World Nut Daily? David, I thought you were educated. WND makes Faux Noise almost look like news -

LOL, It's not the source I'm interested in, but the discussion regarding the topic.

Hmm. A certificate of live birth is all any one in the US has. The Constitution makes very specific requirements, and that is all. Any

attempt to do otherwise is Constitutional crime, and should result in martial law and federal seizure of teabagger states.

That's why it should be a Constitutional Amendment, defining the term "Natural Born Citizen" and just what proof would be required/accepted

davidinark: No. You're not understanding the argument. Foreign born are not allowed to run for the office. It is the duty of local election

officials to determine eligibility. That has always been done, and has always worked. World NUT Daily is a RW organizaion funded by racists

and RTW idiots.

Under that perversion of language, no one born outside the US (including John McCain) could run for office. Look at the Constitution and

its requirements -- they are simple and easily laid out.

I happen to think that no one born outside the US should be allow to run. Likewise, if both parents are not natural citizens.

davidinark: That's OK. But, trying to pass an anti-Obama law ex post facto is a cynical racist move, especially since

Obama's certificate of live birth was publicly acknowledged by the Honolulu Advertiser in 1961.

Oh, I don't really care about the "Obama" side of things. I just think that in light of the world's political upheavals and takeovers, the

US needs to take measures to protect itself. Not that it really matters, I suppose.

When China takes over, it won't matter what our Constitution says.

The requirements laid out in the Constitution are sufficient. Any state that proposes otherwise is criminal

The War of Rebellion settled that.

And the so-called neoConfederates would lose again.

goo.gl/d2uya

what about children born to parents stationed overseas in the military? Should they be disqualified because their parents served overseas?

AlienDoggy: John McCain was born in Panama in 1934.

Does this current process mean that no one is allowed to question election officials & their review?

xojules: Not at all. But, when a birth in reported 46 years prior to the election, and a certificate of live birth is attested, the racist

motivation is manifest.

smaugg: Good! That's what I'm saying, those of us who were born to US Citizens who happened to be on foreign soil should not be punished.

American citizenship is clearly, and simply, defined in the Constitution. It has worked for 224 years. Witness the problems EU countries are

experiencing with 3rd - 4th generation "immigrants" who have lived in the country for the past 3+ generations, but still are not

citizens. Of course, on the positive side of the World NUT Daily, we could deport a number of the reich wingnuts like

Yoo, Malkin, and the member of the Italian Fascist party (yep, a lifetime member no less) Antonin Scalia.

goo.gl/Thm5R

I have to ask: Why does it matter if they are first generation and *both* parents weren't born on US soil?

goo.gl/wyZ2T - quote from article: "tate birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

His mother is a native of Kansas; his father was born in Kenya."

Next quote: "Obama and his staff produced copies of his birth certificate when he was running for president in 2008..."

So, again, where's the problem? Birthers are not rational, and should receive nothing but contempt from fellow human beings.

I see Obama as more well-rounded for having lived outside the US as well. I guess these mindsets just don't make sense to me.

I would feel the same of anyone else too.

If I am understanding davidinark correctly, the idea is defining what "natural born" means for the future since scholars are in ...

... disagreement if it means just born on US soil and/or have parents who are both US citizens.

That discussion can be held w/o bringing Obama's situation into account.

xojules: Read the Supreme Court ruling in slaughterhouse.

After reading through the assorted cases, it seems that there are merely court interpretations. The key difference seems to be whether ...

... your parents' citizenship matters in determining if you're a natural born citizen.

It seems to me that the matter has clearly been decided, and that bringing it up simply put focus on something other than the real problems

we have in the US: Giant deficit & debt, politicians on both sides of the aisle unwilling or unable to realistically look at reducing it

because discussing such matters are percieved to be a nail in the re-election coughin.

coffin?

BTW, never heard of the above source, but getting info from an article that sells political books in the middle of the text is the

equivilent of watching infomercials on TV for your news.

Taking the current situation out of the equation, why does it hurt to clarify before others (not incumbents) choose to run in 2012?

Granted the source was not the best choice, but it was the conversation I was really after. I think as long as both parents are US citizens,

Then They are fine. Of course, that does not work for old georgie boy who was our first. And I am not a history buff to know about the other

Ones. But this country has been its own long enough that we should require both parents be citizens. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up

For trouble. Then again, if the electoral college puts a wacko in office, it doesn't matter what their parents are.

So in answer to my own question, "because it doesn't matter."

Why should both parents have to be US citizens? Are Americans who have one parent who is foriegn less capable or less patriotic?