardson was also ineligible. McCain had eligibility problems because he was born in Panama. Natural born citizens are born of both parents holding U.S. citizenship and on U.S. soil. There are numerous sites that explain the definition. There was a reason for the Framers insertion of the "natural born citizen" phrase . . . the reason was to avoid divided loyalties. Barack’s acknowledgment of British citizenship at birth makes him automatically ineligible for the office of president. BTW, Bill Richardson was also ineligible. McCain had eligibility problems because he was born in Panama.

Natural born citizens are born of both parents holding U.S. citizenship and on U.S. soil. There are numerous sites that explain the definition. There was a reason for the Framers insertion of the “natural born citizen” phrase . . . the reason was to avoid divided loyalties.

]]>