reply to post by Signals
Well, this topic will be like all the other one's we seek answers to. Elusive.
This birth certificate could be real, the one put out by whitehouse could be real.
Or maybe the combination of the two is what is real. No matter how much we dig, we will never get the truth.
If you research beyond a doubt and find one you know is real, someone, somewhere will find a way to discredit you. We see it here everyday. Someone
says Hoax, then others say Not Hoax, and the debate goes on in perpetual motion.
I like the evidence so I can make up my mind. And for me, I think we are being lied to at all levels on this birth certificate issue. I do not think
anyone vetted his birth records to prove he was a Natural Born US Citizen. Seems this is the problem, not that he is a US citizen.
Article II Section I 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 for the Office of the President..."
The real issue is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a Natural Born Citizen is, or I do not know of a ruling on this. That means that
until this is challenged and ruled upon, as long as the person is a citizen of the US they will be allowed to be president.This can be concluded by
what we have today, a real question as to if the President is a Natural Born Citizen in our definition.
Below is a excerpt from one Supreme Court Ruling. Like most rulings there is ambiguity in the answer. It does not come out and give a clear definition
of what a Natural Born Citizen is.It bases it on English common law, and an argument can be made that if the child is born anywhere, by an American
parent, in a land that has an allegiance to the USA, then that could make the child 'Natural" Born.
Plenty of room to argue as an advocate on either side.
The case was about a Chinese-American citizen being prevented from entering the country from a trip to China. The final ruling can be found in the
link, but they affirmed he was born in the United States to foreign parents, but he himself was a United States Citizen by birth.
GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be
acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this
country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born
citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . .
We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always
obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.