Electing the Sophomore Class President


So, a month has passed since our national elections. Many words have been printed reflecting the campaigns and the outcomes.

It remains though that electing the President of the United States is not equivalent to electing the sophomore class president and yet, this nation has decided to do just that; and our courts have resolutely refused to hear legal arguments on the issue routinely dismissing challenges by Democrat candidates, such that one must think that these legal scholars intentionally desire to ignore codified Presidential qualifications.

The United States President is required to meet our nation’s Constitutional requirements, and should he fail in this regard, then the Vice President assumes the office until said defects can be perfected. The United States is a Republic, a Federalist form of Government, with criteria for our elected offices that are required to be met. Congressional members, in taking their oath of office are required to safeguard our Constitution.

Yet, could your elected representatives pass a test on the Constitution, especially as it relates to the qualifications of President? Unfortunately in their ignorance they openly refuse to uphold the constitution that they have taken an oath to defend and protect.

One has to seriously ask, is the Republic that was the United States finally no more?

The Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President is clear in that:

“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; …”

Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. The British Nationality Act of 1948 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of the birth location are themselves British Subjects and governs the status of Obama (Part II, Section 5) with a special gift:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

One should note the established birthright inheritance Obama received from his father.

Though many miscreants debate Obama’s birth in Hawaii, the issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Since both of his parents were not U.S. citizens, and his father gave him a special birthright when he was born, is he a Natural Born Citizen per our Constitution?”

The unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1874 defined ‘natural born citizen’ in the case of Minor v. Happersett as a child born of two parents who are United States citizens. Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define ‘natural born Citizen’ but that they did now its meaning and that it was different from ‘citizen’ as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of parents (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens and thus eligible for the Presidency, declaring…

“…At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Our Constitution does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person. As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1874 decision and definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged, it has never been overruled, altered or amended; the qualifications for the office of President have never been amended to allow a lower status of ‘citizen’ or ‘naturalized citizen’ to supersede the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification; and the 1874 Supreme Court findings have been identified as precedent.

There are some who would say that the Supreme Court altered the Presidential qualifications; but that requires an act of Congress, through the amendment process, which requires ratification of the states; and the Supreme Court does not hold power to amend this nations’ Constitution.

Our U.S. State Department declares that a child who is born of parents with differing nationalities is given the opportunity to declare their citizenship when they reach the age of majority (18), and are issued documentation from the State Department should they declare for U.S. Citizenship. Has Mr. Obama made such a declaration? Has that documentation been provided to justly validate citizenship even though he can never meet the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification?

Reader, shouldn’t your elected federal representatives, your state representatives and governors verify with documentation that an individual who is not a ‘natural born citizen’ is qualified to hold the office President of the United States as required under our Constitution?

For complete documentation, please see my previous article: Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A ‘Natural Born Citizen?’

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

About Richard Skidmore
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted via [email protected]
  • The_Magic_M

    > The British Nationality Act of 1948

    ... does not control who can be the US President, no more than the North Korean Poop Pung Ho act of 2009 or the Cuban Nationality Act of 1567.

  • /.murphy

    Good night, Virginia Minor, wherever you are...
    :-)

    • The_Magic_M

      This Minor Happersett is giving birthers a Major Headache. ;)

    • /.murphy

      The question in my mind is... WHY? They quote part of the judge's ruling where he mentions that no one doubts the citizenship of a person born in the US to two citizen parents as if that's what the case was all about. Then they ignore the rest of what he had to say, and then they completely ignore the real landmark case affection our understanding of what "natural born" means, which is US v Wong Kim Ark (1898).

      I don't understand their purpose in doing so. Wishing doesn't change what the law is, nor does it change how it has operated in the decades since Wong Kim Ark. The eligibility of Spiro T. Agnew is a great example of how the law has worked, because under their attempted definition, he wouldn't have been eligible.

    • The_Magic_M

      The "why" is easy - clutching at straws in order to not have to accept the reality of having that scary BLACK man in the WHITE house.

      > Wishing doesn't change what the law is

      You still assume you are dealing with sane people? With "concerned citizens"? These are the people who are willing to believe any nonsense spouted on the internet (my recent favourite was "if 1/3 of the electors stay home, the EC cannot make Obama President") as long as it reinforces their Obama hatred, yet call all the courts who rule against them "traitors" and all voices of reason "paid shills" and "useful idiots".

      > The eligibility of Spiro T. Agnew is a great example

      To a sane person, yes. But when birthers start to actually consider your example, their brain quickly tells them "ALERT! DANGER! Information might cause world view to shatter! AVOID! AVOID!" (imagine this in a Dalek voice for more entertainment ;)) and they switch to name-calling mode or change the subject to "but... but.. he's a bad President!".

    • /.murphy

      LOL! Yes, I've been called a "paid troll" a number of times, and an "Obot," too, when people have run short on arguments. What a way to go through life! It's pathetic.

      I think I've concluded that these people are not "conservatives" in the traditional sense of that word--not more educated than average, not more financially sound... certainly not people who, as President Reagan said, can "disagree without being disagreeable." Instead, I sense a good deal of anger and intolerance, and I suspect many of these people are not very high on the food chain, if you know what I mean.

      One of the most entertaining things is that they will quickly label me a "traitor," simply because I have a different point of view, yet in their own ravings about our President, you can find the seeds of deep disloyalty.

    • The_Magic_M

      > I think I've concluded that these people are not "conservatives" in the traditional sense of that word

      Far from it. They only associate with the GOP when they see a chance their candidate might be their best hope of getting rid of Obama. And they only hang around average conservative sites in the hopes of winning people over for their crusade against the "gay Muslim Marxist Kenyan Socialist NWO UN traitor-spy-usurper" (I probably left out some typical terms).

      Politically, most of them are right of the Tea Party - wannabe "sovereign citizens", Bible thumpers and "only WASPs are real Americans, damned be those coloureds and wimmin" types.

  • smrstrauss

    Obama was born in Hawaii, as has been proven overwhelmingly by his birth
    certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in
    Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii
    newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and only the DOH could sent
    notices to the "Health Bureau Statistics" section of the paper, and the
    DOH of Hawaii only sent out notices for births IN Hawaii).

    And, the
    US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER
    Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the
    common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and that hence every child
    born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a
    Natural Born US Citizen.

    More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

  • smrstrauss

    The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of one or two parents, so long as the child was born in the USA.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
    Conservative organization.]

    Here are sources to turn to for further research:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

  • Misty Brume

    Five courts already this year ruled that this "two citizen parents" rule is nonsense. The first nominee of the Republican Party (John Charles Frémont in 1856) had a father who was not a U.S. citizen when he was born. His opponent in the primaries was a Supreme Court justice, who never said one word about how "His father wasn't a citizen, so he can't be a natural born citizen." This is all just nonsense, Richard. It's not the law and never has been.

    • /.murphy

      "...and never has been." Well said.

    • smrstrauss

      I believe that it is now SEVEN state courts and one federal court (total eight) just on Obama, and one on McCain (Hollister v. McCain, making the total nine). And birthers appealed one of the seven state rulings on Obama to the US Supreme Court, which on October 1 turned down the appeal, leaving the ruling that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen STANDING.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      Never has been law? Oh reallly? Let's just see how things were viewed prior to the Constitution and it's influence on the document and definition of the term natural born citizen.

      I'm going back to the Constitution and I ask how would they have
      understood the term? With that in mind...I would direct people's
      attention to The Law of Nations 1758, just prior to the writing of the
      Constitution. In it Vattel wrote:

      "“The citizens are the members of the civil
      society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority,
      they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in
      the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
      and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
      children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
      their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
      owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
      each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
      becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
      children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
      shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
      renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
      I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
      born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
      will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      See that? Parents plural, who are both citizens. He defines it
      clearly, not a years after the Constitution, but prior to it. In
      addition, William Blackstone also perceived this to be a correct
      interpretation of the matter of natural born citizen:

      “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw.
      III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at
      the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the
      seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and
      accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several
      more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that
      all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were
      natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents
      and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted,
      or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a
      prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

      Again, both parents are considered in "allegiance to the king" or we would better understand them as "subjects" or citizens.

      In addition, why don't we just look at Thomas Jefferson and what he
      said with regards to the issue? Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s
      Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be
      it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the
      territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next
      before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the
      same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own
      oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give
      assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born,
      whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time
      of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise
      their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or
      mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish
      that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being
      citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

      Of course this is Virginia, but the meaning is the same. Both
      parents must be citizens at the time their infants are born. All of
      this predates the "legal precedence" and should not only have been taken
      into account in all cases, but should be understood by those today.

      Additionally Ben Franklin wrote to Vattel's editor, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition
      of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising
      state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been
      continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.
      Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the
      members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and
      preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

      And Samuel Adams actually said, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the
      supreme legislative cannot change the constitution."

      So when it comes to legal precedence, or what the Framers had in mind, I'll stick with what the Framers had in mind thank you.

    • /.murphy

      Uh, prior to the Constitution, the United States had no law.

      Okay, you stick with what you think the "Framers" had in mind; we'll await your famous court case wherein the ruling overturns more than a century of legal precedent. Better get busy.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      murph, i was pretty clear on the fact that i was explaining how they defined things PRIOR to the Constitution, which is law. I don't have to have a legal battle here thank you. Nor would I have the funds to engage in one. So the challenge for me to take it to court is ludicrous.

    • /.murphy

      Then you've rendered your own point moot. ;-)

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      BTW, the States had laws. It wasn't as if anarchy was running rampant and what is now termed the United States had Articles of Confederation.

    • smrstrauss

      Re Ben Franklin having read Vattel. Sure he did, but he read a LOT of other things too. In particular, he and the other members of the Constitutional Convention read BLACKSTONE, who was far far more popular than Vattel, and Blackstone defined Natural Born as coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth. And that is the way that the Americans at the time actually used the term. There is no example of a writer of the Constitution using Natural Born to refer to parents, only to the place of birth. The meaning of Natural Born did not come from Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers. It came from the common law, which was referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers. And btw, John Jay, who used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George Washington, was a lawyer and a justice. If he were using Natural Born in any way other than it was used as was common at the time, which was the meaning from the common law, he would have said.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      You mean this William Blackstone?

      “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw.
      III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at
      the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the
      seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and
      accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several
      more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that
      all children, born out of the king’s alligeance, whose fathers were
      natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents
      and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted,
      or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a
      prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

      Notice that both parents are "in allegiance to the king." In other words they would be what we term citizens.

      BTW, whether it was used in the Federalist Papers may or may not be an issue. I definitely provided statements from those involved as to the term Natural Born Citizen and how they understood it. I also provided Blackwell, which you claim is saying something other than what he said.

      "John Jay, who used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George
      Washington, was a lawyer and a justice. If he were using Natural Born
      in any way other than it was used as was common at the time, which was
      the meaning from the common law, he would have said."

      Ok let's just take that for a moment. From the Book Presidential Selection, just prior to citing Jay on that matter, the author notes, "The meaning of "natural born Citizen" is not entirely clear; the term never was used commonly, and since 1795 its existence in American law has been confined to the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution." http://books.google.com/books?id=n1wJ_vGjkSQC&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false

      So then the author states it was not used commonly as you state in your response. Interestingly enough, I don't believe the Federalist Papers actually deal with the term as you seem to indicate. If I am wrong there, I'll take your correction. Please provide the documentation to the contrary.

      However, I did find this fascinating from federalistblog.us:

      "Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to
      establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s
      citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
      This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard
      said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue
      of “natural law and national law.”

      The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between
      nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is
      to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent.
      Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other
      nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

      Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

      Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

      "Does the gentleman mean that any person,
      born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no
      law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the
      Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of
      the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits
      of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other
      sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white?
      There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not
      recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess.,
      407 (1862))"

      Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural
      word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the
      child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be
      born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). "

      See that? Even Barack Obama wouldn't meet this, because of the allegiance of his father and that doesn't even take into account the fact that there is the question of Obama's citizenship in Indonesia when he was taken there by his mother.

    • smrstrauss

      When children are born OUTSIDE of the realm the parents have to be in allegiance. When children are born INSIDE the realm they can be born to foreign parents and still be Natural Born.

      This is what Blackstone said:

      “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” _http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/_ (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/)
      (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    • smrstrauss
    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      Then I have just one question....if all of this is true that you are stating, why was it necessary to vet McCain? Both parents were American citizens. That was a given. Then we are told that it had to be determined he was born on US soil, which in Panama resulted in a difference of about 200 yards. There should not have been a need to vet, since both of his parents were citizens and the issue of US soil should not have even been considered. IMO, something doesn't sound right.

    • smrstrauss

      Only because some people thought that a US naval base on LEASED territory (the Panama Canal Zone was on a 99-year lease) was not the same thing as sovereign territory. That, by the way, was what the Bush Administration argued (and lost) back when it argued that the Guantanimo base was not sovereign territory and hence Habeas Corpus did not apply. The US Senate and the US Supreme Court disagreed. Still, the US Senate wanted to point out its opinion that McCain, like Obama (whose birth in a US State has been showed Overwhelmingly) was a Natural Born Citizen. The reason that the US Senate did not do the same thing for Obama was that there was no question about his Natural Born status. There was about McCain, and so the Senate acted.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      Well, wait you just made the argument that it didn't matter about the place, but about the parents in this case. Therefore it should have not been an issue at all for McCain. I mean from what's been put forth, McCain could have been born in Canada and as long as both parents were citizens of the US, so was he. Again, Blackstone: " that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England"

      So I am at a loss for why you wouldn't just answer that it should never have been an issue once it was determined that McCain's parents were citizens. The place would have been irrelevant. Correct?

    • smrstrauss

      Read what I wrote again. What mattered was that he was born on US soil, US sovereign soil. Some people thought that he wasn't, that a US naval base on LEASED territory was not sovereign. But it is, so McCain is a NBC.However, IF McCain had not been born on a US naval base but had been born in Panama outside of the US Naval base, he would have fallen under the second of the two criteria in this:

      "“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."

      Notice the "OR." So there is no question about a child who has been born on US sovereign territory being a US Natural Born Citizen. For those who were born outside of US sovereign territory, the US Senate made the point that McCain had two citizen parents and hence qualified under the second criteria.

    • smrstrauss

      There is NO question of Obama's citizenship in Indonesia. You can check for yourself. Just call the Indonesian Embassy and ASK (ask for the press officer). He was NEVER an Indonesian Citizen.

  • Terry

    At this point who really cares! In just a few years we will be bankrupt and a 3rd world country. Unless the citizens realize their power and begin the fight.

    • smrstrauss

      The last birther meeting drew a couple of hundred people.

    • The_Magic_M

      You are too generous. The only 50+ people meeting ever was one Sheriff Joe event where the place was stacked with about 200 Tea Party people. I doubt most of them even qualified as "birthers" (at least before the event).

  • R.Young

    Our "ELECTED OFFICIALS" take the Oath to SAFEGUARD the CONSTITUTION, is only words on paper that they must say in order to appease people!

    • 44rd11

      Rote ceremonial pap. such an oath means nothing and has no force of law behind it.

  • /.murphy

    Here we go again... this article is trying to claim that US law requires that to meet the standards of the 12th Amendment, a candidate for President or Vice-President must be (a) born on the territory of the United States and (b) have two citizen-parents (either by birth or naturalized) at the time of his or her birth.

    That claim is utter nonsense.

    Here's why: consider the case of Republican Vice President Spiro T. Agnew (1969-1973). He was born in 1918 to a US citizen mother and a Greek non-citizen father. The hard proof for this fact can be found in the 1920 Federal Census (Jan. 6-7, 1920, Baltimore City, Supervisor's District 3, Enumeration District 166, Sheet 3B, Line 72). The columns for immigrant status note that his father came to America in 1903, and was still an alien ("AL") in 1920. Theodore Agnew (the father) did, however become naturalized between 1920 and 1930, and the proof for that is in the 1930 census, where his father's citizen status is marked as naturalized ("NA").

    No one has ever questioned Spiro Agnew's eligibility for office. In fact, he is considered a "natural-born citizen," consistent with the Constitution's requirements.

    The other thing about Spiro Agnew is that his case is virtually identical to Barack Obama's: a non-citizen father and a citizen mother. The only difference is where their fathers came from.

    No one with a similar background to these two men has ever been denied access to those offices; in other words, the claims of this article, while entertaining, simply have no support in current US law.

    You can independently verify the 1920 & 1930 Census PROOF of my claims on Ancestry.com if you have a membership; if you don't, you can sign up for the 14-day trial. It's very easy to cancel if you choose not to keep it. Once you get there, you can see the entire family, even little Spiro with his non-citizen Daddy.

    Embrace the truth, it will set you free.

    • seeseeyou

      What has Agnew to do with Obama?

    • Tim brown

      Nothing, murph goes on and on about irrelevant things to the matter at hand. The entire issue is a legal one, not what murph puts forth, because it knows it can't sustain the legal argument.

    • /.murphy

      Hmmm... the words of someone short on facts. It can and will continue to sustain legal arguments to the contrary. You'll see. It's just like the birth certificate issue, where all of you ended up having to throw up your arms and declare that there was a huge international conspiracy while the rest of us laughed at you. Didn't win you the Presidential election, did it? It only confused your voter base.
      And "irrelevant?" Well, maybe to you. But not to those who are concerned about what the 12th Amendment actually means in our common country. Ah... but I'm talking about people who are still loyal to our country, so perhaps that's what you find so confusing.
      I have merely given people tools where they can independently find hard facts that show that Barack Obama's citizenship situation is nothing new in America. They don't have to believe me; I'd never ask that. Go find out for yourselves! That's what I'm saying. Break free of the goons who tell you what to think!

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      "Break free of the goons who tell you what to think! It doesn't matter
      whether you're a Democrat or a Republican; what matters is whether
      you're a free thinker, just like the founding fathers intended."

      Ahhh and you got this all on your own? That's what I thought. You got this from talking points on the other side. Again, you completely twisted the two major rulings that would determine this issue as demonstrated in Sizemore's last post.

      Murph you are not a free thinker and this is not about "wining the Presidential election." It's about the Constitution, but keep throwing up red herrings all you like.

    • /.murphy
    • smrstrauss

      And that was just one of SEVEN state courts and one federal court that ruled the same way on Obama, and one that ruled the same way on McCain (Hollister v. McCain). All nine of those courts ruled that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents. All said that the key ruling of the US Supreme Court was the Wong Kim Ark case (not Minor v. Happersett). And on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those cases that had held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

    • /.murphy

      You're right. Thank you. Yet for some reason, many of these people still cling to the idea that Minor v. Happersett is the landmark case. They even quote it, but they always leave out a key part from the Justice's ruling that basically says that questions of citizenship are not being considered because Minor was a citizen by birth of two parents who also were citizens by birth.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      murph, there is no question that the minor case was about gender, not citizenship. However, written in the ruling is what Skidmore pointed out and that is:

      Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the
      Constitutional framers did not define ‘natural born Citizen’ but that
      they did know its meaning and that it was different from ‘Citizen’ as
      stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this
      distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of parents (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency.

      The courts decision states: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who
      shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to
      ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which
      the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that
      all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became
      themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
      natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court fully understood and applied the Principles of Constitutional Construction in their decision.

      Here's what I would ask of those ruling, whether liberal or conservative. Did they, in fact study the Constitution? or did they study case law? There is a huge difference here. This is something I spoke with Mr. Skidmore about as he has asked numerous people about this and the resounding reply is that they did not study the Constitution, but they studied case law.

      In addition, the Wong Ark case does declare that any child born on US soil is a citizen, but does not determine that child to be a "natural born citizen." As expressed previously, the Constitution even makes a distinction of these terms in the same article. So, the question would then be, since McCain's parents were both citizens, why was it even brought up during his vetting, if all that was necessary was being born on US soil?

      Second, why did the DNC offer a letter confirming Obama's meeting the Constitutional requirements, then backtracking and taking that out?

      Point is: the Wong Ark case did not determine "natural born citizen." It merely determined citizen. Even you have pointed out that foreign diplomats who come here and have children....that does not imply those children become citizens of the US. However, it should according to what you have put forth, since according to you and the Wong Ark case, parents are irrelevant in the matter. But again, Wong Ark was about who is a citizen, not who is a "natural born citizen." This is why the Minor case is cited. Though it was not dealing with natural born citizen, the ruling contains the language whereby one comes to the conclusion of who is or is not a natural born citizen.

      Furthermore, just because someone has been in office and no one called them on it, does not mean that it was ok. If that is the standard, then I suppose we might want to look at all kinds of areas of life to compare apples to apples. People get away with stealing and murder and all sorts of things and are never called on it. Does that mean it's ok? I think you would agree, it does not.

    • smrstrauss

      HOWEVER, you are wrong when you state that the Wong Kim Ark case does not declare that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. That is precisely what it does say.

      Here are the words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which by the way was AFTER Minor v. Happersett. The ruling was six justices to two (one justice did not vote):

      "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in
      the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

      The above clearly states that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it refers to the PLACE of birth. There is NO mention of parents whatever. And the ruling goes on to say that every child born in England, or the 13 colonies or the early states was
      considered a Natural Born Citizen with the exception of foreign diplomats etc. And it says that the same rule continues UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

      More information on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      I'll give you the same reply I gave murph:

      Again, it may be legal Precedence. However, I'm going back to the
      Constitution and I ask how would they have understood the term? With
      that in mind...I would direct people's attention to The Law of Nations
      1758, just prior to the writing of the Constitution. In it Vattel
      wrote:

      "“The citizens are the members of the civil
      society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority,
      they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in
      the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
      and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
      children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
      their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
      owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
      each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
      becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
      children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
      shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
      renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
      I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
      born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
      will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      See
      that? Parents plural, who are both citizens. He defines it clearly,
      not a years after the Constitution, but prior to it. In addition,
      William Blackstone also perceived this to be a correct interpretation of
      the matter of natural born citizen:

      “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw.
      III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at
      the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the
      seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and
      accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several
      more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that
      all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were
      natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents
      and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted,
      or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a
      prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

      Again, both parents are considered in "allegiance to the king" or we would better understand them as "subjects" or citizens.

      In addition, why don't we just look at Thomas Jefferson and what he said with regards to the issue? Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s
      Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be
      it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the
      territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next
      before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the
      same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own
      oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give
      assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born,
      whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time
      of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise
      their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or
      mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish
      that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being
      citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

      Of
      course this is Virginia, but the meaning is the same. Both parents
      must be citizens at the time their infants are born. All of this
      predates the "legal precedence" and should not only have been taken into
      account in all cases, but should be understood by those today.

    • smrstrauss

      Vattel was not the source of the term "Natural Born" in the US Constitution. How do we know? We know several ways. Most important is that the words "Natural Born" were not used in any English language translation of Vattel until TEN years after the Constitution was written. Second, neither Vattel nor his book are mentioned in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times (And the book THE Law of Nations is not mentioned in the Constitution either, the fact that Law and Nations are capitalized comes from the fact they tended to capitalize a lot in those days). A third reason is that IN Vattel's book he never says that the leaders of countries should even be citizens, much less citizens with two citizen parents. So, where did Natural Born come from?

      It came from the common law, which had been used in America and in Britain for centuries before the US Constitution. For example, John Jay, who used the term in his letter to Washington, was a lawyer and justice. If he had intended to use the term Natural Born in any way other than the most common way that it was used at the time, the meaning that came from the common law that he was familiar with, he would have said. Moreover, we have the evidence of the writings of the founders, who never used the term Natural Born in any way other than its use in the common law. They never used the term to refer to parents, two parents or even one parent. They always used it to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.

      Here are some examples of how the term was used in America at around the time the Constitution was written:

      "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 the state." There is no mention of parents, only of the place of birth.)

      And this from 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)

    • /.murphy

      That interesting... and 1829, too. Hmmm... looks like even at that early age, we were well on our way to the current legal consensus that "natural-born citizen" = citizen-by-birth = any person born within US territory.

    • smrstrauss

      Quite right.

    • /.murphy

      Saying that twice just makes it twice as wrong.

    • /.murphy

      US v. Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship by birth. Since Wong was born in California, the Court affirmed that he was a citizen-by-birth. Where you are going logically astray, I think, is that you're trying to make a distinction between a "citizen-by-birth" and a "natural-born citizen." Unfortunately, there have been no specific rulings in US Law that make that distinction, and that was why I cited the case of Spiro Agnew. He was born in 1918 to a citizen mother and a non-citizen father, yet he was regarded as having satisfied the requirements of the 12th Amendment in being a "natural-born citizen." (There are others, as well, as you know.)

      So there is a consensus in this country that there are two kinds of citizenship: natural-born (or citizenship-by-birth), and naturalized. If you desire to change this, there are procedures for doing so, and you will either be successful or not. But unless and until you successfully address the issue through the proper legal channels, the legal consensus remains, and that's what you're up against. I'm not saying that the issue won't be tested again; I think it will, and I also think it will involve an "anchor-baby" situation. Consider this hypothetical: if a Mexican couple comes to the US and gives birth to a child on US territory, that child is automatically a US citizen-by-birth. Now, imagine that the parents take the child back to Mexico a few months after the baby is born. The child is raised and educated there, builds a successful career and becomes fabulously wealthy. The key question is : can she return to the United States and be eligible to run for the US Presidency? Even though this is not a likely scenario, the way US Law works here and now, the answer is "YES."

      I should also mention that this legal consensus about citizenship has been in place for a very long time. Even going back as far as 1795, you can easily find legal scholars writing things like this:

      "The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.

      "It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…

      The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

      -Zephaniah Smith, US Congressman (Federalist), 1793-1797; Chief Justice, CT Supreme Court, 1806-1819, in A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut, p. 163, 167.

      That's just one example, and the intent and understanding of "natural-born citizen" is pretty clear--it's the same as "citizen-by-birth."

      That's what you're up against. Very steep hill.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      Again, it may be legal Precedence. However, I'm going back to the Constitution and I ask how would they have understood the term? With that in mind...I would direct people's attention to The Law of Nations 1758, just prior to the writing of the Constitution. In it Vattel wrote:

      "“The citizens are the members of the civil
      society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority,
      they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in
      the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
      and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
      children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
      their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
      owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
      each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
      becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
      children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
      shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
      renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
      I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
      born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
      will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      See that? Parents plural, who are both citizens. He defines it clearly, not a years after the Constitution, but prior to it. In addition, William Blackstone also perceived this to be a correct interpretation of the matter of natural born citizen:

      “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw.
      III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at
      the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the
      seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and
      accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several
      more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that
      all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were
      natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents
      and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted,
      or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a
      prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

      Again, both parents are considered in "allegiance to the king" or we would better understand them as "subjects" or citizens.

      In addition, why don't we just look at Thomas Jefferson and what he said with regards to the issue? Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s
      Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be
      it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the
      territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next
      before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the
      same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own
      oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give
      assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born,
      whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time
      of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise
      their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or
      mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish
      that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being
      citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

      Of course this is Virginia, but the meaning is the same. Both parents must be citizens at the time their infants are born. All of this predates the "legal precedence" and should not only have been taken into account in all cases, but should be understood by those today.

    • /.murphy

      Yes. All of that predates the body of laws and legal precedence that today determines that a baby born on US soil (according to the legal principle of jus soli) is automatically a "citizen-by-birth."

      "Should" is a completely moot point. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, what we're talking about is "is." You're climbing a very, very steep hill with this one. Good luck. The United States has had a legal consensus on this issue in operation for more than two centuries, and that's what you're up against. That's a lot of momentum. What you're talking about involves overturning a whole lot o' case law. I predict you will get nowhere. But time will tell.

    • /.murphy

      Since you mentioned him, we no longer need to look to people like this Swiss dude, Emerich de Vattel, for information about what our country's founders intended because our founders have left us their own writings as well as a 200-year+ legacy.

      We are living what the founders intended, each and every day. Even though it isn't perfect, because we now have our own legal system and procedures, we are about as likely to follow de Vattel's Le droit des gens as we are the Law of Hammurabi or the Napoleonic Code. To the America of today, they are all anachronisms.

      Understanding what is meant by "natural-born" in the historical context of late eighteenth-century America is paramount: because of recent hostilities between the newly-formed states and Britain, it is clear that the founders' biggest concern was to prevent wealthy late-comers from that nation from gaining power in America, and potentially returning it to its place in the Empire. That was the fear. In drafting the Constitution, they made sure that anyone who sought the Presidency could demonstrate to all that they had fully separated themselves from Crown, Parliament and Empire. They did so with the concept of "natural-born citizen."

      Our nation has changed from those days, however. We are now, like never before, a nation of immigrants. We no longer have a critical mass of population born in a nation from whom we formally separated, and with whom we fought a recent and bloody war to forcibly conclude that separation. That is the difference between then and now.

      What you're suggesting is to impose an anachronism on ourselves.

      Ain't gonna happen.

    • smrstrauss

      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen does not come from Vattel; it comes from the common law. Vattel was not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Worse for your side, the words "Natural Born Citizen" did not appear in any English translation of Vattel until a decade after the US Constitution was written.

      The writers of the US Constitution were mainly lawyers and justices, and they were familiar with the term Natural Born from the common law, where it had been used for some 300 years before the Constitution was written, and it always referred to the place of birth and not to the citizenship of the parents. And examination of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention shows that they used the term in their articles and letters the way that it was used in the common law and not to refer to parents.

    • /.murphy

      Oh... almost forgot to address a couple of your points.

      (1) McCain. I think raising the question of McCain's citizenship was nothing more than a political game, but he was born of two US citizens in a US military installation. I think that makes him a natural-born citizen consistent with the intent of that phrase.

      (2) Obama & the DC. Again, just a political game.

      Tell Mr. Skidmore, "good luck," but I wouldn't put any money on the likelihood of his success in making this argument. Too steep a climb.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      murph, again you just made the point.....why was it an issue that BOTH parents be citizens? That was part of the vettting. It wasn't a sideshow.

    • /.murphy

      Consider this... if McCain's parents had both been immigrants, there may have been a question raised. That question would have been resolved in his favor, I think, if one or both were serving in the US military and he were still born on a US military installation. But one citizen parent would have clinched it for sure. That's the way the law works, just as it did for Spiro Agnew, and for every "anchor" baby as well. Where do you think the concept of "anchor baby" came from?

    • smrstrauss

      Here are the actual words of the Wong Kim Ark decision, and you can see from them that it did indeed define the term Natural Born.

      "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

      That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it refers to the PLACE of birth, and that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born US Citizen. It says that that was the rule in England, and in the 13 colonies, and in the early states, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

      THAT is why Edwin Meese had this in his book:

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      That is why The Economist magazine wrote this:

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      And former Senator Fred Thompson wrote this:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      And the Wall Street Journal wrote this:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

    • The_Magic_M

      > because every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats

      ... and invading armies. I wonder how long it takes until birthers claim Obama sr. was either a foreign diplomat or an "invader" (probably based on the secret USA-Kenya war that has been going on for 60+ years without anybody noticing, or something).

    • 44rd11

      What it has to do is that Agnew, as VP, would have "inherited" the office of president had he not already been forced out of office before Nixon quit. AND, he would have been no more eligible for the office than Obama - since they both have foreigner daddy's. THAT is what it has to do with Obama. Chester Arthur's becoming President set's no precedence - except as a lying politician - and as such is very much like Obama. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/the-assassination-of-chester-a-arthur/

    • /.murphy

      You missed several. But kudos for getting President Arthur.

    • The_Magic_M

      You don't get it - the VP also must be an NBC.
      Sheesh, does none of you EVER actually read the Constitution ?

      But no-one ever claimed Agnew could not be VP because of his non-citizen father. And why? Because nobody knew? Because nobody cared? Or maybe, just maybe, because he was white?

    • /.murphy

      If you need to ask....

    • grassroot
    • /.murphy

      Yes... and here is a beautiful letter to 'Lord' Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments in Britain. I really love the flourish in the language those Brits use, don't you?
      http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/