For Reference, the Constitution as written, and nowhere can I find any amendment related to the requirements to be President. All I find is this, from Article 2, Section 1:
The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. An obsolete part of this clause provides that instead of being a natural born citizen, a person may be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
The only operative part currently is … “must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old”, the rest pertains to the original founding. The reason for this last clause was to extend eligibility to Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, regardless of their place of birth, who were born under the allegiance of a foreign sovereign before the founding of the United States. Without this clause, no one would have been eligible to be president until thirty-five years after the founding of the United States.
Looking at the phrase “natural born citizen” it means born to parents who are both US citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA.
I still can’t find anyone who will delineate how an American citizen mother and a Kenyan citizen father makes you a natural born citizen. Because this would mean any third world anchor baby could be president. Is this what we now have, the anchor baby president? So until someone can prove Obama’s father was a US citizen on Barack Huessien Obama’s birth day, then I guess we have a pure media concoction, brought on by the “hide the birth certificate” media scam.
Or is it the great msm racist con-game, to totally destroy the Constitution?
Because if you take this to the extreme, you get anybody in the world can be president, as long as they were born in the US, regardless parentage, and allegiance. I doubt this is what the founders meant by “natural born citizen” … i.e. born of two parents who were American citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA. This provides the case with no allegiance to America, which is what strangely we have with the current anti-American president.
Ann Coulter nails the birth certificate issue again, as she has every time I’ve heard her opine. The reason the issue had traction with otherwise sensible Americans is precisely because Obama’s loyalties seem so “foreign.” His agenda has always been global and he clearly rejects American exceptionalism.
Who wants to try, I am all ears.
Over at the legal blog “Natural Born Citizen” there is this:
They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.
If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.
The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance.