Why it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Kenya

First, I did not claim you had to be natural born. I said it was one of two ways to qualify for enlistment.

I will post Washington's order one more time:

“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person
has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington,
Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

The reason the "Citizen of the US" was put in was because people like Hamilton were citizens but not born on US soil. Washingon was third generation US born and given his order regarding American born, he and his contemporaries saw themselves as natural born Americans long before the DOI was signed.

Try comparing his enlistment order to Clause 5. They are almost identical:

American born = Natural born

Being married/Resident = US Citizen

 

Also a age differnce between joining the Army and being the President

To join the Army you had to be 16.

To be President you had to be 35.

So yes you could have been born in the u.S. and joined the Army.

You could not have been born in the U.S. at the time and been President because we were not in America long enough to make that possible

Hence why they added or be a citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution.

 

All adult citizens in 1787, when the US Constitution was written, were Original Citizens

 

You're missing the bigger picture by making a seriously false assumption. What makes you think 1759 was the first time they viewed themselves as American born? The absence of a beginning date in Washington's order demonstrates being American born was so familiar he didn't need a beginning date. He himself was third generation American. He was born in 1732 and was considered American born, which is natural born.

Your argument nobody was old enough is proven false by Washington and his order in 1775.

Want the real kicker? Minimum age to join the military was 16 which means there would have been a lot of people older than 16 joining. What does that mean? It means by 1789 there would have been a lot of people over 35 who were considered American born.

The "nobody was old enough" argument is obviously false.

 

Washington was there and he ordered American born. But keep changing what he wrote....it's sad but it's your perogative.

 

well, history and the law say you're wrong.

 

You could have been born in America. but you were not a citizen of America because no America existed until 1778. It was then and only then that you could be a Natural born citizen of the United States. We had different forms of Government before then. but it was not the Unite States of America.

Before 1778 everybody even if they were born in what is now the U.S. were British citizens.

That is why it made it where all people in the U.S. at the time of Adoption became a U.S. citizen. but you couldn't possibly be a "Natural Born" if there was no such thing as the U.S. before the constitution.

You can't be born someplace that didn't technically exist at the time. and obviously the people writing the Constitution understood that since they made sure to specify that people who were in America at the time of Adoption was able to become President and Vice President. everybody else had to be a Natural Born citizen.

 

I'm not changing what he wrote. it simply has no legal relevance to this discussion. there was no america before there was an america. a 3rd grader can understand this. there were no NBC's of age when the constitution was wrote, since there wasn't a US yet. that's why they wrote the exception clause.

 

He gave a LEGAL ORDER on who could enlist in 1775. One type of person was AMERICAN BORN.

 

To be clear, are you saying "American born" is different from "Natural born?"

Eta: in the future, do not claim there were no US Citizens prior to the Constitution. There was a court case in 1830 that ruled someone born in NYC on July 5 1776 qualified as a natural born US Citizen.

 

Priceless! You don't have the balls to quote the entire post which contained the argument that lead to the conclusion. Try not cherry picking so much and maybe you'll have a better chance at anything remotely close to a debate.

 

yes at the time of 1778 there was a difference. because there was no "Natural Born U.S. citizen" at that time since the government and the country was just declared independent of the British.

 

I have to wonder. Your first response rejected my argument based on age. After I showed that did not hold up to scrutiny you forgot about age and moved on to this claim that American born is not the same as natural born in 1778. My next question should be obvious:

After I prove both terms held the exact same meaning in 1778, what wil you focus on next?

 

You didn't prove that age was not a factor. because a 16 year old born in America. is not the same as a 35 Natural born Citizen of the U.S. in 1775 and 1788

So go ahead and prove that both terms held the exact same meaning now.

 

has no legal relevance to this discussion.

 

this isn't a debate. You have been shown how and why you are wrong. Your just stomping your feet now.

 

Washington giving a legal order in 1775 about American born enlisting in the army has no legal relevance to this discussion? Lol! It proves American born predated the Constitution. But keep ignoring that......bye bye.

 

Okay. You simply don't have the first clue what you are talking about and your own words prove his beyond doubt. You claimed 1778 was the first time anyone could be a naturual born citizen. There is at least one court case that ruled people born in NYC in 1776 were natural born US citizens.

I don't blame you guys. It was my fault for debating unknown people who clearly are absent of basic facts yet claim my position is wrong. See ya.

 

The continent the colonies occupied was called America, it was not the United States (Nations) of America.

All passenger ships to the British colonies would stop in Britain someplace to tax the cargo and all emigrating passengers at that time MUST swear an oath to the King, and were then British subjects.

When the British subjects settled in to their home state/nation, they swore another oath to that nation, i.e. New York. (So they were British subjects, citizens of New York.)

When these immigrants married and had children, the wife took on the citizenship of her husband and the children were then "natural born citizens" of the nation/state colony they were born in and of Britain.

After declaring independence, these state citizens/ British subjects took an oath to the new nation (The Federation/ The United States'/ America). They were called the Original Citizens, but obviously were not natural born citizens of the new nation/federation/united states. Their children were, beginning in July of 1776.

 

What does ANY of that have to do with current law?

 

it has no legal relevance. there was no america in 1775. seriously, this is 5th grade civics.

 

Why does it matter if Obama wa born in Kenya.?..........WOW !!!

With that kind of additude/mentality.....Then, let the next Haitian Born, turned American Citizen get voted and excepted for President........Why Not.?.....As long as he speaks English.

Bottom line is this....Bastard Ignorant Liberals in this coutry, have no common sence.

 

Obama didn't turn American later on in his life he was born a American.

 

Americans are born overseas every day.. Thousands of them every year.

If one parent is a US citizen, as Ann Dunham was, there is NO issue.. Read the Statutes.

 

As I stated....No common sence.

Liberals are so brainwashed......An easy to fool and control society of ignorant empty head puppets.