Please stick with evidence, testimony, legal precedents, historical references used by and commonly known to the framers of the Constitution, and reasonable inferences that can be made from what is and is not known.
Other than that, anything relevant is fair game.

Note, however, the question.
I am not interested in debating or accusing whether or not Obama is now a US Citizen. Natural Born status is stricter than that, and has always been. <b>The question is, exactly what does it mean for a Citizen to have "Natural Born" status, what evidence would establish such status for a person, and will Barack Obama or others ever publicly produce such evidence?</b>

I am not at all interested in whether anyone likes to make up new nicknames like "Birther" and throw it around - as if naming someone with a point of view lessens their credibility, rather than strengthening it. I know that only a growing number of people believing and agreeing with a perspective can grant the idea sufficient power to threaten people's comfort enough to give them a name.

It is irrelevant who 'else' out there thinks what, except where you are quoting them due to some research or reasoning they have made that is pertinent to the discussion.

Discussing it, however, is still useful and relevant, for many reasons, not the least of which is the legality and validity of any orders acted upon by the military that have originated from a President who may or may not have "Qualified" under the Constitution for that office.

I find the whole thing fascinating, since no long form actual "Birth Certificate" has ever been released to the public, the Senate, or even to the DNC, who obviously doesn't even want to look and made a point during the primary to squash efforts to even ask, so we know that no 'vetting' was done then.

What do you all think?

I think it is very odd that a congressional hearing was held on the citizenship status of John McCain but Obama got by with just a computer image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth which he apparently e-mailed to Howard Dean the Chairman of the Democratic Party. The state of Hawaii has a long reputation for providing birth certificates to those born elsewhere. But what really bothers me is how the mass media from day one has ignored, discredited and ridiculed anybody who brings up this question.

It's just sad that people say that we [common citizens] have no right to question. Any attempts to find out are squashed as a "you have no right to know." Stating that he said he was and it was up to us to prove he's lying, without benefit of 'discovery' to aid us.

It would just be a simple matter of turning over the long form BC, passports, school records (scholarship information) etc. which he has not done. As far as I know, every other candidate voluntarily turned over that information. Why does he resist?

"Natural Born" covers people who are born outside the country as long as one or both parents are US citizens, and (in 1961) his mother was at least 18 years of age. [the last I think has been changed.] If she was younger, then she could not automatically pass on her citizenship to him.

And as long as his parents did not renounce his citizenship to another country. I think he's got it pretty well covered. Though it's been 'said' through news sources that his mother did in fact renounce it in order to get him into the school in Indonesia. But again, you cannot confirm that information because it's being held in a form of gag order.

Yes, "natural born" status applies to Barack Obama.

Why do I say this? Because of the people who have looked into it.

A wide variety of people stood to benefit by proving that Obama is not eligible for the Presidency, including but not limited to Hilary Clinton, John McCain, and all of the other candidates for the Presidency in 2008. A Republican-leaning and led Supreme Court, who have NOTHING to lose by voting and speaking their consciences all had opportunity to weigh in, as did the leadership of both the major political parties (as well as some of the less major!) both within and without public office.

None of those parties found ANY problem with the President's qualifications.

Concealing evidence that the President was ineligible would require a vast conspiracy of people who apparently despise each other, many of whom have much to gain, many of whom have nothing to lose. Such a conspiracy would have more than enough resources to make sure that no contrary evidence could ever be found.

Interestingly, there are several people who stand to gain significantly by "rabble-rousing" - discussion or revelations of controversy (some true, some false) has elevated the careers (and bank accounts) of several people, not least the dentist-turned-real-estate-agent-turned-lawyer-turned-pundit Orly Taitz.

So while I do NOT have personal access to a big pile of documents to which I do not in fact have any right of access, I DO have a big fat "no problem" from all the people who would benefit from finding a problem, as well as a gigantic "there's a problem!" from all the people who are making fat bank by saying "there's a problem!!"

So I'm good, thanks.

Let's not overdo this topic. It's pretty well accepted fact that The President has met the Constituional requirements to hold his office.

quote:

Originally posted by OldAFcop:
Let's not overdo this topic. It's pretty well accepted fact that The President has met the Constituional requirements to hold his office.

Not by me, why hide all your records if your not hiding anything? Sorry, he doesn't pull the wool over my eyes.

For some time I paid little attention to this subject thinking it the purview of the extreme right or fony fact-plants of the extreme left.

As time went by I finally decided to just look into it. WOW was I shocked. So I began to follow it, thinking no, this will be resolved soon. Now we are heading down the road nearly a year and not only has it not been resolved but more and more legit questions have been surfaced.

NoBama can solve this and do so for less than $12 bucks. Getting a certified original copy of the BC is easy today for all but some of our oldest citizens. My dad did not have one, was not born in a hospital nor was a Doctor present. But that was Oklahoma was not a state at that time and they were a long ways from anything.

For me it boils down to:

Since its easy to prove then do it!

Take the claims that have the appearance of being legit and dispel them in an honest and open fashion.

Simple as that...

I am a firm believer in 'see your friends, see you' and history predicts the future. NoBama whole life is shrouded in mystery. His college days are hidden from us, his wealth, multi-million dollar home and lifestyle from a man who shows little if any employment in his lifetime. His circle of friends speak loudly and volumes.

When address the press or American people, if he opens his mouth he lies.

quote:

Originally posted by OldAFcop:
Let's not overdo this topic. It's pretty well accepted fact that The President has met the Constituional requirements to hold his office.

I have to question what a moderator is saying here? This subject is NOT overdone and NOT your shot to call if I read the terms of service correctly...correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot find any limitation on topics or how often they can be addressed. This is a free and open forum, but in your statement I sense a desire to control the subject matter of NoBama. Frankly that frightens me!

Natural Born Citizen, The Founders and Vattel


Barack Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States according to the definition the Founders used to write the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article II of the Constitution.

I had read that the Founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's, "The Law of Nations" for their definition of Natural Born Citizen, so I went on a search to confirm or disprove that assertion. What I discovered is of enormous significance.

Apparently, the Founders relied very heavily on Vattel's volume (published 1758) to defend their rights as far back as 1761, and to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

John Adams referred to the "law of nations" numerous times in his public, including Presidential, statements: See, for example, David McCullough's biography of Adams. Were these references to Vattel? Yes, they were!

It's said that when Adams first went to Europe as a diplomat for our new nation, he was already familiar with diplomatic practice and "the law of nations": "His library was replete with the works of Vattel, Wolff and others." (Gregg L. Lint).

In a letter to a friend (William Tudor; 21 August 1818), Adams stated that James Otis in his celebrated, fiery five-hour oration against the writs of assistance in February 1761, to a packed audience in the Old State House, named Vattel as one of his authorities. (In that speech, said Adams, "the Child Independence was born."). So Otis, the greatest lawyer in the Colonies, knew and referenced Vattel as an authority.

Historian Forrest McDonald says that Alexander Hamilton reserved his highest praise for Vattel's, " The Law of Nations;" further, we know that Hamilton referred often to Vattel in his cases, as did Aaron Burr and many of the other Founders.

David Armitage (www.Columbia.edu.cu) reports that when Congress was preparing to declare independence, they reached for Vattel; and that their resolution "spoke in the contemporary Vattelian language of sovereignty as independence."

MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, in 1775 at the Second Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin observed the importance of "The Law of Nations" on the Founders and ordered three copies of the latest edition, IN FRENCH, because the French edition was the most accurate.

Franklin wrote to his friend, Vattel's editor C.G.F Dumas, "Your edition of Vattel ... HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR CONGRESS, NOW SITTING ... who entertain a high and just esteem for their author."

Later, many of the same Delegates met to write the Constitution in that same Carpenter's (now Independence) Hall, that housed the Library Company of Philadelphia, which had (and still has) the Vattel volume.

Vattel, in Book I, the chapter, "Of The Citizens and Naturals;" defines Natural Born Citizens as "... those born in the country of parents who are citizens." (Plural).

Natural Born Citizen = (Born on American Soil) + (TWO citizen parents) (Not just one).

Forget the phoney birth certificate issue; Obama could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House, of an American citizen mother, with a long-form certificate of birth from Washington DC and he would still be ineligible to be President. Why?

Because his father was a British Subject, born in Kenya, under British jurisdiction. Obama was born with dual American & British citizenship. It's been said that 'What the Founders feared more than the plague was dual citizenship" because that meant dual allegiances and divided loyalty. To them, it was a national security issue, which is the reason they wanted two generations of loyalty for the Commander In Chief. For more, please see the blog by Citizen Attorney, Leo Donofrio, one of the most brilliant lawyers in America:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo is willing to litigate this issue, PRO BONO, for someone who has "standing" in the courts (active duty). He understands what it will take to win: A writ of quo warranto in the DC District Courts. All he needs is a "Winter Soldier." If you're willing to stand up, contact me and I can put you in touch with him:

usafaops@aol.com

"Let justice be done though the heavens may fall."

"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."

Natural Born Citizen, The Founders, Vattel (continued):

aol mail is down.

You can also reach me at:

loricci@lycos.com

The so-called birthers need to get the facts straight, but it seems no matter how many times some people are given the official truth of the matter by the Hawaiian governor, the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, as well as Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo who is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates, and US government officials, they just don't get it. One would think that some "Just can't handle the truth."

Obama's Birth Certificate By David Emery, About.com
http://urbanlegends.about.com/...David-Emery-1417.htm

THE SAGA OF Barack Obama's birth certificate is tortuous and ironic.

It began with the June 2008 release of a scan of Obama's state-issued Certification of Live Birth to quell rumors suggesting that his religious affiliation and country of origin might be other than what he claimed. Partisan scuttlebutt speculated that Obama's middle name was really "Mohammed," for example — which would lend support to rumblings that he had grown up a Muslim — and that he was actually born in Kenya, not the United States — which of course would mean he's not a natural-born citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency.
The document refuted both of those claims, yet somehow only managed to ignite further controversy.

First, it was labeled a forgery. Anonymous "experts" claimed they were able to detect anomalies in the scanned image that proved it couldn't possibly be authentic.

When that failed to fly, the document was assailed for being a "short-form" computer print-out as opposed to an original, hospital-issued birth record. A cry went up for the release of Obama's "real" birth certificate, which conspiracy theorists said was being "suppressed" by the state of Hawaii because of the potentially explosive information it could contain.

Six months into his presidency and fully a year after the Certification of Live Birth was first posted online, a small but increasingly vocal minority was still demanding to know why President Obama "refused" to show his birth certificate.

The proper response, of course, is that he had already done so. The document released in 2008 is a valid Hawaii birth certificate, vetted by multiple sources, proving that Barack Hussein Obama was born on U.S. soil on August 4, 1961.

Let's examine the allegations to the contrary.

CLAIM: The scanned Certification of Live Birth released by Obama is a forgery.

EXAMPLE: Personal message from a reader dated Dec. 10, 2008:
I am part of a citizen action group against LIES, BIAS and DISCRIMINATION in the media reporting, We will be taking part in lawsuits against biased media or those who fail to report the truth and evidence on matters involving the FACT that Obama is NOT eligible for office based on the FACTS that he FORGED his birth record and was NOT born the the United States!
STATUS: FALSE. "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," said Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson Janice Okubo when queried by the St. Petersburg Times' PolitiFact.com website in June 2008. The actual physical document was scrutinized a month later by researchers at FactCheck.org (see hi-res images), who determined it had been duly signed, sealed, and certified by the state registrar, and "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."
Sources:
• Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter. Politifact.com, July 2009
• Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org, 1 Nov 2008

CLAIM: As distinguished from a "long-form" Certificate of Live Birth, the "short-form" Certification of Live Birth issued by Hawaii and released by the Obama campaign isn't a "real" or "valid" birth certificate.

EXAMPLE: Personal message from a reader dated Oct. 28, 2008:
[T]he Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the Unted States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. However, contrary to what the few media outlets who are giving this outrageous claim any attention at all have concurred, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certificate of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth." Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't.
STATUS: FALSE. According to both the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record currently issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between "long-form" and "short-form" is moot. When a Hawaii citizen requests a certified copy of his or her birth certificate from the state, a Certification of Live Birth — what people are calling a "short-form" — is what they get. It contains "all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate," affirms Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo.
Sources:
• Born Identity. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 6 June 2009
• HI Officials Confirm Obama's Original Birth Certificate Still Exists. Honolulu Advertiser, 28 July 2009
• Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands. Hawaii.gov, 2009
CLAIM: Since Hawaii law allows residents to obtain birth certificates for children born outside the state, the released document still doesn't prove that Obama couldn't have been born in, say, Kenya.

EXAMPLE: Forwarded email received Dec. 2, 2008:

Right Side News on Sunday so graciously pointed out that "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year."
STATUS: FALSE. The Certification of Live Birth explicitly states that he was born in Honolulu; if he had been born elsewhere, the document would say so.

Janice Okubo explains: "If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."

Moreover, the Hawaii Department of Health has verified and publicly confirmed that the original birth records on file do, in fact, specify that Obama was born in Hawaii:

"I, Dr. Chiyome ***ino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," wrote the head of the Health Department in a statement released July 27, 2009.

Unless one is willing to accuse Dr. ***ino and other state officials of lying, that puts the matter to rest.

Oh, and one more thing. Given all of the above, birth announcements printed in both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin in August 1961 eliminate all reasonable doubt as to where Barack Obama was really born (hint: neither of those papers is published in Kenya).
Sources:
• 'Birther' Movement Dogs Republicans. Washington Independent, 17 July 2009
• Statement by Health Director Chiyomi ***ino, M.D. Hawaii Department of Health, 27 July 2009
• HI Officials Confirm Obama's Original Birth Certificate Still Exists. Honolulu Advertiser, 28 July 2009

Everyone should be very clear:

The Natural Born Citizen issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a birth certificate, any birth certificate, no birth certificate, or multiple birth certificates. (Don't laugh, Obama has multiple Social Security numbers: At least 16 and perhaps 25 or more; so why shouldn't he have multiple birth certificates? See story at Westernjournalism.com).

As I said previously, Obama could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House, of a mother who was an American citizen, with a long-form birth certificate from Washington DC (or 50 birth certificates, for that matter - one from each state), with a choir of Angels proclaiming the name of the hospital he was born in on American soil, with the name of the attending physician, and with Wise Men bringing gifts to him ... and he would still be ineligible to be President of the United States.

The reason is that he has dual citizenship through his father - which, by the way, he himself has said explicitly! His website claims a status for him of 'a Born Citizen' under the principle of jus soli. HE DOES NOT CLAIM 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' STATUS (a Constitutional requirement). Furthermore, he himself states that since his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, his birth was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

Obama is a dual citizen from birth and can never change that, even if he produces 16 or 25 or 50 long-form birth certificates from the United States. As a dual citizen, even with 50 long-form birth certificates, he's still ineligible to be President.

Dual citizenship is what the Founders feared more than the plague, yet there sits a dual citizen in the White House, and irony of ironies, a British-American citizen at that! King George III must be laughing in his grave.

All that is required to end this travesty is for an "interested party" with "standing" to step forward and file the proper suit in the proper venue; that is a writ of quo warranto in the DC District Court. Citizen Attorney Leo D'Onofrio will take the case Pro Bono.

(Incidentally, Mc Cain was ineligible to be President also, and the Republicans knew this. For that reason, Cheney did not call for objections when the Electoral College met to elect Obama - his hands weren't clean either. That's right, both parties have trampled on the Constitution).

I should point out after that rather long-winded and paranoid post that by the British Nationality Act of 1983 it's unlikely that Obama could now claim British nationality if he hadn't already done so.

quote:

Originally posted by Knights_Lance:
The so-called birthers need to get the facts straight, but it seems no matter how many times some people are given the official truth of the matter by the Hawaiian governor, the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, as well as Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo who is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates, and US government officials, they just don't get it. One would think that some "Just can't handle the truth."

Sorry, but the documents provided by Hi don't cut it...THAT is NOT a birth Certificate. For those of you who are legit in thinking it is and not a 'PLANT' on here of which several are. Do this: Contact the state in which you were born, ask how to obtain and official BC. Generally it contact the county in which you were born, provide them with your info, enclose $12 bucks or so and wait on your Official BC to arrive. It will have a notary seal and be very descriptive in the who, what, when and where.

Certi of live birth: Ez to come by, show some kind of 'proof' of DOB, and show up in person and be able to FOG a mirror. Key word is proof. They accept many kinds of so called proof, MOST of which can be obtained in less than a day in another part of town for a few bucks. Or run over to high school/college parking lot and ask them where to get the fake Drivers Lic so you can buy some booze.

That said and NOT to divert the thread on a non-topic of 'bama's birth'...Right now I could care less where this out of control, radical non-American was born. A Army Major at Ft Hood should have convinced you that a native born, American raised, non-Muslim can change his mind and ATTACK and Kill 14 folks (YES it was 14) and wound 38.

We have a POTUS who needs to be either Impeached or somehow removed from office for FAILING to uphold the Office and the Constitution and or just plain fiscal incompetence...be him a Muslim, Hawaiian, Bapist, or whatever. Where he was born is the least of our worries at this juncture in American history...

I had said in my previous short, succinct, logical analysis of Obama's ineligibility to be President that he was "ineligible from birth and nothing can ever change that."

There still seems to be some confusion on the matter, so at the expense of no longer being short and succinct, I will expand my statement. (Although I promise I will still remain logical).

Obama was ineligible to be President from birth and can never change that; that is, producing a long-form birth certificate will not change that; the British Nationality Act of 1983 will not change that; the Kenyan Independence Act will not change that; a resolution by Congress will not change that; an adult adoption by Native American Indians will not change that; and Wise men from the East bringing him gifts will not change that.

What do I mean by "adult adoption by native American Indians?"

How many readers know that on May 19, 2008, Obama was adopted by Hartford and Mary Black Eagle of the Crow Nation in a closed ceremony?

Also, incidentally, Dr. ***ino in the Hawaiian Department of Health, DID NOT STATE on July 27, that Obama was a "natural born citizen." She stated that Obama is a "natural-born American citizen."

Why "natural-born" with a hyphen? I can assert that an exhaustive search of the literature on Natural Born Citizen by many researchers does not reveal anyone using that construction before; it seems to be a novel use of the term by ***ino. But what does it mean? That Obama was born by "natural" child birth? That would certainly make him "natural-born," wouldn't it?

And why "American" citizen? Why not "United States" citizen? Is the use of the word "American" a reference to "Native American"

I will leave to others who are perhaps of a more conspiratorial mind to speculate on the real purpose of his adult adoption and ***ino's odd statement - I simply journalize. But if ... IF ... the purpose was to give Obama Natural Born Citizen status as an adult, it fails. Why?

Because Obama was, ON HIS BIRTH, subject to a foreign power (he says so himself). Obama was, ON HIS BIRTH, a dual citizen. Obama was, ON HIS BIRTH, not a Natural Born Citizen. Obama was, FROM HIS BIRTH, ineligible to be President of the United States.

Article II of the Constitution states:

No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look this up;" but born means "born." Obama was not "born" a natural citizen, and therefore he is ineligible to be President of the United States.

Now, I know I've gotten rather long-winded here, whereas in the past I've been short and succinct, but I thought clearing up the confusion about why Obama is ineligible to be President justified my expounding on the subject.

Of course, we can all say whatever we want, but ultimately the issue will be decided by a writ of quo warranto in a court of proper jurisdiction.

All that is required is for an "interested party" (an active duty person) to come forward. If I were on active duty, you can be sure it would be me.

quote:

How many readers know that on May 19, 2008, Obama was adopted by Hartford and Mary Black Eagle of the Crow Nation in a closed ceremony?

That is a bold statement. I would like some kind of link or point of reference on this, not that I doubt your word.

That said, what I do know about 'bama is that I can always and with 100% certainly tell when he is failing to speak the truth...whenever he opens his mouth.

Just go on google and enter:

Obama Adopted by Native Americans

You'll get many links.

Now what about his 16 or 25 or more Social Security numbers, and his 50 or more addresses?

Who is this "Manchurian Candidate.?"

Barking mad, paranoid and absolutely hilarious I do love this whole "birther" thing.

Usafaops, you do realise that it could easily be argued that by your definition most of the people who wrote teh US constitution and the first few presidents were actually ineligible?
George Washington held a Kings commission for example and must therefore have been a British subject at some point...

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

I had said:

Article II of the Constitution states:

No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of president.

The "..." (called an ellipsis) indicates that words were omitted; specifically, words not necessary for an understanding of the sentence (In this case because the words refer to a condition that is long obsolete).

The full clause with the words I omitted is:

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 ...

The phrase I omitted is the well-known "grandfather" clause by which the Founders "grandfathered" themselves into the Constitution, so they would be eligible to the office of President.

Washington, for example, was a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and in fact became a "citizen of the United States," like all other loyal Americans, on July 4, 1776. Independence brought with it sovereignty and citizenship; the link with Great Britain was broken.

When the last of the Founding generation died, that phrase was no longer applicable, and the citizenship requirement for all subsequent Presidents became the Natural Born Citizen condition. For that reason - because the 'grandfathered" condition has long been obsolete - I omitted it.

But that clause explains why Washington, Adams, et al, could become president, even though previously they had been British subjects with allegiance to George III.

The only relevant question for us today is, what definition of 'natural born citizen' did the Founders use?

I did voluminous research on the issue (and you can, too, on the internet) and what I discovered is that the Founders unquestionably used Emmerich de Vattel's, The Law of Nations, to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

It was Vattel's definition of NBC that they had in mind, a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli. (You can read Vattel for yourself online at google books). Basically, an
NBC is one "born on the soil, of two citizen parents."

Both Obama and McCain are ineligible to be President, Obama because he was not born of two citizen parents, and McCain because he was not born on American soil. This is not paranoia or conspiracy theory, but simply a question of law.

You may not like it - especially you veterans in the case of a genuine hero, John McCain - but that is the Constitution, and the way to change it is by Constitutional Amendment (which I would support in a situation like McCain's).

Incidentally, please don't infer that McCain was born on "American soil" because he was born in the Canal Zone. First, he was born in Colon Hospital in Panama, and second even if he had been born in the Zone, the Zone was leased and was never American soil.

McCain was ineligible to be President and Cheney knew this, which is why he knowingly violated the law and refused to ask for objections to Obama's certification by the Electoral College - because the Republicans' hands weren't clean either: They too had run an ineligible candidate (You can see the Cheney episode on youtube). Both parties have trampled your Constitution.

If you want to satisfy yourself that the Founders relied on Vattel to write the Declaration and the Constitution, start with Robert Trout's East-West Dialogue on how Leibniz and Vattel inspired the Founders ("Leibnizian Natural Law").

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html

If anyone wants, I could then go into far, far greater detail on this topic - I literally have printed out hundreds of pages - including one very interesting story on just how far-reaching Vattel's influence went, in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. But I will sign off here now, lest I be accused of being long-winded.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: usafaops,

quote:

ike all other loyal Americans, on July 4, 1776

Surely you mean disloyal Americans. They were after all revolting.

Edited for pish-poor html.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bladensburg,

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:

quote:

ike all other loyal Americans, on July 4, 1776

Surely you mean disloyal Americans. They were after all revolting.

Edited for pish-poor html.

Not revolting against America. If you were to call them disloyal, wouldn't they be disloyal Brits????