snotballs wrote:
It has nothing to do with "father" or "mother"... all that is required is one PARENT.
Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Jus sanguinis
Under certain circumstances, US citizenship can be acquired via jus sanguinis from one's parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the US and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[4]
* If both parents are US citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever lived in the US prior to the child's birth
* If one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is a US national, the child is a citizen if the US citizen parent has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
* If one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
o the US citizen parent has been "physically present"[5] in the US before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
o at least two of those five years were after the US citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.
[edit] Children born overseas out of wedlock
There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.
8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are US citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year anytime prior to the birth.
8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are also considered US citizens if the father takes several actions:
* Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
* Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years
o the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
o the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
o the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
+ 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgement of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law.
cool. the story was in featured story here on dtv home page wich i tryed looking into what it said and it seemms to be lieing because i can't find any real facts to back it up in the Constitution, read this story i'll copy paste it, i think it's bull because i don't even see paragraph 5 lol
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.
This forever changes the public discourse.
Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper.
Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.
Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!
Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.
To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:
The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address:
http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtmlWWW Homepage:
http://www.house.gov/deal/When i googled it i found this : It was dismissed Oct 29, 2009 by Judge David O. Carter.
but this story is dated (Jan. 5, 2010) LOL
FAQ
Search
