• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

What political affiliation are truthers? What political affiliation are people who challenged McCain's citizenship? You don't have to be a racist to be a conspiracy loony.

Ok.

I stepped away from the racism.

My point is.

Those who attack Obama on his citizenship are 99.9% of the Right wing persuasion.

Not people to usually go after "their" own president.

We can't say what really might have happened if McCain were president, but my guess his citizenship would not have been an issue, that's my only point.
 
The "natural-born citizen" requirement just means that a person was a US citizen at the time of their birth. Any other citizenships they may ALSO have had at the time of their birth are irrelevant. Fun fact: We've already had a president who was a dual citizen of two countries. Anyone in the class know who it was?
Wrong. The presidential clause uses natural born citizen and citizen (at the time of the adoption of this constitution)

See Article 2 Section 1. It uses two types of citizens:

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.



The founders wanted no foreign influence on their presidents so they changed the clause from citizen to natural born citizen so that future presidents would have sole allegiance to the United States and no divided allegiances. The creator of the 14th Amenment John Bingham defined natural born citizen as this:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Notice he includes your parents allegiance? Obama's father had allegiance to the British Crown at jrs birth. Our president is not a natural born citizen.
 
And besides all that, he's black... right? That's all this is really about.
No. It's not about race. Eisenhower had to show his birth certificate. He was white.
 
No. It's not about race. Eisenhower had to show his birth certificate. He was white.

Yeah and once he showed it, that was it, end of story.

Obama has shown is, it tells you WHERE he was born and WHEN.

If you're not satisfied along with the newspaper accounts then I'm sorry, but I can't help you :shrug:
 
Wrong. The presidential clause uses natural born citizen and citizen (at the time of the adoption of this constitution)

See Article 2 Section 1. It uses two types of citizens:

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.



The founders wanted no foreign influence on their presidents so they changed the clause from citizen to natural born citizen so that future presidents would have sole allegiance to the United States and no divided allegiances. The creator of the 14th Amenment John Bingham defined natural born citizen as this:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Notice he includes your parents allegiance? Obama's father had allegiance to the British Crown at jrs birth. Our president is not a natural born citizen.

Is that definition law?
 
Ok.

I stepped away from the racism.

My point is.

Those who attack Obama on his citizenship are 99.9% of the Right wing persuasion.

Not people to usually go after "their" own president.

We can't say what really might have happened if McCain were president, but my guess his citizenship would not have been an issue, that's my only point.

We can look at what happened to Bush and make a pretty safe bet. Remember, Bush was AWOL, stole the election, either let 9/11 happen or planned it himself, and was a war criminal.
 
We can look at what happened to Bush and make a pretty safe bet. Remember, Bush was AWOL, stole the election, either let 9/11 happen or planned it himself, and was a war criminal.

Meh, I think a Republican president after Bush would have never heard the end of Bush's crap to be honest.
 
Again, how many non-American presidents have we had? When was it ever an issue before? Seriously, an issue?
All post grandfather clause presidents were natural born citizens. Several (Buchanan, Hoover and Wilson) had a parent that was foreign born but they became naturalized U.S. citizens before they were born. With them now having two parents (plural) who were U.S. citizens at their births, they were born natural born citizens. Now one exception that has been rumoured who slipped through possibly was Chester Arthur in 1885 when Garfield was shot. He was said to have been born in Vermont or Canada but his dad was born in Ireland. Arthur wouldn't show his records and there issues of his eligibility back then. It was later that it was rumored that Arthurs dad was naturalized when Chester was 14 thus if that was the case then Chester was never eligible and was a British dual citizen but that is no excuse today for Obama because of Athur. The founders would have never let Arthur take office.
 
Last edited:
Well then Trump need to stop saying we don't know what hospital.

snopesobamascreenshot2.jpg
 
Yeah and once he showed it, that was it, end of story.

Obama has shown is, it tells you WHERE he was born and WHEN.

If you're not satisfied along with the newspaper accounts then I'm sorry, but I can't help you :shrug:

Sorry but the problem is that Obama's father was not a citizen. If Obama was born in the Lincoln bedroom he wouldn't be a natural born citizen and eligible for Article 2 Section 1. He was born a dual British Citizen. That was never the intent of the founders at the adoption of our constitution especially after we just finished a war with England. There was no way they were going to take a chance for a future president to be born with a allegiance to another nation.
 
All post grandfather clause presidents were natural born citizens. Several (Buchanan, Hoover and Wilson) had a parent that was foreign born but they became naturalized U.S. citizens before they were born. With them now having two parents (plural) who were U.S. citizens at their births, they were born natural born citizens. Now one exception that has been rumoured who slipped through possibly was Chester Arthur in 1885 when Garfield was shot. He was said to have been born in Vermont or Canada but his dad was born in Ireland. Arthur wouldn't show his records and there issues of his eligibility back then. It was later that it was rumored that Arthurs dad was naturalized when Chester was 14 thus if that was the case then Chester was never eligible and was a British dual citizen but that is no excuse today for Obama because of Athur. The founders would have never let Arthur take office.

How do you know what the founders would do?
 
Arthur wouldn't show his records and there issues of his eligibility back then.
I would like to see where you learned this particular tidbit. If you don't mind.
 
How do you know what the founders would do?
That was never the intent of the founders at the adoption of our constitution especially after we just finished a war with England. There was no way they were going to take a chance for a future president to be born with a allegiance to another nation, especially England. Use common sense and put yourself in their shoes.
 
No. It's not about race. Eisenhower had to show his birth certificate. He was white.
He did NOT have to show his COLB or whatever. Further, based on the link you provided, his birth certificate didn't exist at all anywhere until he was 60 years old.

The Eisenhower case proves that a simple birth certificate is ample to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.
 
Now it heads to the Arizona republican dominated house and then to Governor Jan Brewers desk to be signed into law. I believe this is going to make the White House implode as this is now mainstream. Trump is making this constitutional crisis come to light and there is no doubt the media can't ignore this issue anymore like they did in the 08 election. Now since Arizona Senate has taken the first step in becoming the first state to pass a presidential eligibility bill to make sure a candidate produces more documentation to ensure that they are actually a natural born citizen, I think it will make other states like Texas go ahead and pass theirs with other states following. Obama is in trouble because he is going to have to deal with this no matter if he likes it or not.




Arizona Senate approves 'birther' bill

PHOENIX - The Arizona Senate has approved a revised bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens eligible to run for the office.

The bill approved Wednesday gives candidates additional ways to prove they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

It was prompted by the ongoing claim by some that there is no proof President Barack Obama was born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to be president.


While this bill is a good thing it will still not stop the birther-tards from believing in their idiotic conspiracy that Obama is a Kenyan. They claim the copy he released for everyone and their mom to see is a fake,so why would they believe that any other documents he presents is real? they would claim he used his presidential powers to steal a birth certificate from a hospital or ink washed and filled out the info.
 
If that isn't good enough for Arizona, it means that they are not giving full faith and credit to the documents of another state, which is unconstitutional.
IT'll be a stretch to show that requesting proper identification is somehow a violation of that clause. Before the Dept of Homeland Security et al existed, States had different versions of what it took to get a driver's license. AFAIK, no one thought to challenge that.

Also this bill doesn't ask for Obama's certificate, it asks for every presidential candidates.
 
Wrong. The presidential clause uses natural born citizen and citizen (at the time of the adoption of this constitution)

See Article 2 Section 1. It uses two types of citizens:

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.



The founders wanted no foreign influence on their presidents so they changed the clause from citizen to natural born citizen so that future presidents would have sole allegiance to the United States and no divided allegiances. The creator of the 14th Amenment John Bingham defined natural born citizen as this:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Notice he includes your parents allegiance? Obama's father had allegiance to the British Crown at jrs birth. Our president is not a natural born citizen.

Wrong. "Natural-born citizen" has (and always has) meant a person who was a US citizen at the time of their birth. The quote about "not owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty" does not refer to dual citizenship, it refers to special exceptions where a person can be born in the US and still not be entitled to US citizenship: If they are the child of a foreign diplomat, if they are the child of an invading/occupying military, or if they are the child of a Native American (prior to the Indian Citizenship Act). Such people were not considered US citizens because their first allegiance was to another sovereignty.

This does NOT apply to dual citizenship. We have already HAD a president who was a dual citizen of the United States and United Kingdom. His name was Chester Arthur.
 
IT'll be a stretch to show that requesting proper identification is somehow a violation of that clause.

1. Arizona requests proper documentation.
2. Hawaii provides them with the same documentation that has been public knowledge for many years now.
3. Arizona either accepts it and shuts up about it, or they argue that it's illegitimate. If they choose the latter, they are saying that Hawaii's records are not valid. That seems to be a pretty clear-cut violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause. What makes you think it would be a "stretch" to show that? What about this situation is the slightest bit unclear from a constitutional perspective?

Simon W. Moon said:
Before the Dept of Homeland Security et al existed, States had different versions of what it took to get a driver's license. AFAIK, no one thought to challenge that.

Every state has to accept the reality that you have a legitimate driver's license from your home state; that doesn't mean that every state has to allow you to drive when you're there if you don't mean their own requirements. Driving is something you DO; being born in a state is something that you already ARE.

Simon W. Moon said:
Also this bill doesn't ask for Obama's certificate, it asks for every presidential candidates.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this suddenly came up in the midst of the "birther" movement, when conspiracy nuts have accused the black president with a Muslim-sounding name of being born elsewhere. :roll:

What do you think of my proposed law? If any ex-governors of Massachusetts want to run for president, they have to prove that they have never been involved in polygamous marriages. I'm not referring to any specific person, just anyone who happens to meet that criteria.
 
Last edited:
That was never the intent of the founders at the adoption of our constitution especially after we just finished a war with England. There was no way they were going to take a chance for a future president to be born with a allegiance to another nation, especially England. Use common sense and put yourself in their shoes.

The founders were more interested in keeping religion out of politics than nitpicking about possible secret allegiances..
 
While this bill is a good thing it will still not stop the birther-tards from believing in their idiotic conspiracy that Obama is a Kenyan. They claim the copy he released for everyone and their mom to see is a fake,so why would they believe that any other documents he presents is real? they would claim he used his presidential powers to steal a birth certificate from a hospital or ink washed and filled out the info.

I was told a few weeks ago that even Hillary and McCain and congress are in on this conspiracy.....he was a little short on the WHY for all those claims, tho.
 
We can look at what happened to Bush and make a pretty safe bet. Remember, Bush was AWOL, stole the election, either let 9/11 happen or planned it himself, and was a war criminal.

Don't forget that Bush ordered Americans to throw food on their families too. :mrgreen:
 
We can look at what happened to Bush and make a pretty safe bet. Remember, Bush was AWOL, stole the election, either let 9/11 happen or planned it himself, and was a war criminal.

Going AWOL I can believe, the rest of it would require intellect he does not have....
 
Please read this and click the links inside the article. It is a facinating read. Let me know what you think of what the researchers uncoverd.

US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public. « Natural Born Citizen
This does not appear to say that Arthur hid anything. Further, it's not clear that the Secretary of State or the State Department has the power to interpret the Constitution authoritatively. Generally that power is thought to reside in the judicial branch, not the executive.

Also, it would be nice if you admitted that the Cong Globe was the documentation of Congressional debates where people said all sorts of things. These debate are also not often considered to be authoritative interpretations of the Constitution. So, you quote from the Congressional Globe doesn't really resolve a thing.

The Eisenhower case proves that a simple birth certificate is ample to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.
 
Back
Top Bottom