It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It does not matter where Obama was born or what nationality his father was.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
For his mother was a natural born US citizen and lived in the US much longer than the minimally required 5 years (for government employees) for any children she bore in a foreign country to a foreign national to be natural born US citizens and thus eligible to be the POTUS.

www.law.cornell.edu...


§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


I agree, but this will get buried beneath the other birther threads. By the birther philosophy, my son, born on German soil while I was abroad, will not be able to hold the office. John McCain was also born outside of the US, but no one seems to mention that.

I think the birther issue will derail the republican party. They're giving the democrats 2012 and they don't know it.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
You are correct. The only thing that matters is that he's a perpetual deceiver. This lie (regardless of the truth, it was obviously covering something) is merely a scoop of sand of the lies he fed the voters over the past 3 years.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


All politicians are perpetual deceivers. Why would someone making millions a year care about the guys making $50,000 or less? They wouldn't. Yet we keep electing them because we let ourselves get distracted from the real issues like the economy, education, jobs, and crime. Sometimes I think it's all smoke and mirrors.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 


On the same token... Where are all those Dem voices who were vehemently protesting all mid east wars now, while we have engaged in Libya in the most ridiculous one of all. This point illustrates how far from bi-partisanship our country is to this day!

Response to tncryptogal: Point well taken. I am for the one I feel will do the best for the economy. Sadly enough, money make the world go round. I voted for Slick Willie, and i would have voted for his wife (even though i still caucus Rep). Obama promised many outrageous changes. I fall into the category you are referring to. Late 20s with regular 9-5 desk job in lower middle class. I dont know about you, but i have not seen one iota of financial help.
edit on 27-4-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Of course it matters!!!!! if he cannot show an important part of his job application then he should of not of got the job.
The people have demanded him to show his birth certificate therefore he HAS to show it............and now he has........but a lot of things still don't add up.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Actually the rules are a bit different for the executive office. The standards are laid out in Article 2 of the Constitution. The main push is to attempt to prevent dual allegiances. Obama had dual citizenship as a result of his fathers Kenyan citizenship; Kenya being part of the British Empire at the time of his birth. Anyone with dual citizenship cannot be "natural born" because they can have divided allegiance. Thus technically he is a "naturalized citizen". Just sayin.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Us either. My hubby took a job making have the hourly wage he once did when the unemployment ran out. So, no hope and change here. Unless you count the 50% pay cut.

An honest man can't run.

The birther argument helps the republicans in power too by distracting their conservative base from the job that the people they put in office are NOT doing.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


S&F for your thread and OP.

I have no doubt that Obama is an American citizen and everyone demanding that the birth certificate be produced are racist. If they weren't, there would be a birther movement for every single president. This is the first time it has occurred and it is solely because Obama's father is from Africa.

The Birther Movement is the most ridiculous conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
Actually the rules are a bit different for the executive office. The standards are laid out in Article 2 of the Constitution. The main push is to attempt to prevent dual allegiances. Obama had dual citizenship as a result of his fathers Kenyan citizenship; Kenya being part of the British Empire at the time of his birth. Anyone with dual citizenship cannot be "natural born" because they can have divided allegiance. Thus technically he is a "naturalized citizen". Just sayin.
In order to have your dual citizenship recognized by the US government you have to actually claim it, Obama never claimed his Commonwealth citizenship.

Also there is nothing preventing someone with dual citizenship from being the President, take the time to actually read Article 2. As well the US recognizes dual citizenship if the second citizenship does not require one to renounce their allegiance to the United States.

For example I could claim my grandfathered Italian citizenship and be eligible for the POTUS because Italy does not require a grandfathered citizen to renounce their birth citizenship.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


My intention was to be brief in my response to the OP and not to present an exhaustive thesis on Constitutional Law. The fact is I have read Article 2 as well as the entire Constitution and your premise is incorrect. In short, the law includes the offspring of the British subject (Obama SR.)-British Law that is. The interpretation of the Presidential eligibility clause has been debated since the birth of the Constitution. For you to make such broad statements concerning it only shows your ignorance on the topic. I do not have the time nor the inclination to give an expository on the Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Convention of 1787, John Jay, or any of the founding fathers interpretations or reasoning behind wanting the POTUS to be a natural BORN citizen. Suffice it to say, they were very worried about foreign influence in our govt. as well we should be today.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
This whole thing was for Obama, too keep people talking about Obama. No publicity is bad publicity.
He is a terrible president and that alone is his downfall.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
An originalist view on the Constitution is a very dangerous and stupid thing. As well to top it off when Kenya gained independence all Kenyan-born British citizens (IE his father) lost their British citizenship and gained Kenyan citizenship and since Kenya does not permit dual citizenship Obama legally does not have it.
edit on 4/27/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


Another broad statement!! Thank goodness we have you to interpret the intentions of the framers of our Constitution. I can certainly see the stupidity in trying to preserve the original intent of our Constitution as opposed to the manner in which it is treated today. The evidence supports that the founding fathers did not want foreign influence infiltrating the office of our Commander in Chief. If the person EVER had dual citizenship is the precedent, not if he lost it because of a foreign policy. Are you narrow-minded and naive enough to think that just because Kenya dropped his citizenship because he did not make a pledge of allegiance to Kenya and renounce allegiance to any other country, that there is no possibility of foreign influence, i.e the Obama apology tour? The manner in which our Constitution is handled presently is a major contributor to the decline of this once great nation. Try doing some real research.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Original intent only works in the time period that it was created in. Times change, culture changes, everything changes. Trying to apply original intent to a society that has changed massively in the 200-odd years that the writers wrote the document is a horrible practice. No one is free from foreign influence in our modern world, isolationism is impossible.
Should we prohibit anyone from becoming President who can't prove that his family has lived in the US for at least 3 generations? Cause you know his parents or grandparents could impart their scary foreign values on their children and ruin our nation.


Both James Buchanan and Chester Arthur had dual citizenship at their time of birth due to jus sanguinis. The nation didn't fall apart (well besides the fact Buchanan sucked) and fall victim to the British Empire during their presidencies.
edit on 4/27/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/27/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


You are right to a degree. If the Constitution were a living document, designed to evolve with the times without physical change, then why include the mechanism for amendment?
If you want to change, amend.
The document is of brilliant design and creation.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
Original intent only works in the time period that it was created in. Times change, culture changes, everything changes. Trying to apply original intent to a society that has changed massively in the 200-odd years that the writers wrote the document is a horrible practice.


The Constitution was meant as a limitation to government.

When it comes to government seeking to always increase in power and morph into tyranny, this does not change, it never changed, it never will change.

Should freedom of speech be changed because times have changed?

Should being secure in your home be changed because times have changed?

Should the government hack into your email because times and culture have changed?

Should the government be able to seize your property for "the greater good" without just compensation because culture changed?

The problem with disrespecting the Constitution is that the original intent of the Constitution was to protect against the government becoming tyrannical. This original intent must never be changed, even though amendments can be made. Turning the Constitution into a "living breathing document" invites abuse because the government will just change interpretations and come up will silly excuses to trample on our rights.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


3 generations? No. Only 14 years like the Constitution stipulates. Things change? Society changes? Yes. So we should just scrap the whole thing? Why not issue the Constitution to our soldiers as field toilet paper? The President took an oath to PRESERVE, protect and defend the Constitution... Gee if the Commander in Chief thinks its kinda important, dontcha think it might be? No wonder our country has been so weakened. It is spineless to let society, change, modernism, etc. trump the foundation that this country was built upon. It is lazy to not challenge everything both foreign and domestic that can come against our freedoms.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
An originalist view on the Constitution is a very dangerous and stupid thing.


It must be very dangerous to have freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.....



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by SG-17
 


3 generations? No. Only 14 years like the Constitution stipulates. Things change? Society changes? Yes. So we should just scrap the whole thing? Why not issue the Constitution to our soldiers as field toilet paper? The President took an oath to PRESERVE, protect and defend the Constitution... Gee if the Commander in Chief thinks its kinda important, dontcha think it might be? No wonder our country has been so weakened. It is spineless to let society, change, modernism, etc. trump the foundation that this country was built upon. It is lazy to not challenge everything both foreign and domestic that can come against our freedoms.

Yes, continue to put words into my mouth (where did I ever say to scrap the whole thing?).

This country was founded on the principles of freedom, equality (at that time only for white men), and isolationism (IE minding our own business). Humanism and enlightenment.

That mostly hasn't changed.

If you want to keep with the original intent of the founders we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and leave the UN. But we can't, why? The world is too interconnected now there is no avoiding other nations anymore. Why not make it so that only white men have equality too?

The Constitution is a living document, it always has been, it always will be. Why else can Amendments void older Amendments or alter Articles? Hell if the original intent wasn't that the Constitution was a living document they wouldn't have included Article 5.

The idea of respecting original intent is only reasonable in facets that do not change, basic human rights for one.

Also the reason our nation is falling is not because our foundation is being weakened, it is due to an overabundance of ignorance and outright stupidity. The Tea Party comes to mind instantly.
edit on 4/27/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join