I think Mik had it right -- I think he was referring to the question of whether Mr. Obama is a "natural-born citizen", as required by the Constitution.
The site you pointed to offers this definition (among others): "Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)." Even if one believes (as I don't) that Mr. Obama was born in, say, Kenya, if we accept that his mother was a U. S. citizen who lived in the USA for at least five years, then he's a U. S. citizen by this definition.
But I believe he was born in Hawaii, so "Anyone born inside the United States [and subject to its jurisdiction]" does it for me.
None of this will satisfy the noob, though, I expect ....
Actually, Mik, there are a few requirements for someone to be president according to the constitution. One must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35, and have resided in the US for 14 years. The defintion of a natural born citizen (which doesn't just mean "born in the USA", and also does not mean the child of a U.S. citizen) can be found at: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
That being said, I have no doubt of Obama's qualifications.
Newbie, a legal birth certificate has indeed been provided, and as Laura has pointed out, his mom was American, so that makes him American. Period.
You talked about voter fraud and laws. I was referring you to a previous possibly illegal attempt to remove legal voters from the roles. Had you been effected, you sure would have cared. Since it didn't, hey, who cares about history? "Why do you Democrats always bring up the past?!?"
dear newbie. Liking or disliking the point of your comments is irrelevant if you can not fully state the point of your comment with some background so we know what you are talking about. I have no political affiliation and like to be informed since both sides have a way wiith the truth that is not always straight. To be able to actual judge the merits of your comments they need some sort of context. The subject of this thread started by you is nver explained. I stated my personal opinion about the content of your message.
I am more agreement with Mik that is better to send too many forms out than not enough.
There may be a contingent of people sending back in forms to register somebody or something that is not entitled to vote. This is fraud. I have not heard of any significant number of people who actually vote under the fradulent registration. Fortunately (for those wrongfully accused) our law system is based on innocent until proven guilty. Law makers are trying to impose new legislation to make it more difficult to vote fradulently. The burden of proof will then rest with the voter and the individual voter's expense. Some of these people would find it very difficult to get an id if they have to supply an original birth certificate if one is not now available due to records being lost. The gist of the arguement is that a lot more people who would otherwise be eligible to vote would lose that eligiblity than are the actual number of cases of voter identity fraud.
The republicans have not demonstrated that there is a real need to cause the added hoops to jump through to vote.
I am still waiting to hear legitimate reasons for the need to have ID to vote. All I have heard from the republicans is bluster about isolated incidents of voter registration fraud and only one count of actual voting fraud of someone deliberately doing it for a news story.
Newbie you are the one who keeps rehashing the deal about what you are calling a legal birth certificate. Mik was only trying to figure out what your subject line was in reference to. Please do not respond until you have taken the time to reread all the posts in this thread and stop to come out with an intelligent response other than "don't read my posts".
Two things that make my knee-jerk reaction of rolling my eyes justified when I saw who posted that rediculous message...
1. Barack Obama is a US citizen. Anyone who believes otherwise is a blithering ditto head Fox "News" watcher with too much time on their hands. Give it up. You're making yourself look stupid.
2. What on earth do the topic of when Mitt left his job have to do with "calling the kettle black"? Are you saying Obama lied about his employment history? That's the only way that metaphor would work.
So, again, rather than come on here all hot and bothered in your particular way, why not take the time to fully explain what the hell you're talking about. 'Cause I sure don't, and I'll bet many others here don't either.
BTW, I'd rather voter commissions send roll forms to everyone, rather than remove people who have the right to vote. See Florida 2001 for reference.
currently nobody would accuse the republicans of trying to increase the voter rolls. I don't care if it was republicans or democrats sending out forms to verify if somone was eligible to vote. Normally it doesn't matter because the percentage of registered voters actually voting is constantly declining in part due to laws like the motor voter law which made it very easy to register to vote but does nothing to actually get them to vote. Hopefully this election people will be swayed one way or another to actually vote.
nothing wrong with sending out voter registration forms to ensure people have the opportunity to vote. What is illegal is people sending the forms back in. This then constitutes voter fraud which is illegal no matter who sent out the form to begin with. Part of the point of sending out the forms is to find out if the person is eligible to begin with.