Re: why birtherism might not matter, even if it's true ...
"Mike Findlay" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <676E375C2D57467BB868D757B491D5ED@MikePC> |
I'm no expert in this area and don't intend to become one. But my understanding was that you had to be born in the US to become president. I don't know that your parents had to have been us citizens. IOW, I think any birthright citizen could become president assuming you were born on us soil and a citizen when you were running for office. I don't know that there is a continuity of citizenship requirement. Mike F. -----Original Message----- From: Peter T. Chattaway Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:29 AM To: DADL (off topic) Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] why birtherism might not matter, even if it's true ... On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote: > > Ergo, *it doesn't matter* where Obama was born. > > It seems that's debatable. Some differentiate between "citizen at birth" > (which Obama certainly was, being born to a US citizen) and "natural-born > citizen", which some define solely as being born on US soil. Well, I've also heard it argued that Obama needed to be born on U.S. soil *and* be the son of U.S. citizens to be a "natural-born citizen" -- in which case, again, his birth certificate would be irrelevant. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot