Importantly, people seem to be confusing ‘citizenship’ with ‘jus soil Native Born Citizenship’ and the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as it pertains to the qualifications for POTUS. The special qualifications for POTUS/VPOTUS should prevent other loyalties or entanglements to foriegn governments at birth.

I agree with you.

My thinking is they are doing and will do the right thing at the right time. The DNC and Congress are really at fault in this matter. This should never have gotten to were it has. Congress as a whole and my own Congress people have let me and us down.

If they choose not to and allow the football to be passed and our laws made fun of then we are in a sorry state of affairs.

I would not have a clue as to what we could or can do if the SCOTUS does not act.

Tex-

Can you please point me to the link in the Constitution for that exact quote?

As I see, if what you state is true. That would mean our forefathers didn’t have a clue as to what they meant to say when they said “Natural Born Citizen.”

To debate the point and take your view. Our forefathers were trying to tell us when they said in the United States Constitution, Article. II. Section. 1. clause 5.
“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.”

What they were trying to say by your words was if the Mother is born in the United States and on US soil it would not matter if the Father was a British subject.

Is that what you wish me to think they were trying to say?

You have proof that is what our Constitution says Natural Born means?

I think they meant both parents citizens “plural” and child born on US soil. I also think the term is easy to understand and needs no supporting clause. If you have one that makes my thinking wrong I would love to have a look at it. Please site were in the Constitution it says what you say it says as there is no higher form of law than our Constitution.

I think the SCOTUS will deal with the matter and see it as I do. I can’t say when that will take place but I feel and hope that they do. Even if they take your meaning I hope they will see fit to deal with it. I think the matter worthy because Mr. Obama, Congress and the Media have made it so.

Tex-

Court would need to fix that.

Tex-

Tex-

That would obviously be your perspective. I’m not so sure that the law is as clear as you’re making it out to be.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

Another piece of the puzzle, though, is the UK’s right of nationality over the President-Elect’s father’s kids — including BHOII — at birth.

I actually would completely agree with the above if it weren’t for this apparent wrinkle; the above, as stated, doesn’t appear to take into account what happens if nationalities are dueling for the person’s origin. Further, the UK-Kenyan law, at the time, stipulated that the children of a father (who was a British subject) would automatically be considered a British subject as well, regardless of their geographical birthplace.

To me, that’s the main issue.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil