Here’s my issue in this, Ignoring his birthplace and long form yada yada. The law reads ” you must be Natural Born and only a citizen of the USA ” just to qualify for the office of president. To be “Natural Born” Both parents must be American citizens and can not be a citizen of any other country. (ie: a non-citizen couple comes to America and has a child here. Yes, that child is a citizen. However, it is not natural born.) In his 1st book it is claimed that the father, Mr Soetoro, in question is a citizen of Kenya and thus a citizen of the UK. British law reads that any and all children born anywhere to UK citizens are themselves UK citizens by default. This appears to disqualify our President from the office on 2 counts. Both himself and his father are citizens of the UK.

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Furthermore, Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) and lastly, Acquisition of Citizenship of the UK & Colonies

Under the 1948 Act, CUKC status was acquired by:

* birth in the UK or a colony (exceptions for children of ‘enemy aliens’ and diplomats). The immigration status of the parents was irrelevant.
* naturalisation or registration in the UK or a colony or protectorate
* legitimate descent from a CUKC father for children born elsewhere. Only the first generation acquired British nationality AUTOMATTICLY. Second and subsequent generations could do so only if born outside the Commonwealth (or Ireland) and registered within 12 months of birth or if the father was in Crown Service.
* incorporation of territory (no persons ever acquired CUKC this way from 1949)
* declaration
* marriage

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

“I did take note that you did not support your previous interpretation of the Section 87 (K/C) with any qualifying link. Dallas

The Republican Constitution of Kenya: Historical Background and Analysis, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1965), pp. 878-949

by Chanan Singh, Judge of the High Court of Kenya

Chanan Singh…graduate with a degree in Economics from London University in 1940…qualified as a barrister. On leaving employment he opened practice as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya…In 1952 he was elected to Parliament (then the Legislative Council.In 1964 Chanan Singh resigned from Parliament and took up the office of Puisne Judge of the High Court of Kenya. He remained at this post till his death in 1977.

Page 947

The following persons are citizens of Kenya:
(i) A person born in Kenya before Independence, if one of his parents was also born in Kenya.
(ii) A person born outside Kenya before Independence, if his father becomes a citizen under the preceding provision.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) apply only to those who were on December 11, 1963 citizens of U.K. and Colonies or British protected persons.
(iii) A person born in Kenya after December 11, 1963, but not (a) if his mother is a non-citizen and his father a foreign diplomat, nor (b) if his father is a citizen of a country at war with Kenya.
(iv) A person born outside Kenya after December 11, 1963 if his father is a citizen.

Dallas made claims about the Obamas based entirely on his interpretation of Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution: that two dates, the 11th and the 12th of December, operated on separate categories of persons on these two separate days, and in two separate ways.

“1-Born in Kenya CUKC Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
1-Born in Kenya BPP Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya” Dallas

The analysis of Section 87 by a judge of the Kenyan High Court completely trashes Dallas’ interpretation and therefore his claims. Section 87 only creates citizens of Kenya and does nothing else. Not a sufficient rebuttal for Dallas ? Ok try the following expertly researched monograph, which corroborates Judge Singh:

Citizenship and immigration in Post-War Britain By Randall Hansen http://tinyurl.com/cc6ynr

“The Kenyan Constitution gives no guarantees to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies…it provides no guarantees to anyone not acquiring Kenyan citizenship…The British statutes also contain no promises…”

Defining British citizenship By Rieko Karatani provides supporting context http://tinyurl.com/ccee5o

In citing as evidence debates in the UK Parliament on the British Kenyan Independence Bill Dallas seems to be unaware his quotes contradict themselves:

a NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES were given TO THE CUKCS by the Parliament of Kenya and Constitutionn {Kenya decides for Britishers ?]
b “Acts of our [British] Parliament [after independence] do not extend to Kenya as part of its law” [Dallas cites the 1964 UK Nationality Act]
c “it is normal for the [British] legislation conferring independence” [remember Dallas: "do not extend to Kenya as part of its law"]
d What authority gives Kenya the right to change citizenship of British protected People? BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL 1964 [Which BNA 1964 ? 682 or 1391 ? Neither applicable. Both enacted after Kenyan Independence in 1963 ? They give authority to Kenya ? How can 1964 laws affect Obama's birth ?]

What part of “It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals are“, the legal position of both Britain and Kenya, does Dallas not understand ? The single authority Dallas gives for his “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES [whatever they are]…given TO THE CUKCS” is the Kenyan Constitution, which had no authority in the matter: if it did, why did the Kenyan Constitution not set “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES” for Indian and Pakistani citizenships using that same authority ? Why did their status as British citizens before and after Independence never change ? As before, we can’t expect that for precise and awkward questions Dallas will find coherent answers or reputable sources: he will just paraphrase the claim.

If Dallas’ non-existent sources are his best shot then Dallas’ claims are worse than illusory; unless he re-parses the text of Section 87, which is the entire basis of his claims, then Dallas cannot save his turkey from its inevitable fate.

Original text of Section 87, Kenyan Constitution:
Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December,
1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British
protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December,
1963

Understand this First:
Prior to Kenya’s independence, in 1963 there were different citizens living within the Colonies and Protectorate or
Protected States. Some were Britishsubjects, others were
Commonwealth Citizens, British subjects without Citizenship
(BSWC) British Protected citizens (BPP) and citizens of the
United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCS). These citizens had
citizenships (or citizenship rights) ‘before’ the enactment
of the Kenya Constitution.

WE know that the BNA act of 1948 gave citizenship of the UKC (or CUKC)to anyone “ born within” the United Kingdom and Colonies
on or ater the date of commencement of the act. So, until the Independence of Kenya in 1963 these citizens of the UKC,
British Subjects, BPP, Commonwealth Citizens and BSWC,
maintained these various citizenships or rights.

When Kenya became independent in 1963 “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES”
were given TO THE CUKCS by the Parliament of Kenya and Constitution. Their prior date of citizenshiphad been 1948
from the BNA. What the legislature effectually did was give the
CUKC a NEW “date” of Citizenshipin Kenya, Dec. 11, 1963
however,they RETAINED their original CUKC status.

(Your Turkey analogy, In 1948 A turkey was a turkey in the North
Pole, but on Dec. 11, 1963 that turkey was still a turkey in the North Pole and now,South Pole. Only the date and place had changed.

Supporting documents:
Retention of existing citizenship
14. Every person who was a citizen immediately before the effective
date retains the same citizenship status as from that date.
http://kenya-constitution.com/chapter4.html
This is the People’s Constitution, a newer version of the 1963 K/C.
Offering interpretation and insight to Sect.87 of the Kenya Constitution (K/C).

KENYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
HL Deb 28 November 1963 vol 253 cc754-814

1. Britain had Constitutional Arrangements, Provisional comments
and Input into Kenya’s Constitution:

On past occasions Members of your Lordships’ House have shown great
interest in the constitutional arrangements to be made for Kenya,
and these have been the subject of debate on more than one occasion, especiallyafter the 1962 Lancaster HouseConference and
again in July of this year.
No doubt, some of your Lordships will wish to comment on the final
Constitutional settlement during this debate.….Two clauses which describethe position in our law butalso at the provisions
regulating Kenya citizenship which will appear in the Kenya Constitution itself. A full account of what those provisions will contain is set out in the Report to the recent Conference,..

2. Parliament of Kenya Fully Sovereign to Enact it’s own Laws:

Acts of our Parliament do not extend to Kenya as part of its law,
and the Parliament of Kenya is a fully sovereign Legislature which
is subject only to the restrictions imposed on it by the Kenya Constitution..

3.Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies was Not Taken Away:

Your Lordships will observe that in this Bill we have found it
convienient to split up the topic into separate sections, the first
making certain modifications of the British Nationality Acts consequential upon Kenya’s attaining independence and acquiring
its own citizenship; and the second defining categories of people
who, even though they may become Kenya citizens,do not thereby
have their United Kingdom citizenship taken away from them.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1963/nov/28/kenya-independence-bill

Note although Great Britain had many constitutional inputs and comments teh Kenya Parliament was teh ultimate decision maker.

A NEW CITIZENSHIP “ and” DATE was given to the British Protected
Persons (BPP). Anytime a part of the Commonwealth achieved independence,a “fresh citizenship” was created. The British Protected Person status is lost and replaced by citizen of Kenya status.

1.Proof :What authority gives Kenya the right to change citizenship
of British protected People?

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
HC Deb 05 February 1964 vol 688 cc1291-6

Within the Commonwealth there are a number of separate citizenships, each of which makes a person a British subject or Commonwealth citizen in the law of the United Kingdom. Every
time any part of the Commonwealth achieves independence,
a fresh citizenship of this kind is created, and it is normal for
the legislation conferring independence on such a country to
contain provisions to the effect that citizens of the United
Kingdom and Colonies who” acquire” the citizenship of the new
country shall lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they, or their fathers or their fathers ‘fathers,
were born, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1964/feb/05/british-nationality-bill#S5CV0688P0_19640205_HOC_326

2. British Protected Person status lost upon Kenya Independence:

Consequences of Independence:
BPP status was normally lost automatically upon acquisition of the
nationality of the country with which the person was connected. In
some cases any person with BPP status connected to that territory
lost BPP status, even if they did not acquire the citizenship of the
country at independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_protected_person

(Using your turkey analogy, 1948 turkey is a turkey but on December
12,1963, turkey become T. Rooster. BPPs become a brand new citizens of Kenya.

PS. I did take note that you did not support your previous
interpretation of the Section 87 (K/C) with any qualifying link. {Thereby} and {and} are hereby removed from your previous interpretation?

Dallas: did you grow up speaking English from birth ? Either your ability to comprehend the English language is somehow challenged or you’re foisting an April Fools’ prank. Let me explain:

Original text of Section 87, Kenyan Constitution:

Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

Dallas‘ text:

1 Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. [period]

2 or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

Means for Dallas: This Constitution makes two kinds of citizens: British on the 11th, and Kenyans on the 12th.

Analogy:

1 Every fowl who, having been born for the holiday oven, is on 25th November, 2009 a turkey in fattening. [period]

2 or a scrawny chicken scratching around shall become Thanksgiving dinner on 26th November, 2009.

Means for Dallas: Turkeys remains alive beyond Thanksgiving because they’re in fattening [their big day will never come ! ] and we only get to eat scrawny chickens come next Thanksgiving dinner.

Analogy corrected:

Every fowl who is on 25th November, 2009 a turkey in fattening or a scrawny chicken scratching around, having been born for the holiday oven, shall become Thanksgiving dinner on 26th November, 2009

Dallas corrected:

Every person who is on 11th December 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, having been born in Kenya, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Dallas is invited to re-parse the analogy to come up with an alternative syntax that we can apply to the original text of Section 87. Best of luck !

1 Unless Dallas can cite contrary examples, it is international principle and practice that nations can only confer their own citizenships: ie no Israeli documents will ever confer Syrian or Iranian citizenship, and no Syrian or Iranian documents will ever confer Israeli citizenship, nor could these documents possibly be enforceable. Certainly and incontrovertibly, long before 1963 the United Kingdom (thus for all British territories) had ratified the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality, which stated :

It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality. (Article 1)

Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State. (Article 2)

Analogously, I cannot specify who is legally a member of Dallas’ family and he cannot legally announce who is a member of mine. The inescapable truth is that on Independence Day (December 12th, 1963) the Kenyan Republic was bound by the 1930 Hague Convention, and did not have the legal power or authority to create citizens of other nations. (Dallas’ turkey of a theory should die a peaceful death here, but that fattening critter aint going down without a fight before Thanksgiving. Help ! I’m being savaged by a turkey !)

The Kenyan Constitution could never confer UK citizenship on anybody: lawyers under British instruction deliberately drafted it that way, not least because Britain wanted to be rid of the colony and to withdraw from Kenyans the right of automatic entry to the UK. (I am sure Dallas recalls the 1962 UK Commonwealth Immigration Act and his theory can explain why it precedes Kenyan independence.) On 12 December 1963 8.4 million Kenyans’ legal relationship with the UK was terminated, with one exception. 176,000 descendants of migrants from India who had settled in Kenya were now a favored and trusted minority: they had the option of Kenyan or British or Indian or Pakistani citizenship and 90% chose Britain. http://tinyurl.com/d35lkj As offering British citizenship was solely a British policy and a British decision, it was not and could not (per Hague 1930) be reflected in a Kenyan Constitutional document. If Dallas is correct, in that Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution was the “proper” place for Kenyan authorities to “officially allocate” at Independence more than one citizenship to people born in Kenya, why weren’t Indian and Pakistani citizenships conferred in this constitutional instrument ? (Hint:1930.)

2 “The common status of the [1914] British Nationality Act rested on common allegiance. The status of a British born subject depended upon birth within His Majesty’s dominions and allegiance. Now allegiance was the doctrine upon which the British Empire was founded…The principle of common status meant that consultations and agreement between members of the Commonwealth had to precede legislation by any single State…

The [1948] Act abandons common status by repealing from January 1, 1949, the British Nationality Act, 1914,6 except ss. 17 and 18 which relate exclusively to the status of aliens. That Act will then cease to be part of the law of the United Kingdom and the Colonial Empire. But the Act is by separate enactment also part of the law of the older Dominions as regards the nationality of natural born citizens; it has also been adopted by them with relatively minor variations as their law of naturalization. It is also as yet part of the law of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia. Australia and New Zealand…only Canada has so far made provision…[and] all (except Canada) [must] repeal an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament which that Parliament has itself already repealed…as regards India, Pakistan and Ceylon the British Nationality Act, 1914, is still part of the law of those new Dominions by virtue of its original enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom until such time as the local legislature enacts another measure. [The UK] Parliament, however, can no longer repeal [the 1914] Act with application to [India and Pakistan] which now enjoy independent legislative status under the India and Ceylon Independence Acts of 1947. [India and Pakistan] could, of course, make use of s. 4 of the [1914] Statute and request that the repeal of the British Nationality Act be extended to them….It is, however, unlikely that…there would be a willingness to surrender the newly-won status of legislative supremacy.”

British Nationality Act, 1948, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 30, No. 3/4 (1948), pp. 67-75

Dallas, why didn’t the Constitutions of newly independent India and Pakistan include sections which allocated more than one citizenship in the way claimed for Kenya ? Did you know that India and Pakistan (I’ve checked), as well as Britain (and thus Kenya) were all legally bound by the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality ? What consultations and agreements on Section 87 could have preceded the Kenyan Constitution in light of the 1930 Hague Convention ? What Kenyan legislation repealed existing British nationality law in force after independence (hint:1964), and with what anterior effect ?

Intelligent answers to these questions will not just be to restate the claim. Until Dallas can produce authoritative sources which fully explain (in terms of his theory) these “inexplicable” omissions and impossibilities, that turkey of a theory can only be regarded as a bizarre and embarrassing misconstruction of the English language….or a merry April prank.

“…having been born in Kenya, [AND] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…shall [THEREBY] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…”

I challenge this statement. Do you have a link qualifying your interpretation. Your added words {AND} and {THEREBY} merely distort
the true intention of the Kenya Constitution, which was to give new citizenship to the BPP starting with a effect date of Dec.12,1963
and for CUKCs to maintain or retain their acquired citizenship begining with a new date of Dec. 11,1963.

(Had Sr. been a CUKC he would not have lost that citizenship on Dec.12 1963 or at all)

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Simplified:

Before Independence After Independence new citizenship
citizenship: date:
1-Born in Kenya CUKC Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
1-Born in Kenya BPP Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya

Condensed version:

1-Born in Kenya
2-Born outside Kenya
11-CUKC
12 citizen of Kenya

So, you can tell a person’s citizenship by asking what their
citizenship date is…. Didn’t Obama Jr. say he was an 11? But refused to answer a 1 or 2?

Has Maya Obama ever said a word about the certificate, certification, or the like?

1. There is no “Maya Obama”. Barack Obama’s older half-sister, who is the daughter of Barack Obama Sr. and was born in Kenya, is named Auma. His younger half-sister is the daughter of Lolo Soetoro and was born in Indonesia, and is now married to a Canadian named Ng — so her name is Maya Soetero-Ng.

2. Assuming that Maya’s mother wanted to establish documentation of her birth to an American citizen, the normal procedure would have been to register at the US Embassy in Jakarta to obtain a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America”, aka Consular Report of Birth or FS-240. See: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html

3) There is not now and has never been any reason for Maya Soetero-Ng to be issuing public comments on anything other than to promote the children’s story book she is writing.

Yes, we do.

The person who made the claim was the infamous fraud, “Techdude.” He claimed that Maya’s name could be seen in the scanned image of Obama’s certificate. It simply isn’t there and his analysis was fabricated beyond any doubt whatsoever. His Maya claim was his swan dive, before he disappeared off the face of the Internet and left those who had been promoting him holding the bag (i.e. TexasDarlin, NoQuarter and AtlasShrugs).

I’ll ask again:

Has Maya Obama ever said a word about the certificate, certification, or the like?

-Phil

“neither the Republic nor the Constitution of Kenya were in the business of, or had the right to, distribute British citizenships to anybody.”

That’s a pretty good twist on the words. But that’s not what I said, the “new citizenship “Dates” (of independence) were assigned. Nevertheless I will clarify my statement
Based on the following: http://kenya-constitution.com/chapter4.html Statutes that support my statement:

Retention of existing citizenship
14. Every person who was a citizen immediately before the effective date retains the same citizenship status as from that date

Legislation on citizenship
24. Parliament shall enact legislation:
(a) prescribing procedures by which a person may become a citizen

What I said :
“…. the person “receives” or “maintains” as the case may be:

CUKC’s “maintained” (retained) CUKC citizenship on date Dec.11 (KC-24) (a)
British Protected Persons “received”(attained) Kenyan citizenship on Dec.12 (KC-14)

That was no mix up with fact check short-lived quote. You did notice
factcheck did not specify particularly who they were referring to;
Jr. or Sr. Obama. Certainly could have been speaking about either.
It is an illusion.

“Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963,
Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. “As
a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1).”
Terms (what they mean):

(1) Born in Kenya
(2) Born outside of Kenya
11 Dec. CUKC “remain” CUKC
12 Dec. BPP “(shall become)” citizens of Kenya

The illusion:
Here, factcheck gives the illusion Obama Jr, and Sr. “both “have
CUKC and received their Kenyan citizenship on Dec.12 1963, with Sr. receiving automatic Kenyan Citizenship. S.(1)-(Day)12 or 1-12
and Jr. following, as 2-12.

If Sr. and Jr. were “both” CUKC as fact check would have us to
believe, their citizenship “dates” Sec. and date should have been 1-11 and 2 -11 respectively. And neither would attain Kenyan citizenship,because CUKC citizenship is not lost automatically.
The status of CUKC “did not” confer automatic right to citizenship in Kenya either.

What is real:
Obama Sr. did receive automatic Kenya citizenship, therefore he was
a BPP. His Subsection and date is/was as fact check states; 1-12. (Dec.12,1963)
Factcheck does not state the date of Jr. Kenyan citizenship date
merely alludes to his father‘s). It does state however, the date
of British citizenship date August 4,1961.

So in the alternative: What “short-lived” could mean:
Obama Sr. British subject/BPP lasted for 19 years(1936-1963)
from the time of birth to the time of Kenyan citizenship.

Where Obama Jr. if born in Kenya Colony (and Protectorate) in 1961
became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. Therefore his British Citizenship continues from birth 1961
until current 2009 over 47 years! Not short lived.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Where is Maya’s COLB?

Do we know for a fact that it was not? Has Maya Obama ever said a word about it?

Yes, we do.

The person who made the claim was the infamous fraud, “Techdude.” He claimed that Maya’s name could be seen in the scanned image of Obama’s certificate. It simply isn’t there and his analysis was fabricated beyond any doubt whatsoever. His Maya claim was his swan dive, before he disappeared off the face of the Internet and left those who had been promoting him holding the bag (i.e. TexasDarlin, NoQuarter and AtlasShrugs).

k

Would you mind posting the link to this information? Because I don’t ever recall Hawaii certifying any information other than having a birth certificate on file.

Hawaii’s verification of the information given on the Certification of Live Birth

Hawaii has not verified the scanned documents, nor have they certified any information on it as accurate, nor have they stated Obama was born in Hawaii. If they did, this discussion would have ended 8 months ago.

The verification is on the document itself.

k

As it’s apparent from this comment that you haven’t read back through this thread as I suggested (or understood what you found there), you will forgive me if I offer just a brief reply.

“Section 87 [right this time !] of The Constitution of Kenya…the person receives or maintains as the case may be…Citizen of UKC…”

Common sense will tell that neither the Republic nor the Constitution of Kenya were in the business of, or had the right to, distribute British citizenships to anybody. Do you really imagine that the highly experienced British constitutional lawyers who helped draft that document would have been instructed to or knowingly delegated that power to a foreign authority ? Or maybe you think they made a mistake ? Bad hair day in all that Kenyan heat ?

Lastly, no use quoting Factcheck if you mixing up when they’re talking about Sr and when they’re talking about Jr. Tarnishes one’s credibilty.

You aren’t arguing in favor of the Constitution. You want a change: either a change in the way the Constitution has historically been interpreted, or a change in the Constitution itself.

Unfortunately, your defensive mechanism has engaged, so there’s really nothing else I can say to you, except: “Those are your words, not mine.”

-Phil