Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President
I did look at the PM and the post you mention.
Personally, after reading up a bit on the whole issue...
It seems that "natural born citizen" has never really been defined.
But many people seem to have the opinion that "natural born citizen" = someone born to at least one (1) US citizen parent, no matter the location.
That, at least, was my understanding of the situation.
But I have yet to find any definitive definition of the phrase.
Following your post on the other forum, it would appear that your whole argument hinges on the question of “was Pres. Obama born in Hawaii?”
If he was, then he is eligible for the office of POTUS.
If he wasn’t, then according to that post and the list that you linked in reference, this clause (from that list) is the only one which might apply, as his father is (was?) an “alien”, and the other clauses cannot apply:
Did not, in your opinion, apply to Pres. Obama because:(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
- honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
- employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
So. Basically, your argument was:(g) Would not apply because (while Barry Hussein's momma) Ann Dunham was indeed an American Citizen who lived at least five years in the U.S. prior to barry's birth... with at least 2 of those years taking place after she was over the age of 14,.... Ann Dunham was NOT in the military nor under the guardianship of parents who were actively in the Military.... Nor was Barry Hussein's momma (Ann Dunham) in Kenya.... serving in any capacity for an "international organization" as defined by U.S. Code, Title 22, Section 288.
IF Pres. Obama was not born in Hawaii, THEN (under the clause above) he is not eligible for POTUS.
I follow the logic, and agree that you seem to be correct.
Regarding the clause mentioned:
Immediately after reading it, one of my first thoughts was “damn, that’s a cumbersome phrasing”…
It looks like the clause was written and the “Provided, That…” was tacked on the end.
So, a question:
Would you, Chuz Life, have an issue with a change in the law removing the “Provided, That…” part?
And if so, why?
Sorry for the wall of text.
Last edited by The Mark; 07-26-10 at 05:40 PM.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Your summary is spot on!
As for changing the code to remove the "provided that... " portion?
I honestly don't know how I would feel about that. I would like to read some of the arguments that lead to it being incorporated in the first place.
Thank you X10 for the serious consideration you gave my posts on this.
It would have been all too easy to yell "birther" and not even consider it at all.
You've made a pretty good day even better.