Talk-Polywell.org

Diogenes wrote: 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.

chrismb wrote: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 wrote: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.

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.

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: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?

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: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.

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 wrote: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 wrote:

IntLibber wrote: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 wrote:
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.

IntLibber wrote: 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.

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

IntLibber wrote: 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.

IntLibber wrote: 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.

IntLibber wrote: 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.