If they are the same, why use different terms?

[IntLibber]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

The only cases for non-qualification for jus soli in this regard are if you were on US soil for some limited classes of exceptions, e.g. one is if you were born to non-US diplomats who were resident in the US at the time.

You must be born on US soil, to at least one American citizen, to be natural born. At the time John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to Navy parents, the zone was US territory, hence he is a natural born citizen.

Kenya has never been US territory. If Obama had been born at the US Embassy in Kenya, then he would be natural born. Thats about the only way he could be qualified, assuming his grandmother was telling the truth that he was born in Kenya.

One amusing historical note, Martin Van Buren, who spoke dutch as his native language, was the first president actually born in the US, the previous presidents were born in the colonies before the revolution. Despite this, there is common belief that he was some sort of 'foreign' president because he spoke english only as a second language. He was from New York, from a very Dutch farming area.

[Diogenes]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

The only cases for non-qualification for jus soli in this regard are if you were on US soil for some limited classes of exceptions, e.g. one is if you were born to non-US diplomats who were resident in the US at the time.

You must be born on US soil, to at least one American citizen, to be natural born. At the time John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to Navy parents, the zone was US territory, hence he is a natural born citizen.

Kenya has never been US territory. If Obama had been born at the US Embassy in Kenya, then he would be natural born. Thats about the only way he could be qualified, assuming his grandmother was telling the truth that he was born in Kenya.

One amusing historical note, Martin Van Buren, who spoke dutch as his native language, was the first president actually born in the US, the previous presidents were born in the colonies before the revolution. Despite this, there is common belief that he was some sort of 'foreign' president because he spoke english only as a second language. He was from New York, from a very Dutch farming area.

Dude, you gotta be kiddin me? I've been trying to make this point since I started this thread but it doesn't seem to be working.

This is what you said.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

I have been trying to demonstrate in my other postings that this is NOT CORRECT. It requires BOTH parents to be American Citizens. (Actually, at the time, it required the FATHER to be an American Citizen, because the Mother was automatically the same citizenship as her husband. It wasn't until 1920 that women were permitted to transfer citizenship to their offspring.)

It has been my argument that the meaning of the Article II requirement was based on the principle set forth in Vatell's book "The Law of Nations", and other evidence is available to demonstrate that the founders actually intended to use Vatell's definition.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Notice that little "S" at the end of the Word Parents? It's just one letter, but the meaning is huge. It means BOTH parents must be citizen. Not one. BOTH!


If you think it's irrelevant, or an oversight, or whatever, I will point out that the First Congress Reaffirmed the plural form when they passed the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1790.



This is the salient text of the "Naturalization Act of 1790".

And the children of citizenS of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=227



Notice that it uses the plural "Citizens" as opposed to the singular "citizen" ? Notice that it further requires the FATHER to be a citizen, or the citizenship cannot be conferred.

[chrismb]

Sorry, I don't understand the connection you are making. I am reading what you are saying as meaning that if you've got two parents who are US, then you are a natural born citizen. OK. and....?

So what is the qualification for 'just citizen' if that person is born with only one parent? You haven't covered this permutation, and so this was the nugget of my question, as this permutation also provides the qualification for POTUS.

[Diogenes]

Sorry, I don't understand the connection you are making. I am reading what you are saying as meaning that if you've got two parents who are US, then you are a natural born citizen. OK. and....?

So what is the qualification for 'just citizen' if that person is born with only one parent? You haven't covered this permutation, and so this was the nugget of my question, as this permutation also provides the qualification for POTUS.

In the case of only one citizen parent, the citizenship is dual, and that's according to the rules we use nowadays. According to the rules in existence when Article II was written, Barack Obama wouldn't even be an American Citizen at all. He would be a full British Citizen, and that's according to both the British laws AND the American laws at that time.

Being that the stated purpose of Article II is to prevent Foreign influence in the Highest office, it is obvious that an either completely foreign citizen, or one who is Half Foreign cannot satisfy this requirement.


I will further point out, that his birth place hasn't been established with any real proof, and if he was indeed born out of the country, according to the laws in existence in 1961, He wouldn't even be an American citizen at all. His mother was too young to transfer citizenship. (Yes, there is an age requirement.) The only way he would be a citizen at all, would be under the 14th amendment, but only if he was actually born on the soil.



My point is that a single parent (especially the mother) citizen is incapable of creating a "Natural Born Citizen" according to the meaning of Article II, which was based on Vatell's definition in "the Law of Nations." A single parent citizen can only create a "Citizen", same as naturalization or under the 14th amendment jus soli directive.

No matter how you slice it, the man cannot be a legal President, and is in fact a con-man usurper. Unfortunately, incompetence by the state election board officials of all 50 states, and LYING by Nancy Pelosi who Swore an Affidavit that he met the requirements, coupled with IGNORANCE on the part of the American people, all created a perfect storm of stupidity, allowing this con-man to game the system.

[IntLibber]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

The only cases for non-qualification for jus soli in this regard are if you were on US soil for some limited classes of exceptions, e.g. one is if you were born to non-US diplomats who were resident in the US at the time.

You must be born on US soil, to at least one American citizen, to be natural born. At the time John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to Navy parents, the zone was US territory, hence he is a natural born citizen.

Kenya has never been US territory. If Obama had been born at the US Embassy in Kenya, then he would be natural born. Thats about the only way he could be qualified, assuming his grandmother was telling the truth that he was born in Kenya.

One amusing historical note, Martin Van Buren, who spoke dutch as his native language, was the first president actually born in the US, the previous presidents were born in the colonies before the revolution. Despite this, there is common belief that he was some sort of 'foreign' president because he spoke english only as a second language. He was from New York, from a very Dutch farming area.

Dude, you gotta be kiddin me? I've been trying to make this point since I started this thread but it doesn't seem to be working.

This is what you said.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

That certainly was NOT me.

I have been trying to demonstrate in my other postings that this is NOT CORRECT. It requires BOTH parents to be American Citizens. (Actually, at the time, it required the FATHER to be an American Citizen, because the Mother was automatically the same citizenship as her husband. It wasn't until 1920 that women were permitted to transfer citizenship to their offspring.)

It has been my argument that the meaning of the Article II requirement was based on the principle set forth in Vatell's book "The Law of Nations", and other evidence is available to demonstrate that the founders actually intended to use Vatell's definition.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Notice that little "S" at the end of the Word Parents? It's just one letter, but the meaning is huge. It means BOTH parents must be citizen. Not one. BOTH!


If you think it's irrelevant, or an oversight, or whatever, I will point out that the First Congress Reaffirmed the plural form when they passed the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1790.



This is the salient text of the "Naturalization Act of 1790".

And the children of citizenS of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=227



Notice that it uses the plural "Citizens" as opposed to the singular "citizen" ? Notice that it further requires the FATHER to be a citizen, or the citizenship cannot be conferred.

Gotcha. Which doesn't apply to Obama. Since he wasn't born on US territory, he also isn't qualified. You should check to see if the naturalization act of 1790 is still in force, however.

[Diogenes]

You must be born on US soil, to at least one American citizen, to be natural born. At the time John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to Navy parents, the zone was US territory, hence he is a natural born citizen.

Kenya has never been US territory. If Obama had been born at the US Embassy in Kenya, then he would be natural born. Thats about the only way he could be qualified, assuming his grandmother was telling the truth that he was born in Kenya.

One amusing historical note, Martin Van Buren, who spoke dutch as his native language, was the first president actually born in the US, the previous presidents were born in the colonies before the revolution. Despite this, there is common belief that he was some sort of 'foreign' president because he spoke english only as a second language. He was from New York, from a very Dutch farming area.

Dude, you gotta be kiddin me? I've been trying to make this point since I started this thread but it doesn't seem to be working.

This is what you said.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

That certainly was NOT me.

You are correct. Brain fart on my part. Sorry. When in edit mode, it is difficult to see where one quote starts and another one stops.

I have been trying to demonstrate in my other postings that this is NOT CORRECT. It requires BOTH parents to be American Citizens. (Actually, at the time, it required the FATHER to be an American Citizen, because the Mother was automatically the same citizenship as her husband. It wasn't until 1920 that women were permitted to transfer citizenship to their offspring.)

It has been my argument that the meaning of the Article II requirement was based on the principle set forth in Vatell's book "The Law of Nations", and other evidence is available to demonstrate that the founders actually intended to use Vatell's definition.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Notice that little "S" at the end of the Word Parents? It's just one letter, but the meaning is huge. It means BOTH parents must be citizen. Not one. BOTH!


If you think it's irrelevant, or an oversight, or whatever, I will point out that the First Congress Reaffirmed the plural form when they passed the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1790.



This is the salient text of the "Naturalization Act of 1790".

And the children of citizenS of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=227



Notice that it uses the plural "Citizens" as opposed to the singular "citizen" ? Notice that it further requires the FATHER to be a citizen, or the citizenship cannot be conferred.

Gotcha. Which doesn't apply to Obama. Since he wasn't born on US territory, he also isn't qualified. You should check to see if the naturalization act of 1790 is still in force, however.

It is not. It was superseded several times since then. I only cite it because it illustrates the understanding of that time period, essentially by the same congress that ratified the Constitution, and therefore demonstrates this interpretation was common knowledge 3 years after the constitutional convention. It is axiomatic that an act of congress cannot override an article of the Constitution, nor can congress redefine the meanings of the terms used in 1787.

As for Obama not being born on US territory, we don't know that. At the moment we have no proof of where he was born. People in Kenya CLAIMING he was born there is not proof. It's still hearsay. Even if Obama claims he was born there, it's still not proof. Proof is credible witnesses who have signed a contemporary document stating that they witnessed his birth, and that it occurred where they say it occurred. In other words, a normal birth certificate.

[IntLibber]

As for Obama not being born on US territory, we don't know that. At the moment we have no proof of where he was born. People in Kenya CLAIMING he was born there is not proof. It's still hearsay. Even if Obama claims he was born there, it's still not proof. Proof is credible witnesses who have signed a contemporary document stating that they witnessed his birth, and that it occurred where they say it occurred. In other words, a normal birth certificate.

Ya, well, anybody that goes to Kenya since the election to get a copy of his winds up getting arrested.

watch this video, the lawyer in this cites a hawaiian law that says they issue a birth certificate based merely on the oral statement of one person.
http://unitedstatesbirthcertificate.com ... ajor-cook/

Apparently Obama has been using a Connecticut issued SSN, though he's never lived in Connecticut. He has used apparently 130 different SSN's in his life. None of this is being reported on.

[hanelyp]

Apparently Obama has been using a Connecticut issued SSN, though he's never lived in Connecticut. He has used apparently 130 different SSN's in his life. None of this is being reported on.

Citation PLEASE! This fits the template of utter corruption all too well. No reason for an honest man to have near that many SSNs.

[Ivy Matt]

So what is the qualification for 'just citizen' if that person is born with only one parent? You haven't covered this permutation, and so this was the nugget of my question, as this permutation also provides the qualification for POTUS.

The "just citizen" has to have been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This part was necessary to make George III's former subjects eligible to be president.

[IntLibber]

Apparently Obama has been using a Connecticut issued SSN, though he's never lived in Connecticut. He has used apparently 130 different SSN's in his life. None of this is being reported on.

Citation PLEASE! This fits the template of utter corruption all too well. No reason for an honest man to have near that many SSNs.

Watch the video, the attorney (the blonde woman) apparently has documented it all in her court filings on this birther case.

The Connecticutt SSN he uses belongs to someone else.