A simple constitutional question to consider

C4K, the short answer is, yes they are considered natural born citizens unless they renounce their citizenship.

 

It may not be. Here's the deal: There have been numerous court decisions and congressional actions over the last 80 years that have significantly confused and muddied the waters concerning who is a natural-born citizen and who is not.

For the time period from December 23, 1952, to November 13, 1986 (which cover both the Great Pretender and Mario Cruz), these are the rules:

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.​

Now, you really want to confuse the issue, consider the situation of a child born on international waters. I have a friend who, with her twin sister, were born on a ship out in the middle of the Atlantic while their parents were returning from Africa following a military assignment at an embassy (can't remember which one). She and her sister had to sign affidavits on their 18th birthday declaring American citizenship, or renouncing it, one or the other. Obviously they chose to be U.S. citizens, but had they not signed the affidavits and submitted them to what was then known as INS, they would have effectively been women without a country.

 

Supposedly, Obama was born in Hawaii. Is the claim so weak we are now trying to justify his Kenyan birth?

 

No. A natural born citizen is one born to two parents that were born in the U.S,

 

Better check out the link I posted, Ponch.

 

I did. It's bunk.


If we were to define "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who is a "citizen at birth", our definition of "natural born citizen" would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines "citizen at birth." Under existing law, all children born outside the United State to parents who are citizens are "citizens at birth". Therefore, using our hypothetical definition of "natural born citizen" as anyone who is a citizen at birth, all those born abroad to US-citizen parents would be statutorily defined as "natural born citizens" because their status as citizens at birth would be granted by statute. So that definition of "natural born citizen" would mean that Congress could change the meaning of "natural born citizen" by changing the rules of naturalization. It would also mean that Congress, simply by changing the naturalization rules, could also change who was or was not eligible to be President.


That cannot be what the Founders intended. Had it been, they would simply have granted Congress the power to dictate who shall or shall not be a citizen (or any sort,) and who could or could not be President. But they pointedly did not grant Congress any power to determine who would or would not naturally be citizens, nor who would be eligible to be President. The only power they granted Congress regarding citizenship was to make rules regarding naturalization of citizens (the making of citizens who would not be citizens naturally.) And they granted Congress no power to determine Presidential eligibility rules at all.

It may be—and this essay so argues—that all natural born citizens are also native born citizens. But the reverse cannot be true without not only creating logical contradictions, but without granting Congress powers that were clearly intended to be denied to them.



SOURCE

 

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

So there ya have it, Obama is not now or has he ever been qualified to hold the office of POTUS.

His place of birth makes no difference as only one of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. So basically the whole argument about whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is a big distraction.

 

Apply to Senator Cuz as well?

 

It applies to anyone running for the office of POTUS.

 

Sorry, but you are mistaken as is the source you quote.

George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party presidential nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents.

 

That proves nothing Crabby. They are two different examples with different circumstances.

Excuse me if I put more credence in the words of the framers of the constitution and four supreme court decisions that are based on the definition of "natural born citizen"as the framers knew and understood it and the law rather than the personal opinion of an avid Obama supporter.

The man who Obama claims as his father was not a citizen at the time of Barrack's birth so, Barrack or Barry or whatever his name is cannot possibly be a constitutional natural born citizen. Therefore Obama holds the office of POTUS fraudulently. Now, if you absolutely have to blame republicans then blame them for violating their own oath of office and being complicit in committing fraud against the United States by continuing to allow a person to hold an office that he was never eligible to hold in the first place.