So…YOU leave a comment on an article questioning Romney’s eligibility and claim…”RACISM?”
Unless Romney is an African American…TOUR silly argument doesn’t hold up any better than Obama’s forged “Birth Certificate.”

If insisting ALL presidential candidates…REGARDLESS of skin color OR party affiliation…SHOW VERIFIABLE PROOF of eligibility makes anyone a “dullard” than SIGN ME UP.

We “dullards” believe the words of the Constitution have MEANING and should be adhered to.

Obviously, an enlightened liberal/socialist doesn’t believe the Constitution means much of anything.

Lets be clear none of these dullards have won a case in the “U.S. Courts”, maybe in their simple minds (if they have any) but not in our “U.S. Courts”, so unless Birthers/ teabaggers, whatever you want to be called, win a court case, we will continue to see as dullards, liars or racist or maybe all three. Deal with that baby!

Sure since our law is not affected by their law and their law is not affected by our law. Our law says jus soli (birth in the country, birth determined by place), only jus soli is sufficient. S foreign law, say that of Italy or Germany says that the cause of Natural Born status is only the parents, jus sangunius (birth determined by parents) only.

Which law applies? Our law. Their law is irrelevant and does not affect ours.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/opinions-of-the-judge-advocate-general-of-the-army-volume-2/

If birth location determines Natural Born status, if a child is born in the US to Canadian parents who then return to Canada, can that child claim to be born a Natural Born Canadian, since his parents were Canadian and he was raised in Canada?

What if that same child stayed in the US? According to you, he is a Natural Born US citizen. How can he be a Natural Born Citizen of 2 countries? If Canada had a Natural Born Citizen requirement to serve as Prime Minister, you can’t tell me that the same child is eligible to serve as the US President, and the Canadian Prime Minster. The whole point of the Natural Born Citizen clause was to make sure that the President only had allegiance to the US. It makes no sense that a child can be born with Natural Born Citizenship status in two countries. It also doesn’t make sense that the child involved would get to decide later on in life which country they want to be considered a Natural Born Citizen of.

Look at two examples.

One child is born in the US to two foreign parents just visiting. They go back to their native country shortly after the child’s birth.

Another child is born to parents serving in the US military who are stationed in Germany.

Of the two examples, which would have more allegiance to the US? The foreign born child born in the US, or the child born out of the country to US service members?

While we can’t know exactly what the Framers intended, we can make an educated guess. Of the two situations, it is reasonable to believe that they would have thought that the child of US military personnel serving overseas should be eligible to be President, while the child of foreigners born within the US should not.

It is illogical to say that they would say that both of the children should be eligible. By arguing both, that means that Natural Born Citizenship can be granted by birth place, but also granted by the citizenship of the parents. This would lead to the illogical situation where a child is eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada and also the United States at the same time.

I don’t expect you to change your mind, as I will not. While we can both find laws and legal opinions to support our claims, sometimes it helps to look at things logically. I think if you looked at the argument with an open mind and logically, you would have to admit that the Framers did not intend for someone’s Presidential eligibility to be determined by where they happened to be born, and not by their allegiance.

When someone hides behind religion to do or say something that is wrong we should stand up and point it out (right the wrong).

When I was a kid I lived in Utah, and the Boy Scouts was taken over by Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church). This, so called religion, practices underage polygamy, they send the boy s off on missions to divide the underage sisters among the dirty old men of the clan. Now when these underage girls get pregnant, these same dirty old men, send them to the state to get their welfare checks. You should see some of the palace homes that are paid with welfare checks. By the way this is the newest religion that was created right here in United States of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iisl-xH3Xs

That is true. A naturalized citizen cannot serve as President or Vice President. There is only one other kind of a citizen, a Natural Born Citizen. In other words, among citizens only naturalized ones cannot be president and all the others can.

Up until WWI the term Natural Born Citizen was in common use, and it was always used the same way that the founders had used it, to refer to the place of birth.

Men who registered for the draft in WWI were asked whether or not they were citizens, and then if they were, whether they were naturalized or Natural Born. There were only two categories, naturalized and natural born, and that is the way that it was used at the time that US Constitution was written too.

Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution went into effect:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”

And here is how it was used in 1829:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

There are 2 ways to be regarded a “Citizen. One who is born on U.S. soil or one who becomes “Naturalized.”
Obviously the framers saw a difference between “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as a “Citizen” can serve in either the House or the Senate but only a “Natural Born Citizen” can serve as President or Vice President.

How convenient that he leaves out the fact that 5 years later, 1795, this was repealed, and rewritten, with the words “natural born citizen” taken out.

Ellen, the term citizen is the broad term that covers THREE groups: native born, naturalized and natural born – all three are distinct subgroups with different characteristics. It really is that simple. You are convinced you are correct, and nothing will change your mind. Others are just as convinced the other way, with just as much documentation, and your comments willk not chang eour minds, either. It wil finally have to go to SCOTUS, again!
.

No they neither are the same nor were they. Citizens include two groups, Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. The requirement that a president must be a Natural Born Citizen excludes all the naturalized citizens, and that is all. It does not exclude the US-born children of foreigners. There is absolutely no statement by any of the writers of the US Constitution or any of the other American leaders of the day that they either considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners, or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be less reliable citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.