Wednesday, February 13, 2008

John McCain is not eligible to run for President

U.S. Constitution clearly states that one must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States to be eligible

by Larry Simons
February 12, 2008

John McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama to U.S. citizens while his father served as an Admiral in the U.S. Navy. How is it possible that he is even running for President? Better question: How is he even being allowed to run? This is yet another example of how the establishment hates our own Constitution; by ignoring what it says.

The Constitution is very clear that one must be an “natural born citizen” of the United States. Natural born does NOT mean one can be born in a United States controlled territory, a military base overseas, an embassy or any other piece of land that is under U.S. rule, control or occupation. Period. There are no “yeah buts” “what abouts” or “well maybes”. It’s clear: you have to be born HERE, in this country.

McCain is a “naturalized” U.S. citizen, not a “natural born” citizen. Meaning: he is automatically a U.S. citizen because he was born to U.S. citizens. He is NOT natural born, because he was not born in the U.S. The Constitution clearly states that one must be “natural born”. It clearly says in Article 2, section 1, “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 Panama Canal Zone was never owned by the U.S. and never sovereign U.S. territory. It was only LEASED to the U.S. That does not make it U.S. territory. People will also argue that the Naturalization Act of 1790 that was approved by Congress on March 26, 1790 gives American citizens the right to be called “natural born” if they are born overseas or anywhere outside the borders of the United States. This is also a falsehood on two counts: First, Congress, the Supreme Court nor the President has any authority to change the Constitution. Congress only has the authority to make rules for the naturalization process; they can’t change what the authors of the Constitution wrote.

Second, the Naturalization Act of 1790 states, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. Notice the terms “shall be” and “considered” (future tense----in other words, yet to happen). It says “shall be” not “IS”. It says “considered”, not “you are”. The 1790 Act was repealed and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 on January 29, 1795, which states, “…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

At the time of the writing of the Constitution there was no military, therefore no military bases, so the founders couldn’t have possibly been referring to a military base as being American soil. Many might say, ‘yes but since then we have called military bases American soil’, and I say simply say to that, “We're wrong for doing so.” Contrary to popular belief, military bases in foreign countries are not sovereign U.S. territories. Even if they were, fine, then why isn’t there an amendment to the Constitution that includes military bases as being considered American soil? No such amendment has been made, so therefore, if we are strictly following the Constitution then John McCain is not a natural born citizen. It’s just another thing in the long list of myths (such as income taxes being constitutional) that people accept as fact.

People would argue that since McCain’s parents are both U.S. citizens, that automatically makes John McCain a U.S. Citizen, therefore that makes him American born. They would be half right. Being born to U.S. citizens makes you a U.S. citizen, that doesn’t make you American born.

This is not McCain-bashing. It is simply stating the law. I have made no secret to the fact that I think McCain will be our worst President ever (and to surpass Bush takes some doing!), but the purpose of this story is not to condemn McCain per se, but simply to point out facts. This would be no different than if McCain was 33 years old or had only lived in the United States for 10 years. People wouldn’t object to me doing a story about those 2 things would they? McCain’s age and length of citizenship would be a tad bit harder for McCain to hide behind. But his birth status? Especially when 95% of this country have no clue what the Constitution says about “natural born” birth status---and even more than 95% don’t give a shit. And even if people did know, they just assume that having U.S. citizenship alone makes you eligible to run for President.

Like I said, this is about law…period. Whether you like McCain or think he’s a great guy, or whether you feel that someone shouldn’t be denied “natural born” status because their father was serving in the military at the time and you can’t hold that against McCain or whether you just feel it doesn’t make sense. None of this matters. It’s about the law. You can argue all day that there shouldn’t be a “no right on red” sign because you can clearly see the entire length of the adjoining road and see that no cars are coming. It’s not about whether it makes sense, whether you feel it’s a dumb law or whether you feel it should just be allowed. It’s the law, and until it is amended, it is a violation to go against it.

Of course, like everything else in the Constitution that is ignored, this will go on being ignored too, and nobody will care. They will follow the heard of sheep, ask no questions and continue their daily walk along life’s journey in their continual slumber….following, never leading, never standing up to anything, never being angry about anything (unless their team loses the Super Bowl) and never caring about injustices.

Most people don’t care what the Constitution says. Go out on the street and ask people. You’ll feel like Jay Leno during a “Jaywalking” segment. People only care when they are directly affected, and even then, don’t care that much. A true patriot is caring about the well-being of the country over the well-being of ourselves.


Anonymous said...

mccain is your next president you anti-American hatemonger. move to canada with ron paul since you whiners only could get him a thousand votes in maryland. deal with it and get out of this country you hate so much.

Real Truth Online said...

excellent excellent refutation of my post! thats almost as good as the refutations I get about the cover-up of 9-11---good work!

Anonymous said...

umm is mccain running for president right now? deal with it. god i hate your type. clueless about the real world and hate our men and women who fight for your freedom. go to mexico if youre so unhappy loser.

Real Truth Online said...

once again, excellent job refuting my story. Is that all you have? to say I hate servicemen? Yeah, i hate them so much I want them ALIVE-----McCain wants them in Iraq for 100 years and wants to bomb Iran! Only a TRUE America-hater would endorse a scumbag who wants to kill our troops and make our economy weaker and weaker by spending BILLIONS on this needless war. A third grader could write the posts you write---try writing something that indicates you're older than 5. You HATE our own Constitution, because our founding fathers would NOT be overseas at ALL----they hated entangling alliances with other countries---that's why its in the Constitution--you know, the document you HATE? I bet you have never read ANY of it, have you? You must not have---you cant even refute my post----just childish insults and 3rd grade pleas to have me move to another country. That makes YOU an idiot. Try refuting just ONE thing in my story---just one. I made it easy for you---just one. Can you handle just one?

Real Truth Online said...

Im not dumb, I know who you are----and since you LOVE big government---maybe you will LOVE them knowing your living arrangements---ill give them a call tomorrow. You hate Democrats but LOVE the programs they provide for you--like welfare and disability. Let's see how much you will love Republicans tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

well I'm waiting for the evel republicans to knock on my door. where are they. god your dumb as a bag of hammers. hope you like osama obama cuz your girl hillary does'nt have a chance. JOHN MCCAIN WILL BRING BACK RESPECT TO THIS GREAT NATION AND ALL YUOU AMERICA HATERS CAN JUST GE HE HELL OUT NOW!

Real Truth Online said...

now THAT was intelligent----but I must admit---you used bigger words this time like "hammers" and "knock". Seems I cant hold my breath waiting for you to refute my posts--and I noticed that you failed to post anything on my recent one---I guess that news (of McCain being pro-torture) was just so hard to hear that you wanted to avoid that post at all costs---I dont blame you. I do have one question though-----if you say I hate America so much---why do you keep visiting and posting on my site? Why would you even frequent a website of a America hater? Hmmm? Why dont you at LEAST get someone else to attempt to refute and steal their reply and post it? Geesh!

Tet said...

You should work hard to disqualify him, otherwise some 2 million Territorial Filipinos can also claim to have the same status of McCain at the time of their births. That would be a catastrophe!


Tony said...

Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904


(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

McCain is not a “naturalized” U.S. citizen as you claim. According to this, he was born a US citizen to a US serviceman. That means he's been a citizen since the second he was born, he never had to be naturalized like Arnold did.

I'm an Obama supporter, but to claim that McCain is ineligible because he's not a natural-born citizen is just stupid.

Real Truth Online said...

What you just said is totally irrelevant. My article was not about McCain not being a citizen---it's about him not being a NATURAL BORN citizen. I said many SEVERAL times in the story that John McCain IS a citizen. Did you NOT read that? Or did you just read the headline? The Constitution is VERY clear---you have to be NATURAL born---meaning born INSIDE THIS country.....NOT born somewhere else to US citizens or somewhere else and you MOVE here. The Constitution used the SPECIFIC term "NATURAL BORN" for a reason. You can not like this all you want---that doesn't make it any less true. "Naturalized" is a term that refers to anyone who is currently a U.S. citizen who was not NATURALLY BORN here INSIDE the U.S.---period. Arnold is "naturalized"--because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents and came here and became a citizen. McCain had American parents but he wasn't born INSIDE the United States. People will tell you that the Canal Zone was under US sovereignty and that is just false. You cant change the Constitution just because it has something in it you dont like no more than you can change traffic laws because you dont like them. Of course, it's easier for the Constitution to be ignored than traffic laws, because no one in Washington is enforcing the Constitution. You can argue this all day long that to be "naturalized" is the good enough to be eligible, but you'd be wrong all day long. Tell me something----answer this: What was the founding fathers' definition of "Natural born citizen"? If natural born means you can have American parents and be born anywhere on Earth, or you are born in another country and move here and become a citizen----then what is the meaning of "natural born"? And why did the founding fathers use that SPECIFIC term if they REALLY meant it can apply to just ANYONE who's a citizen? Read my article again AND the Constitution before replying back.

wendell said...

I have read both and I think you are relying only on a literal interptation of the US constitution and as we all know interptation is in the eye of the beholder. The US constitution is interpreted by law on precedents ie... judicial decisions from the US Supreme court and appeals court if upheld by Supreme court. The are many court cases to support the McCain claim to natural born citizenship

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958): Although the 14th Amendment sets forth the two principal modes of acquiring citizenship (birth in the U.S. and naturalization), nothing restricts the power of Congress to withdraw citizenship. (This case was overturned by Afroyim v. Rusk.)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967): The 14th Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). However, intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship must be established specifically by a preponderance of evidence; such an intent may not be inferred automatically as a result of a person's having performed an act which Congress has designated as an expatriating act. However, when "one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor."
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
The Supreme Court, through case law, has created a guideline for U.S. citizenship. The following outlines the rulings of the Court:
The 14th Amendment completely controls the status of U.S. citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.
This applies to children born to legal and illegal residents.
This does not apply to children of foreign citizens employed in any diplomatic or official capacity.
Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship).
A person must voluntarily relinquish U.S. citizenship.
 It is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor.
 Congress may revoke citizenship involuntarily if it has been obtained unlawfully.
Congress has the power to define citizenship outside birth in the U.S.
Congress can set different citizenship requirements for children born to American mothers versus American fathers.
Congress can require that U.S. citizenship must be established by a certain age for it to be recognized.

Real Truth Online said...

wendell---youre WRONG. Congress CANNOT---I REPEAT---CANNOT change the Constitution. That just indicates how much you have researched this. Congress CANNOT change the Constitution. The Constitution can only be AMENDED---and that happens by ratification by individual states---NOT Congress. That LONG answer looks like a copy and paste job. If you really expect me to believe you sat there and typed all that out, then I guess you think I believe in the tooth fairy. So, you think the founders were speaking SYMBOLICALLY, not literally? This isnt the Bible wendell. You think this section of the Constitution is the Biblical equivalent to the story where Jesus says "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?"-----give me a break! Are you really saying the founders didnt mean "natural born" to be taken literally? "Natural born" only means ONE thing----a symbolic meaning wouldnt even apply here. That's like saying the other qualifications arent literal either----like having to be a citizen for 14 years or age 35. Are you saying those things arent literal either? They didnt REALLY mean 35---they meant symbolically 35---as in "if they LOOK 35" right? Your entire post is completely blown by the fact you fail to understand one simple SIMPLE thing----that Congress cannot change the Constitution. I cant even believe you didnt know this BASIC fact.

Real Truth Online said...

PLUS wendell, I will say this again-----ALL the examples you mentioned are talking about US citizenship. My article was not about McCain NOT being a citizen!!! How many times do I have to say this? Did you read my article? I said McCain IS a citizen! That is not in dispute. My point very clearly is: You can't RUN FOR PRESIDENT unless you are NATURALLY BORN in the United States. In other words----to RUN FOR PRESIDENT, being a citizen of the US is NOT ENOUGH. Are we clear on this now?

Real Truth Online said...

the 14th amendment addresses ONLY citizenship and what makes one a CITIZEN. That is NOT the point of my story. The McCain issue is that he is not NATURAL BORN and he is not eligible to run for President----that is a SEPERATE issue of what makes one a citizen. I dont know how to make this any clearer unless I drew pictures.

Wendell said...

A Bit touchy now aren't we. As I stated its all up to interpretation of the constitution, and congress can and has made laws DEFINING what is a citizen (hundreds of precedents). You and I are just arguing a moot point, as the federal courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court) will make the interpretation. When that will happen, I do not know (before or after the election). The other 500lb gorilla is who has standing to bring the case against McCain, the DNC?, Obama?, Clinton? I would think that the public would think that a bit too political and it would go against them. Me personally, if I was McCain I would solicit the supreme court for an opinion, as they have done in the past, while not having any weight of law, if he gathers a favorable opinion from the court it should put this puppy to bed, as any one with standing would know the courts view on the matter. If McCain is elected and serves, without his birthright being challenged in court, then his act of serving in office would become a precedent and be a benchmark to become an interpretation of the constitution.

Real Truth Online said...

not touchy at all---just get a bit tiffed when I have to repeat the same thing over and over and the person STILL doesnt understand. I said many times now that the article was NOT about what makes you a CITIZEN. I said several times now...John McCain IS a citizen. He was born a citizen. I am not disputing the fact that he was BORN and has always been a citizen. I am saying simply that the Constitution says to be eligible for President, you must be a NATURAL born citizen to RUN FOR PESIDENT. You keep citing sources that explain just plain citizenship and that is NOT what Im debating. Yes, Congress can define what citizenship is-----but they CANNOT change the Constitution's criteria for what you need to be eligible to run for President. Where am I losing you on this? This article is NOT ABOUT CITIZENSHIP alone. What are you confused about Wendell? Seriously. But hey, I appreciate you coming to the site and offering your words--it is appreciated.

Real Truth Online said...

I saw a story just today in the NY Times where Claire McCaskill is introducing legislation that would remove all doubt that anyone in John McCain's situation would be eligible to run. Then it hit me----if McCain is legally eligible to run NOW, why the need for the legislation to be introduced? McCaskill is basically ADMITTING by this legislation that the rule NOW is that McCain is NOT eligible---am I correct? She's ADMITTING that the Constitution (as written) is correct----that only natural born citizens can run for Prez. If this legislation she wants to pass isn't an admittance that the Constitution is CORRECT about the "natural born" citizen rule----what is it then?

MisterBunn said...

The "phrase" natural born does not mean "born on U.S. soil," it means, and has always meant, it means a citizen "from birth," i.e., born as a U.S. citizen. The notion of giving automatic citizenship to persons born in the territorial U.S. came much later, it was not part of the Constitution or federal law as of 1787.

Real Truth Online said...

sorry're just wrong. "citizen from birth" is the Latin "jus sanguinis" meaning "the right of blood"---which is apparently what John McCain supports because he is a citizen "by blood" (jus sanguinis). The Constitution says ours is "jus soli" (right of the soil) meaning "born HERE in the United States"----not territories, military bases, US airplanes flying over Russia, or US satellites.

And keep in mind like Ive said over and over to others----this is not an issue of US citizenship ALONE and what makes one a is about what makes you eligible for President, and the Constitution is CLEAR that if you are not "NATURAL" born (meaning INSIDE this country...."jus soli"....then you STILL are a CITIZEN, but you CANNOT run for President). The Panama Canal Zone was NOT, I repeat NOT a US territory. If I have to say this one more time to anyone, Im gonna scream.

Anonymous said...

I still don't understand how you interpret "natural" to mean inside the US.

As far as I know there are only 2 ways, and have only ever been 2 ways, to become a citizen of the US. One is by birth and one is by naturalization. We both agree that anyone who had to be naturalization is not a natural born citizen, so it stands that any citizen who has been a citizen since birth must be natural born.

Unless you can tell me another way to become a citizen of the US then I stand by the interpretation that anyone who has been a citizen since birth is natural born. Basically, natural born meaning no need for any action to be taken in order to gain citizenship.

Real Truth Online said...

I have a better question: What do you think the founding fathers meant by "natural born"? Keep in mind--when they wrote the Constitution there was no military--we had a non-interventionalist foreign policy, so we didnt have military men and woman all over the world--we had no military bases in other countries. The only thing it could have POSSIBLY meant was "born INSIDE the US". Also, I will say only one last time---this article is NOT about what makes one a citizen. It is strictly about not being eligible to run for President if you are not a "natural born" citizen. In other words, just being an American citizen IS NOT ENOUGH to be eligible to run for President. There 3 ways you can become a US citizen----1) being born outside the U.S. to American citizens (McCain's circumstance), 2) being born in another country and legally becoming a citizen here through the legal process with the INS and 3) being born HERE in the US. Now, I have no clue if being born here to NON-US citizens makes you a citizen or not. Im unsure of that. Those are the 3. The Constitution only mentions the THIRD one as being the requirement one needs to be eligible to run for President. Natural born means you're "naturally" a citizen because you're born here. Remember, children born to US citizens who were in other countries really wasnt happening at the time the Constitution was written---and even if there are some cases of that, then that child would not have been eligible to run for President. That may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran, because he was born in Nevis, Caribbean.

Anonymous said...

Yes. Anonymous II.
I am a wife of active military member and a military veteran. Know your facts.....And don't take things so personal. Your blogs are so defensive. Just remember when you post your thoughts others still have the right to respond without being beat up for it.
One question......which of the founding fathers of our country were born in the US.......
HMMMMMM. Hard question. Did you forget this country was founded by individuals that were not born here? Nor their parents? They came over from other countries. Natural Born....hmmmmmm.

Real Truth Online said...

Not sure why you mentioned you're the wife of a military person and you're a military person yousrelf. It had nothing to do with the rest of your post or the article. Was it mentioned just to stir up emotions of anyone reading this so they'd share your anger? I really dont know the point of your post. How many founders were born here? Many of them were. Hamilton wasn't--but he never ran for President. I guarantee you whoever was NOT born here did NOT run. They didn't ignore the Constitution back then. They ignore it every day now. Yes, I am aware that many people who lived then were not born here, but I dont know if any of them founded the country--but I guarantee you if they wasnt born here, they didnt run for President. What was the point of your post? Can you NAME any founders that weren't born here that ran for President? If not, then what was your point?

Real Truth Online said...

plus, even if anyone running HAD been born elsewhere, it wouldnt have mattered----the founders who wrote the Constitution were grandfathered into the new law of being natural born. It would only apply to anyone born AFTER the Constitution was written. Yes, I know my facts---please know yours.

Anonymous said...

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

his parents were US citizens

and he was born on a naval base which makes him a US citizen

Real Truth Online said...

ahhhhhhhh, this is getting SO tiring----ok listen very carefully.....The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced with The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) which states in part, “…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

Notice it says "SHALL be"----NOT "IS". Meaning: Shall be---AFTER a process making them citizens. Remember, for the 150th time---this is NOT ABOUT WHAT MAKES YOU A CITIZEN------McCAIN IS A CITIZEN. You have to be NATURAL BORN to be eligible to run for President. My goodness, I would have thought you would have researched the I & N Act of 1795 before you posted---GEESH.

Tet said...

"There 3 ways you can become a US citizen----1) being born outside the U.S. to American citizens (McCain's circumstance), 2) being born in another country and legally becoming a citizen here through the legal process with the INS and 3) being born HERE in the US."

Perhaps, if we consider that the 14th was debated on right after the Civil War, we will have the freed men and those that fought against the Union as persons whose citizenships were addressed by the Amendment. In the words of the Amendment's author, Sen. Howard here is the relevant portion of the transcript: “Mr. HOWARD. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizenship and freedmen beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by its roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.”

Thus, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause pertains to another type of persons who were citizens after they were born. One group had just been emancipated from slavery, the other, aliens subjugated after losing the war. This is how they became true citizens of America and the intention was to put this rule beyond the reach of future legislators to determine who were or were not to be citizens.

Real Truth Online said...

WHEN will someone read this story and comprehend the MAIN point of it? This story is NOT ABOUT what makes you a CITIZEN of the United States!! Its about what constitutes your eligibility to run for PRESISENT. Wasnt that clear by the title of the story alone? I even said IN the story that John McCain IS a US citizen---did you fail to see that?? The Constitution CLEARLY says you have to be NATURAL BORN. At the time that the Constitution was written---we had no military bases in other countries, so their concept of being born to American parents outside the country didnt exist. This is why they said you must be NATURAL BORN-----meaning: BORN within the borders of the United States. Next time, actually READ the story before you post an answer.

Ed said...

Got this in one of my emails. Makes an interesting point. What do you think?

Do we have two running that shouldn't be?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for
the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law
on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between 'December 24
1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born
citizen, if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of
course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal.
US Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S citizen at
The time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States
for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the Age of
Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama's mother was only 18
when Obama was born, which means although she had been a U.S. Citizen for
10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the
mother fails the test for being so, for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack
Obama's birth, but after age 16. It doesn't matter after . In essence,
she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At
most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time
of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have
needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth
for him to have been a natural-born citizen As aformentioned, she was a
young college student at the time and was not yrs 21 of age. Barack Obama
was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have
waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should
have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from
holding the office.

* Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President***.

Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info
does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S.
Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those
years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in
the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had,
rather than living in Indonesia... Now you can see why Obama's aides
stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states,
because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a
blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would
be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without
being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned
to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking
through over the next several days.

Interesting!! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped??
Who do you know who you can forward this to who might be able to help answer
this question?

Thanks, Ed

Anonymous said...

Hey genius...
if Mr. McCain is ineligible how come the election is in a week and he's still running. Are you the only genius who thinks he is doesn't legally qualify to run. If you are so right, why don't you file suit?

wake up asshole said...

The same people letting him run are the same ones destroying other parts of the Constitution, like freedom of speech, searches and seizures and the right to speedy trials----wake up---our Constitution will be null and void in 5 years---many parts of it already are--because of fucking MORONS like YOU that are too busy getting drunk and partying to care about our country---asshole!

New Catholic said...

With whack jobs like Real Truth Online the US is going to continue to have internal problems. So much of his post is based on conjecture.

Real Truth Online said...

You have balls calling me a "whack job" when your ID name is "new catholic". Molest any little boys lately?

As usual, I get called names without one refutation put to me. Care to list specifics, or is that too tough?

Real Truth Online said...

You created a blog on January 2, 2008 and haven't posted a story since. Great blog!! LOL.

Here's my main reason why catholics are bad: Because most of their leaders fuck little boys in the ass. Care for me to list more?