Hawaii Verifies Obama a Dual Citizen: Not Qualified For Presidency

reply to post by Autumnal

There is no way you are this stupid.

correct, but does that mean you are ??

You said dual citizenship disqualifies you for the office of president

you can repeat the above as many times as you like, it'll never make it true.
then again, maybe you're just practicing the "Obamaway" of persuasion.
lie, rinse, repeat, lie some more and eventually someone might believe it.

no need to explain your confusion, it is clearly evident.

If some other country declares Mitt a citizen, he is disqualified.

this is just pure nonsense but if that's all you've got, carry on.

Are you suggesting that Obama was birthed by two different countries?

nope, but by this statement, i'm guessing you are.
let us know how that works out, ok ?

Originally posted by Shadowalker
reply to post by Shoonra

 

Nope they made CLAIMS so far and nothing more. .

Seems all birther threads have the exact same problem.

reply to post by ntech


Once again it doesn't matter what the intention of the Founding Fathers was. Like many things in the Constitution they left the term natural born citizen vague so it could be defined by the courts of later generations. Currently the authoritative precedent regarding natural born citizenship is Lynch v. Clarke. This case determined that one merely needs to be born on US soil to be considered a natural born citizen.

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Not Hawaii's place to answer those questions for him, he answers those questions for the state of Arizona.
Hawaii just needs to answer if they have definite proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Sure. And given the way public and politica officials are given to lie today, they they can pony up the proof.
Just saying so is no proof. But as Holder can hold out, so can other officials that have a clear deadline they want to get beyond.

reply to post by raresf


Minor v. Happersett determined no such thing. The Justices declared that Minor was a natural born citizen due to being born on US soil and having parent who were both US citizens. However, they explicitly stated that they were not defining the term natural born citizen as that was not the purview of the case.

Okay, first, don't blame me for the headline. It is directly from the article.

The "article" is someone's personal blog.

Congrats on some great detective work.

I hope that at some point, years in the future, all the birthers look back at the precious time they all wasted on this "issue".

Originally posted by Honor93
actually, he was voted in by the electoral college and supported by a majority of the general population.
NOT voted in by the American majority, but believe whatever soothes your soul.

So you said "majority of the general population" instead of "American majority" and somehow that makes it any different? I think you are just argumentative, and like most birthers, will not admit when they are wrong.

The voting majority of each state brings in the voters for the electoral college, so no matter what way you put it, Obama was voted in by popular demand!

You lose, he is still your president, and life goes on.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. (See previous)

Need more info.

WHEN did Dunham move to Hawaii?

WHEN was Hawaii admitted to the union?

WHEN was Obama born?

And finally,..

HOW OLD was Dunham at the time of birth?

These questions all have important bearing on the requirement above.

So, in conclusion, Obama's parents meet those requirements. Birthers don't have a leg to stand on.

maybe they do, maybe they don't. The answer to that question resides in the answers to the above questions.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


When has (even IF true) "Dual Citizenship" been a disqualification, per the United States Consitution?


Um.....George Washington may have "qualified" as being a "Dual Citizen", correct?

I mean, break this down to its constituent parts:

The Constitution, as regards qualifications to be President:

HERE

And, here, the "definition" of www.usconstitution.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">"Natural Born Citizen"

(LINK is bad ^ ^ ^....just follow the one in the upper link).



How "difficult" is this to understand?

reply to post by sirhumperdink


Try reading the constitution.....repeat....READ the constitution.....they grandfathered themselves in since it was impossible for their parents to b born here....you really think the founders were that stupid???

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.

It just goes to show you that people who keep blindly defending Obama have never even read or understood the constitution or the federalist papers...that is why this illegal treasonous action was so easily perpetrated!!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. (See previous)

Need more info.

WHEN did Dunham move to Hawaii?

WHEN was Hawaii admitted to the union?

WHEN was Obama born?

And finally,..

HOW OLD was Dunham at the time of birth?

These questions all have important bearing on the requirement above.

So, in conclusion, Obama's parents meet those requirements. Birthers don't have a leg to stand on.

maybe they do, maybe they don't. The answer to that question resides in the answers to the above questions.

www.google.com

reply to post by timetothink


THIS is well understood, already:

......they grandfathered themselves in since it was impossible for their parents to b born here....

PLEASE, as a "Constitutionalist" yourself, read the links and point out where "Dual Citizenship" (even IF true) presently "disqualifies" a person from being the United States President.

Where, in the Constitution, is written this?

How "desperate" have the "Obama-haters" become, of late???

WoW!!!

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

Try reading the constitution.....repeat....READ the constitution.....they grandfathered themselves in since it was impossible for their parents to b born here....you really think the founders were that stupid???

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.

It just goes to show you that people who keep blindly defending Obama have never even read or understood the constitution or the federalist papers...that is why this illegal treasonous action was so easily perpetrated!!

edit on 1-6-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

MOST of us are well aware of that..... you know, the ones who show YOU the same Constitution and the same Official writings and tell YOU to read.... yet you don't...
Just sayin

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Okay, even if he is declared ineligible, hasn't he already been POTUS for his full term? Can we rewind the clock? Can we unbeat a dead horse? It's a done deal no matter his birth place, or can we ask for a 'do over' for the past four years? Everyone has to go back to where they were four years ago and let's do it all over again with McCain and Palin. There. That should do it.

Okay, I guess he could be determined to be ineligible for the next election, but is that going to really happen?

That's my thoughts, and why I don't much care about this issue any more. The damage is already done - they've successfully installed a man in the office in contravention to Constitutional requirements. The country is now irreparably damaged, and requires a re-boot from the very beginning.

BTW - McCain/Palin would have been no better, and this same issue would have come up, with the proponents and the detractors merely switching sides. The bets were hedged in the last election, and they are being hedged in this one already.

Reboot.

reply to post by nenothtu


Read the wikipedia artcile I linked to.

It isn't that hard.

Boy.

Edit:

Here you go:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by nenothtu


But, there WAS no contradiction to the Constitution!!!!

.......they've successfully installed a man in the office in contravention to Constitutional requirements.

However, I thoroughly AGREE that a "McCain/Palin" Presidency/Vice-Presidency would have been a MAJOR disaster................

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

www.google.com

I already know the answers. I'm hoping someone else will get bored, ask themselves the questions, and seek out the answers on their own.

Oddly, some of the answers have mysteriously changed since 2008, mostly pertaining to ages.

How odd. Who would or could put out false and/or changed information on the incorruptable internet?

reply to post by nenothtu


Sorry, wrong posting.

reply to post by Annee


The Founding Fathers (or The Framers ) knew that a President who had dual citizenship at the time of his birth (like Obama) could present a security risk to the country. So for the office of President and for only the office of President they imposed a special citizenship requirement, that of "Natural Born Citizen." This term was well know to The Framers, so well known that they did not think it needed to be defined in the Constitution. They were all aware of de Vattel's famous work on The Law of Nations and British Common law. They did not impose this requirement on Senators or Representatives. That fact alone should be evidence of the special intent of The Framers to protect this very special office.