A recognized expert on the U.S. Constitution says the arguments put forward in a hearing today in Georgia challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president because his father never was a U.S. citizen are strong.
“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” Herb Titus told WND today after the hearing. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”
Watch Part 1 here
Where a person is born has no bearing on where your a “natural born citizen” or not. Both your parents must be US citizens at your birth to be a “natural born” citizen…..For those that still doubt Obama is qualified:
Supreme Court definition of “natural born” citizen:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike
Recent Comments