If they are the same, why use different terms?

[Diogenes]

Article II Clause 5, US Constitution.

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.



Notice that this article uses the term "natural born citizen" and the term "citizen". They cannot mean the same thing because the first term has the modifier "natural born." I present this as first proof that the terms are NOT interchangeable. "Natural Born Citizen" does not mean the same thing as "Citizen" and vice versa.

[kcdodd]

I would say first proof is the difference in definition. Clearly there are citizens who were not born here. Natural born citizen is a subset of all citizens. This is mearly indicating that you did not have to be born here to be president if you were already a citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution.

[chrismb]

The first is jus soli, the second is jus sanguinis.

The USA is the only country I know of that is so liberal with such rights and allows both in full. Most countries practice a limited form of one or other, restricted by law, usually lex soli.

Some of the essence of the original American ideals still hold true, liberal citizenship being one of them. May God bless America!

[KitemanSA]

Notice that this article uses the term "natural born citizen" and the term "citizen". They cannot mean the same thing because the first term has the modifier "natural born." I present this as first proof that the terms are NOT interchangeable. "Natural Born Citizen" does not mean the same thing as "Citizen" and vice versa.

Duhh! One can become a citizen by a number of means. One of which is to be born a citizen, a natural born citizen. One can also be "naturalized" (the usual route to get citizenship other than by birth) and honored with citizenship (Congressional action). I think there are a few other means too.

[Diogenes]

The first is jus soli, the second is jus sanguinis.

The USA is the only country I know of that is so liberal with such rights and allows both in full. Most countries practice a limited form of one or other, restricted by law, usually lex soli.

Some of the essence of the original American ideals still hold true, liberal citizenship being one of them. May God bless America!

Jus soli means "by right of soil" or some such.

What of Indians and Slaves? If the right is contingent upon the soil, then being born in America would have made them citizens, right?

[KitemanSA]

I believe the original quote to be inaccurate. I suspect the original hand written document said "united States", not "United States". Citizenship in the "United States" was part of the 14th amendment.

[Diogenes]

I believe the original quote to be inaccurate. I suspect the original hand written document said "united States", not "United States". Citizenship in the "United States" was part of the 14th amendment.

Does the 14th amendment repeal Article II Clause 5?

[Aero]

Qualifications. The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. An obsolete part of this clause provides that instead of being a natural born citizen, a person may be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The reason for this clause was to extend eligibility to Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, regardless of their place of birth, who were born under the allegiance of a foreign sovereign before the founding of the United States. Without this clause, no one would have been eligible to be president until thirty-five years after the founding of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tive_power

[KitemanSA]

I believe the original quote to be inaccurate. I suspect the original hand written document said "united States", not "United States". Citizenship in the "United States" was part of the 14th amendment.

Does the 14th amendment repeal Article II Clause 5?

Not to my knowledge, nor did it need to. Article II Clause 5 applied to persons who were citizens of the States that united under the constitution; the united States. Article 14 makes a new meaning as citizens of the "United States" Under the old meaning, if you were a citizen of Yew York, you were a citizen of the united States and could run for president if you were 35 years old and a resident of ANY State in the united States for 14 years.

The various States were recognized and citizenship within them established WELL before the Constitution was enacted.

[Diogenes]

I believe the original quote to be inaccurate. I suspect the original hand written document said "united States", not "United States". Citizenship in the "United States" was part of the 14th amendment.

Does the 14th amendment repeal Article II Clause 5?

Not to my knowledge, nor did it need to. Article II Clause 5 applied to persons who were citizens of the States that united under the constitution; the united States. Article 14 makes a new meaning as citizens of the "United States" Under the old meaning, if you were a citizen of Yew York, you were a citizen of the united States and could run for president if you were 35 years old and a resident of ANY State in the united States for 14 years.

The various States were recognized and citizenship within them established WELL before the Constitution was enacted.

So the "natural born citizen" requirement is still in effect?


Is anyone familiar with this?

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:



New-York, 25th July, 1787.

Dear Sir,

...

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

...

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.




The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

[IntLibber]

Okay, lemme clarify the four primary forms of citizenship:

a) natural born citizen: live born in one of the several States of the United States of America
b) Citizen of the United States: someone born in a US territory but not in any of the several States (i.e. born at a US embassy, in Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Palmyra, etc, any US overseas military base, and, previously held territories like Cuba, the Phillipines, and the Panama Canal Zone prior to their secession from the United States territories).
c) Naturalized US Citizen: Someone born in another country as a citizen of that or another country, who later immigrated to the US and went through the naturalization process.
d) foreign born child of American citizens. Gains citizenship by inheritance.

Under the Constitution, only types (a) and (b) are qualified to be President. Some claim Barack Obama was born in Kenya (including his grandmother in a recorded oral statement), and that the document on file in Hawaii is not a Birth Certificate, but a Certification of Live Birth. They are two distinctly separate documents. You only get the second type when you have given birth to a child overseas and one or more of the parents are American Citizens. You can only get the first type if you are actually born in a US state or territory. This is the cornerstone of the Birther arguments about Obama. The problems Obama has is that Hawaii refuses to say what type of document they have on him other than to say "he is a citizen", and during the campaign, the certificate that was put on his campaign website briefly was proven to have been a photoshopped fake constructed from a scan of his sister's document.

While I think the birthers arguments have merit (especially given how hard Obama works to hide and refuse to respond with facts and documents), I also recognise that we live in a post-Constitutional era and until the people gain the scrotal fortitude to revolt against the nascent tyrant that has been gaining force in DC, nothing will change this (and I don't think Obama was the first post-Constitutional president either).

FYI: An old girlfriend of mine works for MI5 and profiled Obama prior to his election. British Intelligence has, according to her, established that he was, in fact, born in Kenya and is therefore a citizen of the Commonwealth. Obama was, they say, born there prior to Kenyan independence and is therefore a British subject. Kinda explains why he bowed so deeply to Queen Elizabeth.

[Diogenes]

Okay, lemme clarify the four primary forms of citizenship:

a) natural born citizen: live born in one of the several States of the United States of America
b) Citizen of the United States: someone born in a US territory but not in any of the several States (i.e. born at a US embassy, in Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Palmyra, etc, any US overseas military base, and, previously held territories like Cuba, the Phillipines, and the Panama Canal Zone prior to their secession from the United States territories).
c) Naturalized US Citizen: Someone born in another country as a citizen of that or another country, who later immigrated to the US and went through the naturalization process.
d) foreign born child of American citizens. Gains citizenship by inheritance.

Under the Constitution, only types (a) and (b) are qualified to be President. Some claim Barack Obama was born in Kenya (including his grandmother in a recorded oral statement), and that the document on file in Hawaii is not a Birth Certificate, but a Certification of Live Birth. They are two distinctly separate documents. You only get the second type when you have given birth to a child overseas and one or more of the parents are American Citizens. You can only get the first type if you are actually born in a US state or territory. This is the cornerstone of the Birther arguments about Obama. The problems Obama has is that Hawaii refuses to say what type of document they have on him other than to say "he is a citizen", and during the campaign, the certificate that was put on his campaign website briefly was proven to have been a photoshopped fake constructed from a scan of his sister's document.

While I think the birthers arguments have merit (especially given how hard Obama works to hide and refuse to respond with facts and documents), I also recognise that we live in a post-Constitutional era and until the people gain the scrotal fortitude to revolt against the nascent tyrant that has been gaining force in DC, nothing will change this (and I don't think Obama was the first post-Constitutional president either).

FYI: An old girlfriend of mine works for MI5 and profiled Obama prior to his election. British Intelligence has, according to her, established that he was, in fact, born in Kenya and is therefore a citizen of the Commonwealth. Obama was, they say, born there prior to Kenyan independence and is therefore a British subject. Kinda explains why he bowed so deeply to Queen Elizabeth.

I truly wish you hadn't posted this. It's so very difficult to get any credibility whatsoever regarding this issue, and the difficulty is enhanced when things that are provably and obviously not true, are promulgated because not enough people know that they are false. An example of this is the contention that the Obama "Birth Certification" which appeared on the web originally, was copied from his sister, Maya Soetoro.

Maya was NOT born in Hawaii, she was born in Indonesia. It was not possible to copy the image from her Hawaiian birth certification because she didn't have one. The assertion that the original web image of Obama's Birth Certification was copied from his sister was made by a fellow calling himself "Tech Dude" and claiming to be a document expert. With that pronouncement, he destroyed his credibility beyond recovery, because it was well known that Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia, not Hawaii.

He actually did serious damage to the issue of finding out the truth regarding Obama's citizenship status because of his excessive claims. Many people simply stopped listening to any information on this issue as a result of his far fetched claims, and as a result, Obama was given a pass where he shouldn't have been.


I do find it interesting though, what your old girlfriend related to you, but for the purposes of what I am attempting to do, it's really irrelevant WHERE he was born. I find it strange that MI5 didn't feel motivated to pass on this information to Americans that might have found it useful a couple of years ago.

[IntLibber]

Okay, lemme clarify the four primary forms of citizenship:

a) natural born citizen: live born in one of the several States of the United States of America
b) Citizen of the United States: someone born in a US territory but not in any of the several States (i.e. born at a US embassy, in Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Palmyra, etc, any US overseas military base, and, previously held territories like Cuba, the Phillipines, and the Panama Canal Zone prior to their secession from the United States territories).
c) Naturalized US Citizen: Someone born in another country as a citizen of that or another country, who later immigrated to the US and went through the naturalization process.
d) foreign born child of American citizens. Gains citizenship by inheritance.

Under the Constitution, only types (a) and (b) are qualified to be President. Some claim Barack Obama was born in Kenya (including his grandmother in a recorded oral statement), and that the document on file in Hawaii is not a Birth Certificate, but a Certification of Live Birth. They are two distinctly separate documents. You only get the second type when you have given birth to a child overseas and one or more of the parents are American Citizens. You can only get the first type if you are actually born in a US state or territory. This is the cornerstone of the Birther arguments about Obama. The problems Obama has is that Hawaii refuses to say what type of document they have on him other than to say "he is a citizen", and during the campaign, the certificate that was put on his campaign website briefly was proven to have been a photoshopped fake constructed from a scan of his sister's document.

While I think the birthers arguments have merit (especially given how hard Obama works to hide and refuse to respond with facts and documents), I also recognise that we live in a post-Constitutional era and until the people gain the scrotal fortitude to revolt against the nascent tyrant that has been gaining force in DC, nothing will change this (and I don't think Obama was the first post-Constitutional president either).

FYI: An old girlfriend of mine works for MI5 and profiled Obama prior to his election. British Intelligence has, according to her, established that he was, in fact, born in Kenya and is therefore a citizen of the Commonwealth. Obama was, they say, born there prior to Kenyan independence and is therefore a British subject. Kinda explains why he bowed so deeply to Queen Elizabeth.

I truly wish you hadn't posted this. It's so very difficult to get any credibility whatsoever regarding this issue, and the difficulty is enhanced when things that are provably and obviously not true, are promulgated because not enough people know that they are false. An example of this is the contention that the Obama "Birth Certification" which appeared on the web originally, was copied from his sister, Maya Soetoro.

Maya was NOT born in Hawaii, she was born in Indonesia. It was not possible to copy the image from her Hawaiian birth certification because she didn't have one. The assertion that the original web image of Obama's Birth Certification was copied from his sister was made by a fellow calling himself "Tech Dude" and claiming to be a document expert. With that pronouncement, he destroyed his credibility beyond recovery, because it was well known that Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia, not Hawaii.

He actually did serious damage to the issue of finding out the truth regarding Obama's citizenship status because of his excessive claims. Many people simply stopped listening to any information on this issue as a result of his far fetched claims, and as a result, Obama was given a pass where he shouldn't have been.


I do find it interesting though, what your old girlfriend related to you, but for the purposes of what I am attempting to do, it's really irrelevant WHERE he was born. I find it strange that MI5 didn't feel motivated to pass on this information to Americans that might have found it useful a couple of years ago.

Okay, here's where you need to understand the distinction between types of certificates: his sisters document was, as I previously stated, a Certification of Live Birth, which, as I previously stated, is issued by a state government to certify that a child was born to an American citizen somewhere else. Yes, his sister was born in Indonesia, just as he was born in Kenya. The document posted to Obama's campaign site was a Certification of Live Birth, not a Birth Certificate.

Another reason why a certification of live birth may be issued to someone who was actually born in the US would only be if ordered by a court for:
a) the child is adopted, the court orders a certification of live birth be issued with the childs name and THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS names on the certification
b) a person's name is changed legally
c) like (b) when the government issues a whole new identity to someone, such as a federal witness in witness protection, or a defecting spy or other political refugee who is being hunted by enemies. This is not done by the courts but by the FBI or the US Marshals Service under special delegation of power by congress and the courts.

The document on Obama's campaign site had both Barack and his sisters names on it...

Oh, and the British did, in fact, tell our government about Obama's birth status. The US government responded by requesting that the government of Kenya arrest anybody who comes from the US attempting to dig up the true records of his birth. There have since been quite a number of arrests made as a result.

There are, also, a number of people in the British government who have communicated these facts to people like myself. This is why, I believe, there remains a strong degree of belief in the truther position, because people around the country who have contacts with british intelligence from their active duty days serving in NATO units or other means of contact have gotten the truth from people they know and trust in British Intelligence that they have no reason to doubt.

Now, could British Intelligence be pursuing a scheme either to cause political disruption in the US, or perhaps to cause Obama opponents to discredit themselves with outlandish claims? Both possibilities are entirely possible. Goodness knows that British intelligence has done its best to manipulate the US into two world wars, only later to sell out our atomic secrets to the soviets via the Cambridge Five, Klaus Fuchs, etc.

I personally am not a truther adherent. I'm just stating what I've heard and what I know to be true as well as that which is possible. From my experience in politics, however, any time a politician doesn't want you to see a document about him, it is because it is incriminating. ALWAYS. I've never seen a politician refuse to release documents that were not incriminating.

[Diogenes]

Okay, here's where you need to understand the distinction between types of certificates: his sisters document was, as I previously stated, a Certification of Live Birth, which, as I previously stated, is issued by a state government to certify that a child was born to an American citizen somewhere else. Yes, his sister was born in Indonesia, just as he was born in Kenya. The document posted to Obama's campaign site was a Certification of Live Birth, not a Birth Certificate.

I do understand the difference. I have never ran across any information that indicated Maya Soetoro HAD a certification of live birth from Hawaii. Being born in Indonesia, it is not immediately apparent that such a thing would even be possible, but given the twists and turns of the Stanley Ann Dunham history, I wouldn't be shocked to discover that it's true.

If that is the case, I apologize. The information that I had been told discredits the original claim of forgery regarding the initial Web pictures From Daily Kos, said it was discredited because Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia. That she could still get a Hawaiian Certification of Live birth, is a notion too ridiculous to consider, but given Hawaii's weird laws, it might be possible.

This begs another question. If Maya Soetoro HAS a certification of live birth from Hawaii, even though she was born in Indonesia, Doesn't this serve as prima facia evidence that the exact same thing could have happened with Barack?

Another reason why a certification of live birth may be issued to someone who was actually born in the US would only be if ordered by a court for:
a) the child is adopted, the court orders a certification of live birth be issued with the childs name and THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS names on the certification
b) a person's name is changed legally
c) like (b) when the government issues a whole new identity to someone, such as a federal witness in witness protection, or a defecting spy or other political refugee who is being hunted by enemies. This is not done by the courts but by the FBI or the US Marshals Service under special delegation of power by congress and the courts.

I know this better than most. I'm adopted, but I have my original birth certificate, AND the one which is full of false information which the State will certify as correct.

As I have attempted to point out to various people, It appears that Lolo Soetoro Adopted Obama around 1967. When Stanley Ann Dunham divorced Lolo Soetoro, It is very likely that a Judge ordered changes to Barack's birth certificate, and further ordered that the original be sealed.

People put a lot of stock in what that computer printout from Hawaii says, but anyone who is familiar with the adoption process knows that you cannot accept such a document at face value.

The document on Obama's campaign site had both Barack and his sisters names on it...

I don't recall if I saw that or not. In any case, Barack's birth certificate, or lack thereof is completely inconsequential to the salient point, and that point is whether he qualifies as an Article II "Natural Born Citizen."

I say, no, and it doesn't matter where he was born. He could be born in the White house itself, and he still wouldn't qualify. Once the meaning and purpose of Article II is researched and understood, it becomes quite apparent that it is impossible to meet those requirements with a non citizen parent.

Oh, and the British did, in fact, tell our government about Obama's birth status. The US government responded by requesting that the government of Kenya arrest anybody who comes from the US attempting to dig up the true records of his birth. There have since been quite a number of arrests made as a result.

Who in the US government could have made such a demand before the election? George Bush? I hardly think he would have done this, and I find it incredible that any one of his staff would have done such a thing either. I suspect this is just an assertion. Do you know of any written documents from a government official in this regard?

There are, also, a number of people in the British government who have communicated these facts to people like myself. This is why, I believe, there remains a strong degree of belief in the truther position, because people around the country who have contacts with british intelligence from their active duty days serving in NATO units or other means of contact have gotten the truth from people they know and trust in British Intelligence that they have no reason to doubt.

I think you mean "Birther" position. "Truther" is intended to be a derogatory term to describe those people that believe the US government, and specifically George W. Bush conspired to fly those planes into the world trade center to give them an excuse to invade Iraq so their oil industry buddies could steal the oil from the Iraqis. It is, of course, the product of the stupidest minds on the planet.

If the British knew these things, I don't understand why they haven't made an effort to torpedo Obama by quietly releasing any evidence they have to the public. That they didn't do it before the election could be explained by Labor being in power, and everyone knows those people are traitors to everything that is good. But AFTER the election, and AFTER barack has treated them so shabbily?

Now, could British Intelligence be pursuing a scheme either to cause political disruption in the US, or perhaps to cause Obama opponents to discredit themselves with outlandish claims? Both possibilities are entirely possible. Goodness knows that British intelligence has done its best to manipulate the US into two world wars, only later to sell out our atomic secrets to the soviets via the Cambridge Five, Klaus Fuchs, etc.

I personally am not a truther adherent. I'm just stating what I've heard and what I know to be true as well as that which is possible. From my experience in politics, however, any time a politician doesn't want you to see a document about him, it is because it is incriminating. ALWAYS. I've never seen a politician refuse to release documents that were not incriminating.

That is pretty much what most people think. I find it incredible that people are willing to put up with a state withholding proof that a man is qualified to be President on the basis that knowing the truth is an invasion of his privacy. This is a level of stupid that I simply cannot grasp.

[kcdodd]

Code: Select all

I say, no, and it doesn't matter where he was born. He could be born in the White house itself, and he still wouldn't qualify. Once the meaning and purpose of Article II is researched and understood, it becomes quite apparent that it is impossible to meet those requirements with a non citizen parent. 

I think it is clear that the intent of the article is to prevent someone with allegiance to another country from becoming the leader of this country's executive branch and armed forces. If Obama was not born a citizen of the US then what country was he born a citizen to, and what country do you propose he has allegiance to. I have to wonder about your intent when you say you do not care where he was born, where he spent his life, or anything that seems to actually qualify someone to be president of the united states.