viet vet

have a real nice day or what is left of it

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

Call me stupid or whatever the hell you want but I agree with vet. If someone is born on American soil they are natural born. The birther controversy had to do whether Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii and had nothing to do with who is father was. If it were that simple he would have never been allowed to run in the first place.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

That's correct. He shouldn't have been allowed to run. The Constitution states BOTH parents must be natural born citizens. His father was a British citizen. Regardless of where he was born both parents were not US Citizens, much less natural born citizens.

viet vet

Some time ago(I have been going around with these birthers for some time now) I wrote a few weeks ago,during the 2007 democratic primary Hillary would have eviscerated him if he wasn't eligible and he was born on American soil to an American citizen

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

ONE citizen, not TWO.

The Congress doesn't have the cajones to impeach him. That is the problem.

Hillary was bought off with the promise of Sec. of State job, in addition to the promise of Obama's assistance in her run for the Presidency in 2016. Both she and Bill acquiesced to this.

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

[quote=Old_Gringo]That's correct. He shouldn't have been allowed to run. The Constitution states BOTH parents must be natural born citizens. His father was a British citizen. Regardless of where he was born both parents were not US Citizens, much less natural born citizens.[/qu

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.

Please state exactly where in the constitution anything about the status ones parents in the requirements for running for President. Be specific please. Maybe you meant the results of a SCOTUS decision and not the constitution?

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

[quote=DeePools][quote=Old_Gringo]That's correct. He shouldn't have been allowed to run. The Constitution states BOTH parents must be natural born citizens. His father was a British citizen. Regardless of where he was born both parents were not US Citizens, much less natural born citizens.[/qu

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.

Please state exactly where in the constitution anything about the status ones parents in the requirements for running for President. Be specific please. Maybe you meant the results of a SCOTUS decision and not the constitution?[/quote]



I have to go back and locate the M. v H. SCOTUS decision. I have forgotten the names of the litigants and have to dig them up. When I locate them I shall be happy to impart the knowledge to you. Pardon the wait.

viet vet

the Admiral says it is time to cool it, good night see you tomorrow

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

If you mean " Minor v. Happersett " you are way off base. Natural born citizen was only mentioned in case, it was not ruled on. The ruling in this case had to do with a woman's right to vote in Missouri and was not about the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen. SCOTUS said if someone born within US jurisdiction (without regard to status of their parents) are natural born citizens or not, it simply says there are doubts and that it is NOT NECESSARY to solve those doubts in this decision.

SCOTUS has thus never ruled on this matter.

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

Besides the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was overturned by the 20th amendment; which is the amendment that gave women the right to vote.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Yes, they didn't vote on this. But if one reads the case very carefully one can ascertain why they didn't vote on it and left the other applicable points alone. Other parts of the Constitution do touch upon the question of parents and natural born parents. If one searches very diligently they will find the answer to the question.

Thanks for giving me the name of the case.

DeePools Loc: America's Heartland

You're welcome.

The point is interpretation of the term was only speculated and was not ruled on; therefore, it holds zero legal or constitutional power.

I'm been a diligent student of the constitution for years and have never seen anywhere an interpretation of natural born citizen in regard to the status of ones parents. I think this is simply more grasping at straws by the political right.

saloopo Loc: Colorado

The 19th amendment assured the right of citizens to vote, not the 20th.

And no, it did not overturn Minor.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

You are apparently more cognizant and knowledgeable about the constitution than I. But I do remember the part about both parents must be citizens of the US. This was because the Framers of the Constitution didn't want anyone with a fealty toward G. Britain. I will defer the lack of 'natural born citizen' to you until I can clarify it to my satisfaction, one way or the other. Thanks for your assistance.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Didn't the 19th give women the right to vote? Men already had that right.

The 20th has to do with the terms of the Pres. and V. Pres.