That Obama eligibility issue could come back again

[Coito ergo sum]

Would George Washington qualify to be President, under that rule?
Were his parents US citizens?

I think you are all still British Subjects, by descent. And I don't like it any more than you do.

There was a different rule at the time the US was created because at the time Washington became President, nobody was a natural born citizen. There wasn't a United States of America before the Constitution was ratified.

[Atheist-Lite]

I always wondered about the middle name myself. I can't think where but I recall hearing that name someplace else and it not being popular?

[kiki5711]

Suppose this stuck and was upheld and it turned out Obahma was really not eligable I can see how this would affect the next election. But could there be an issue made for what he has already done in the way of creating lawsa etc. In theory they sould be repealed should they not?

There probably could, but the chaos that would involve makes it almost untouchable. Possibly something like a Supreme Court appointment could be challenged, which might succeed easier than thought since the potentially removed members would have to recuse themselves.

[kiki5711]

Would George Washington qualify to be President, under that rule?
Were his parents US citizens?

I think you are all still British Subjects, by descent. And I don't like it any more than you do.

There was a different rule at the time the US was created because at the time Washington became President, nobody was a natural born citizen. There wasn't a United States of America before the Constitution was ratified.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the first natural born citizen elected President was maybe James Polk -- first elected Prez born after the constitution was ratified. I think Tyler was born after the Constitution, but not elected.

Maybe Van Buren has an argument, because he was born before the Constitution, but after the Declaration of Independence....but, I think the requirements of President are set by the Constitution, so I lean towards Polk or Tyler.

[Coito ergo sum]

Washington, Adams, and Jefferson -- all "natural born subjects" of the British Crown, and ultimately traitors to the realm. I should think that Lord Huxley ought to have something to say about that.

[apophenia]

This is just so much bollocks. It takes hardly any research in the matter to realize that the phrase "natural born citizen" in the constitution was simply never defined. You can't rest the ouster of a candidate or president on its definition because there simply isn't one to rest it upon. Sure, a supreme court could just invent constitutional law ex nihilo, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. Failing that, all you have left are accusations of fraud. Birthers are truthers, one step further removed from reality.

[apophenia]

ETA: The Marianas trench needs filling. I'm just saying.

[Tyrannical]

This is just so much bollocks. It takes hardly any research in the matter to realize that the phrase "natural born citizen" in the constitution was simply never defined. You can't rest the ouster of a candidate or president on its definition because there simply isn't one to rest it upon. Sure, a supreme court could just invent constitutional law ex nihilo, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. Failing that, all you have left are accusations of fraud. Birthers are truthers, one step further removed from reality.

Then why did they even use that phrase
You got an answer for that

There is a historical context it is based on, and it is a natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents owing allegiance to no other land.

Hell, Obama was even born a British Subject and that was exactly what they were trying to exclude from future Presidents.

[eXcommunicate]

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state, to an American mother. He is a "natural born American citizen." End of story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If he was born in Hawaii in the last century he would be an American citizen IIRC.

[eXcommunicate]

If he was born in Hawaii in the last century he would be an American citizen IIRC.

I know. I was just eliminating ambiguity. If you're born on any U.S. territory, then you are a citizen. For instance, Guam, U.S. Virgin islands, and Puerto Rico count. The Panama Canal Zone counted as well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If he was born in Hawaii in the last century he would be an American citizen IIRC.

I know. I was just eliminating ambiguity. If you're born on any U.S. territory, then you are a citizen. For instance, Guam, U.S. Virgin islands, and Puerto Rico count. The Panama Canal Zone counted as well.

Wait! Does that mean Sarah Pallid is citizen?

[apophenia]

This is just so much bollocks. It takes hardly any research in the matter to realize that the phrase "natural born citizen" in the constitution was simply never defined. You can't rest the ouster of a candidate or president on its definition because there simply isn't one to rest it upon. Sure, a supreme court could just invent constitutional law ex nihilo, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. Failing that, all you have left are accusations of fraud. Birthers are truthers, one step further removed from reality.

Then why did they even use that phrase
You got an answer for that

There is a historical context it is based on, and it is a natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents owing allegiance to no other land.

Hell, Obama was even born a British Subject and that was exactly what they were trying to exclude from future Presidents.

Feel free to pull more shit out of your ass. I'll wait until you show where it was defined.

[Seth]

Load of crock, I have two cousins who are 'natural born Americans', and to the best of my knowledge, neither of their parents even was a citizen at the time they were born.

Then they are not "natural born citizens." They are just "citizens." That's the core of the entire argument about Obama's eligibility, that a person not born to two US citizens (regardless of where born) is not a "natural born citizen" under the original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. It's called the "Vatel Theory," and it's a valid and strong legal theory that deserves to be carefully considered by the Supreme Court, whichever way it comes out.