pls stop your attempts at twisting my comments. my comments are as per my posts. do me a favour and read them. if there are specific lines you disagree with, highlight them and post them up.

as posted a moment ago:

john bingham, "father" of the 14th amendment:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen¡­[6]

obama ADMITS he was born with british citizenship because his father was a british citizen when obama was born. therefore, as per the above quote, he is not a natural born citizen in the language of the constitution itself.

this man WROTE the 14th amendment. id say he would know what he was talking about no??

to be fair keith i forget what i have posted where. there have been numerous threads on this board - one was even removed. also several on the poker board.

that post i just made has already been made on this thread - hence my frustration. i have had to make the same posts over and over because new people come along and challenge me on the same points. i have already answered these points and have not had responses or counter arguments to them by these challengers, which i take as a sign that they accept my logic and argument, albeit they dont like it much, but they're now quiet because they have no argument :)

but they're now quiet because they have no argument

Unreal. Don, back in November you said Obama would never be sworn in . It's now January the 21st and Presiden Obama is in office yet you still cling to your ridiculous notion that he's ineligible to be president. And we're all quiet because we have no argument? There's no argument needed. Barack Obama is the president of the USA and with all due respect mate, you were wrong.

i disagree on that simply because the constitution says a natural born citizen may become president (it doesnt just say citizen - 2 different legal meanings), or someone who was a citizen when the constitution was first enforced (which obviously is irrelevant now as their is no-one still alive from that time nor will there ever be). so basically you are only left with - must be a natural born citizen

if they did not mean natural born citizen, they wouldnt have said that, and would have referred to citizen.

given that they did say natural born citizen, you then have to decide what they meant by that. i have provided plenty of evidence as to the meaning of the term "natural born citizen"

ps i quit the financial services industry to play poker full time a few years ago. this has given me plenty of time to research such topics wherever i wanted to. i would not be saying this if i did not think it were an issue - imo there is a wealth of evidence "out there" that confirms my thinking. anyway, i appreciate the time you're taking to politely discuss this.

already interested!?? oops. meant already explained

stemroach - i missed your comment there.

technically speaking he is a usurper if not eligible. feel free to check the definition of usurper. the msm may not be telling you and are hiding it, but there are actually a lot of people in us that feel this way.

i did not think he would be sworn in because i thought the courts would honour their role to protect the constitution. instead they have delayed cases until after he is sworn in, and respectfully we will soon see what happens with these cases, what explanations of the law are offered, and the final outcome. by outcome, i mean ruling outright whether he is eligible or not. they are yet to do this despite the best efforts of thousands of people.

i have already posted on here that i was clearly wrong about him being sworn in, because he has been, and i will of course honour any bets i made on this front (although im offering double or nothing that he doesnt last a year). like ive said - i feel they have made an incorrect decision in swearing him in. i do still believe that this will be ruled upon at some point and he will be found ineligible.

The American's do not (and never have) held a child responsible for what their parent's did to them. Therefore, a natural born citizen (one who was born with the right to citizenship rather than one who applied for it) is not held responsible for the fact that their parent(s) gave/forced, however you want to put it, another citizenship upon them. There was a time when they demanded that the child must make a choice at the age of 21, this is no longer required. This was one of the many things I was told by the consulate here in the London Embassy and also by my cousin who is now Ambassador to Peru when this subject was investigated as it was relevant for us as a family. This we did 4 times and all 4 times the answers were the same.

Don, you have proved nothing other than your immense ability to regurgitate rhetoric by copying and pasting another's vain attempt to make a name for themselves.

I agree he will serve out his 4 years and will almost certainly (should he run again) serve another 4.

Keith - he is correct that to be eligible for the Presidency you must be a natural born citizen.

and i have not simply regurgitated rhetoric (i believe that is obamas role lol) - i have posted direct quoted from people, including authors of the consitution and subsequent amendments. this is not rhetoric.

and with all due respect, those that were responsible for dealing with your enquiry may well have been following what they thought and were told was the case. the supreme court may rule differently to that and moving forward they would respond differently to an enquiry such as yours.

I see no relevance in revealing my situation to you as it is quite different from Obama's. Since he was born on US soil one would almost think he has more right than my children, but he does not as they are quite equal in their rights. But I am an American and all my children were born here. Therefore the embassy needed to be notified that an American child had been born. The relevant papers were submitted and citizenship (and full rights) was registered. They did not apply for citizenship (that was not necessary as it was a right they were entitled to) we only informed the embassy of the fact they were born since it was an oversea's birth, as one needs to do when a death occurs overseas. They are natural born....this is confirmed. They also are entitled to triple citizenship and are able to keep all 3 whilst maintaining their US status. This changed sometime in the early 80's as before then you needed to make a choice once you reached age of consent ie 21. Michael is the last person to make a mistake and for him to make such a mistake is inconceivable. 4 different consulates were consulted as they were all single births, rather than twins.

"I feel they made the incorrect decision in swearing him in"

My god if Obama was a mistake what did the decision to swear Bush in look like now?

..so basically i am agreeing that obama is a natural born citizen under the current us law being practiced, however imo he is not one under the constitutional law that the us is actually bound to (or says it is), and they will soon realise that and change practice, including the removal of obama from office. and yes i could be wrong about them changing practice - they could just diverge further from the consititution in general with their legal practice and general policy.

There will not be any change. Only those born with the right to citizenship are natural born. Let me explain this once again very slowly. There are 2 kinds of citizens.....1st those who are naturally born American's and 2nd those who chose to take up citizenship. This is the way that it has always been and the supreme court will not go creating a 3rd category of citizens who are neither natural or naturalised. There is a process to be followed to be naturalised. There are fees, tests, ceremonies and oaths to be taken then at the end you are given your certificate of citizenship. It just does not happen all of sudden. What in the world would they call these other citizen's? Semi-natural? Can't be plain ol' citizen as that is a word that encompasses all citizens so they would have to have a name as the natural and naturalised do. Can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue should they do that? All those who did not have forethought and have been unfortunate enough to be born to one non-American parent or born abroad would have huge cases against the law makers for taking away their natural born rights as citizen's.

Your 1st clue as to why they are not doing so is the simple fact that they are not listening to these frivolous cases. According to you they have been numerous. Not one has been listened to. They are duty bound not to entertain cases that have no merit as they are duty bound to listen to those that do. Doing otherwise would clog the system and nothing would ever be accomplished. Those bringing the cases do not appear to have the intellect to create a case that is worthy of being heard and never will on this subject. Simply because they have filed cases does not make them cases that must be heard. Have you ever read anything about the mess the US legal system is in due to the inane cases that are brought forth all the time? The dockets are so long that it takes years to get the simplest thing done as even the most absurd cases must be addressed and deemed worthy or not of being heard. The man hours involved in doing this backs everything up.

And WOW to your doggedness in this matter, misplace though it surely is. Even though you may not have believed it all before there is now precedent with the simple fact that Obama is now President. You sure you are not an American? It does appear that you believe every word you read on the net. Try to not do that or you will be sorely misinformed a good deal of the time. I say that with all due respect. This is the end of my participation in this subject. It is just far too preposterous to continue on with.

On a plain reading "natural born US citizen" includes a person born in the US as an American.

Which Obama was.

Which is the end of the debate (such that it is a debate).

had two swear him in twice...mmmm...

is this so they can say later on that he neve was president ?

:)

Hard to believe someone would fluff their lines getting sworn into the most powerful position on the planet in front of 2 million and billions watching on tv. Very suspicious if you ask me there must be something sinister going on.

pretty ace - ty for the apology - no probs, as I do understand your frustration. please accept i feel as frustrated as you do, if not more so, that my perspective on this is currently the minority view.

in response to your argument (excuse grammar etc, put this together quickly)

it appears to me that your children are regrettably not natural born citizens in constitutional terms.

that is not to say that they are not citizens from birth - I fully accept that they are, however this does not necessarily mean someone is a natural born citizen in constitutional terms - and it is constitutional terms that matter with regard to obama's eligibility.

your children, given the circumstances of yourself and their father, are citizens at birth but by statute (evidence below). this is the same as john mccain (albeit different statute, arguably) and is the reason he is not eligible either under the consitution's terms. one cannot be a natural born citizen by statute, only by fulfilling the criteria specified in the consitiution in particular the section with regard to presidential eligiblity, where the nbc term is mentioned. to interpret the term nbc correctly you need to consider all the other evidence surrounding that term throughout constitutional history, which i have done.

ive copied the segment below from the US Department Of State Website.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Therefore, your children are citizens via the Immigration & Nationality Act, as per above.

if you were to ask the consulate whether your children would be eligible for president, i am sure they will say no. and if they dont, again it is a case of incorrect instructions having been passed down over a period of years.

but consider another quote from Department Of State Affairs Manual:

""the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

i find this pretty explicit.

your argument that "it has always been this way" is not much of a legal argument either im afraid. you dont seem to be able to point to the laws that make your children natural born citizens, i believe because there aren't any, and therefore i am unable to change my position with regard to my feelings on the obama eligiblity subject. in short, your children were naturally born citizens, but not constitutional natural born citizens, if that makes sence.

with regard to the lawsuits - there have been numerous, and there still are. some were denied immediately without comment, others taken to conference and then denied without comment or with regard to standing. now that obama is (supposedly at least) president, i would imagine it is easier to approach the subject under the law.

finally - why is it that the supreme court will not just accept a case and actually rule him as eligible?? why havent they done that to stop more cases "wasting their time"

ffs

so the us embassy in the uk does not mention it. im sorry, but i am inclined to believe the department of state affairs over the embassy with regards to accuracy.

the embassy take their guidance from the department of state affairs. so it looks like the embassy has interpreted said guidance incorrectly, through ommission, as expected.