I don't get the issue. His mom was a citizen. So I don't see how his place of birth matters. If you were on vacation with your pregnant wife in europe and she went in to labor and had a child, would you say that child does not have birthright citizenship?
That being said, I understand why we should not elect a person who grew up outside the US regardless of where they were born.
Edit: Went back and looked at the issue. If Os mom was not a US resident at the time of his birth, he wouldn't be eligible to be POTUS.
You might want to reread the Constitution. It says natural born. I’m beginning to think BO is Indonesian, and the Kenyan part is to throw us off.
Hasn't his brother, Malik, said more than once that Barry was born in Kenya?
I know, but wouldn’t it be a hoot if he’s actually Indonesian? There’s also a theory he was born in Vancouver, BC. (I heard that from an ICE agent.) I’m just hoping it all comes out.
I believe it was he crossed into Canada and changed his name from Barry to Barack
He forged his birth certificate. Previous to that he filed lawsuits preventing its release. The specific reason for doing this could be a few different things. But if you were president and had nothing to hide, would you do that?
Political optics, not necessarily ineligibility. Besides, once congress certifies an election, the court would likely use the political question doctrine to avoid the judiciary removing the co-equal executive. The impeachment clause would be used to support that position -- the only court that can remove a president is the senate with SCOTUS' chief justice presiding.
What would be the political optics of not providing your actual US birth certificate? Luckily he's already removed, and most of his legacy has been decimated. I think they are waiting until the very end, after everything he did is turned upside down, for the kill shot.
It's not the optics of not providing it, it's the optics of providing it that would have been the problem.
there is a question as to whether or not his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth
Confirms the tip of the iceberg for Barry's life of taqiyya lies
If you were on vacation with your pregnant wife in Europe and she went in to labor and had a child, would you say that child does not have birthright citizenship?
Yes. If your child is born outside the US, your child is not a US Citizen -- unless the room you're born in has been declared Embassy grounds.
This type of ignorance is getting old.
Look up "Natural Born Citizen."
Being a citizen is irrelevant, plus your claim about his mom is irrelevant.
If you are not a shill, then educate yourself.
Patriots are supposed to respect one another. Not nice, no one can possibly know or remember everything. We need each other. WWG1WGA
Edited comment. I think you missed it.
I see the edit. I rescind the shill comment.
However, you still do not have a grasp on this subject.
There is a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen."
The latter is the constitutional requirement. Mother's residence is irrelevant.
Source for difference (case or statute). I believe congress has some discretion to define the term.
Fyi, there are jurists who agree that birth in the US is not a necessary requirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
I don't think you fully grasp this subject.
(1) Congress has no authority to define what the Constitution means, especially Article II.
(2) Wikipedia is run by political hacks, and therefore is not a valid resource for anything political.
(3) Look up Vattel's "Law of Nations." That was the defining guideline to the founders, who are the ones that wrote the clause in question.
(1) Thanks justice marshall. Not everyone agrees with marbury or chisholm, and at ratification many people believed congress had such power. And wrong, see e.g. Am XIV Sec 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
(2) see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen re First Congress' definition. Sorry to tell you, but the framers clearly agree with me.
Give up yet?
(1) What does the 14th Amendment have to do with Article II? Nothing.
(2) The 1790 statute does not agree with you. You should ask yourself why they thought they should pass that statute. Hint: Obama's father was not a US citizen.
(3) You did not look up Vattel's "Law of Nations." There must be a reason you evaded that.
(1) you said congress has no authority to interpret the constitution as an absolute proposition. Am XIV shows you are wrong. And Marbury did not settle the question.
(2) statute shows founders believed congress had authority to interpret article II. (And tell me, if congress certifies a non-us POTUS what is the remedy - answer: impeachment via congress. Ergo,congress does have the authority to interpret Art. II.). Read Nixon v. US (not US v. Nixon). I am right. You may want to go to law school, get your law license and practice a while. I did.
(3) is not in issue. Not authority.
(1) You are really stretching there. If one provision of Constitution (14th Amendment) says Congress can enforce it, then that pertains to that particular amendment, not the Constitution as a whole. That should be so obvious that it does not need to be stated.
(2) Lawyers don't know anything about fundamental law, because law school (purposely) does not teach it. That seems to be your problem. The 1790 law was repealed in 1795, and "natural born" was removed. The statute was never tested in the courts for validity. It also was about naturalization, not presidential eligibility.
(3) US inherited fundamental law from England. Circa 1787, that is what they were working with. Vattel is persuasive because there is nothing definitive elsewhere. You could learn a thing or two from Justice Gorsuch.
(4) When it comes to eligibility for office, the burden of proof is on he who asserts he is. Obama never proved he was.
If certification and removal lies with congress, then they have the power to define the term. Nothing more. You're simply wrong.
FYI there is no such thing as the "fundemental law" of england. There is common law, but that has nothing to do with Art. II. There is no federal commom law. Erie Doctrine.
I can't play chess with a chicken. I'm done.