The U.S. Constitution requires three things of a president (1) at least 35 years old, (2) 14 years continuous residence and (3) be a natural born citizen of America.
NBC isn't defined anywhere in the Constitution. Nor is there any place in the Constitution that suggests any sort of documentation that would define a citizen. All of those definitions are defined in case law after the adoption of the Constitution.
Why, then, are birfers claiming this is a Constitutional issue?
Absolutely correct!
Somehow, a candidate must be able to prove one of the following to be a natural born citizen. Take your pick
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Somehow, a candidate must be able to prove one of the following to be a natural born citizen. Take your pick
Why are we citing a non-governmental website?
Silly Obotski:
"(3) be a natural born citizen of America."
We are not sure he was born here. Add to that, 3 years of Obama refusing to cough up his long form and resolve this issue.
Like the very famous David Axelrod said:
Somebody named Jake Tapper was interviewing him and David Axelrod was
mad because he thinks somebody is keeping stuff secret from him:TAPPER: But what do you say to people who argue you are demonizing an
organization for a charge that nobody knows if it’s true or not?AXELROD: Well I’m not demonizing the Chamber of Commerce. I’m simply
suggesting to them that they disclose the source of the $75 million that
they are spending in campaigns and put to rest, put to rest the
questions that have been, that have been raised.TAPPER: Isn’t that like the whackjobs that tell the president he
needs to show them his full long-form birth certificate so he can put to
rest the questions that have been raised?AXELROD: The president’s birth certificate has been available to people.
TAPPER: The long form? [Notice here how Axelrod ignores the question!!! - Squeeky]
AXELROD: Someone once in the course of this debate about whether we
should have a law to force these organizations to disclose where they’re
money is coming from in the campaigns, someone said, and I think
they’re right – “the only people who want to keep things secret are
folks who have something to hide.” If the Chamber doesn’t have anything
to hide about these contributions, and I take them at their word that
they don’t, then why not disclose? Why not let people see where their
money is coming from?
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
If the SCOTUS doesn't care about the issue, why do the birfers?
"Somehow, a candidate must be able to prove one of the following to be a natural born citizen. Take your pick"
The word "somehow" isn't in the Constitution, either. It's not a constitutional issue. It's a case law issue.
And what have the courts consistently said?
We are not sure he was born here.
The state of Hawaii says he was. 
The word "somehow" isn't in the Constitution, either. It's not a constitutional issue. It's a case law issue.
And what have the courts consistently said?
Thank you! 
CRick:
"If the SCOTUS doesn't care about the issue, why do the birfers?"
I think this is about 10 different kinds of logical fallacy. Do I need to get the rolled up newspaper out again??? Quit poopying in the house. Just go scratch at the door, and Mommy will let you out. OK. Now go get in your basket!!!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
You never answered the question: The SCOTUS won't hear the issue. Why should you care?
CRick:
Illogical question. Who cares to answer something this silly???
For example:
CRick to Random Black Person 1950: The Supreme Court says separate but equal schools are OK, so why should you care???
Please put a little more thought into your questions, huh???
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Squeeky: "We are not sure he was born here."
Where does the Constitution OR any known case law leave anyone's citizenship up to "YOU"? Do "you" get to determine who gets a drivers license, too?
The word "somehow" isn't in the Constitution, either.
And neither are these bullets:
You're absolutely right, SPG. But those things don't make you ineligible, either.
rikker:
Woulda/shoulda/coulda yourself to death. The problem is here. Try living on Planet Earth. You are just attempting a version of this:
Obotski and the Vattle Birthers - Proof Not-So-Great Minds Think Alike, Too!!!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Your recent pull-a-thon hasn't helped your intellect, Pallid.
The courts have passed the buck to congress. The new Republican congress has the obligation according to the courts to certify Obama and settle the issue.
I heard that! Who said "fat chance?" You lack faith in Boehner? We just have to apply the pressure.
Can anyone answer this question? Why won't the SCOTUS take up the 'birther' question?
Thanks in advance 
Annie, (yawn)
Are you making yet another attempt (yawn) at humor? In case (yawn) you haven't noticed, you're a big flop !!
"The new Republican congress has the obligation according to the courts to certify Obama and settle the issue."
Hmmmmm. I looked over Boehner's agenda and I don't see that bullet item anywhere. I don't even see it in his talking points.
Rikker
Hmmmmm. I looked over Boehner's agenda and I don't see that bullet item anywhere. I don't even see it in his talking points.
True, but wait until 2012 when he becomes the laughing stock and emblem of stupidity rather than the voter seeking to do their duty and cast an educated vote. Some appropriate "talking points" may magically appear.
Hmmmmm. I looked over Boehner's agenda and I don't see that bullet
item anywhere. I don't even see it in his talking points.
Because there's no interest. Sadly, the birfers are left high and dry with only squirrely Orly to fight for them.
Didn't Arizona recently certify Mr. Obama to be on the state ballot - even though they have a birth certificate requirement?
Nick: "Some appropriate "talking points" may magically appear."
Not if he wants Repugs to have a decent shot at the White House!!!
And it's good that you admit your chances in a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS requires magic.
CRick: Because there's no interest. Sadly, the birfers are left high and dry with only squirrely Orly to fight for them.
Delusional Obotski:
Oh yippee!! We're winning!! We're Winning!!! Obama didn't have to cough up his long form IN COURT today!! Hooray!!! Oh that will show the Birthers how dumb they are and how BRILLIANTLY INTELLIGENT us Obotski are!! Oh Happy Day!!!
Meanwhile, on Planet Earth: SHELLACK.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Never answered the question. I'll ask a THIRD time. Why won't the SCOTUS take up the issue?
Yours in patience, waiting for a response to a direct question. 
CRick:
I answered you twice, I think. Now, a third time:
You presume any SCOTUS action is related to questions of birth, and presuppose that any response or non-response there is there is satisfactory for all. Will you make these presumptions if SCOTUS knocks down Obamacare???
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
No. I don't think that "Obamacare" (derogatory term for Health Care Reform) will be struck down for the simple reason that it's modeled on Social Security - which every conservative seems to enjoy that socialist program - as well as other socialist programs like free education and free medical care when elderly.
Squeeky: "Meanwhile, on Planet Earth: SHELLACK."
Yes, I can see how the newly shellacked Repug Congress is pandering to the birfer issue. Dan Issa is issuing subpoenas left and right. John Boehner is demanding an accounting. eric Cantor is looking on sternly. And Michelle Bachmann is saying, "We that's IT, then."
They certainly ARE shellacking the prez, that's for sure.
And all none of the Repug candidates are whipping Obama in the polls, too.
Have any of you birfers come up with a CONSTITUTIONAL issue yet?
There's a reason you get your asses whipped in court, you know.
Rikker: I have something you can do!!!
CRick said this:
We are not sure he was born here.
Then CRick said: The state of Hawaii says he was.
Sooo, I think it was you who said this somewhere...Can you tell CRick that "the State of Hawaii" is a inanimate object and it can't lie or tell the truth either.
I think that would be consistent.
If I have the wrong Obot, I apologize. You all seem to kind of run together after a while. I think it has something to do with GroupThink.
Thank you!!!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
"Can you tell CRick that "the State of Hawaii" is a inanimate object and it can't lie or tell the truth either."
Can you do it yourself? I'm not really your flunky.
And in the real world, a place foreign and scary to our RWNJ and squealing fools, lets see where the courts ahve answered, and defined, not only wht an NBC is but very specifically that President Obama is one.
Ankeny v Indiana
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens
As quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)).
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Oh dear Birfoon FAIL
Bovilexia:
???? I am NOT a Vattle Birther. I am a CSSB (which means Common Sense Suspicious Birther). And, the above law case doesn't say that a birth certificate is out of the question any more than it sets forth whatever Nancy Pelosi's affidavit had to say about anything.
Sooo, like are you tripping this morning???
OH, plus, did you read Birtherism: The Window Into Obama's Soul??? or Stopping By Fund Raiser On A Snowy Evening yet???
I am sure you will enjoy them!!!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Jennifer4Hillary, stop pimping your web site there's a good creature or we will have to report you for spam.
Again we see you still that fail to grasp simple written words, the President is agreed to be ( by the only people that count in this, specifically the courts) as meeting ALL the requirements to run, be elected and be sworn in as President.
In other words, ALL your silly little issues and items are inherently value free and utter BS.
FAIL, they name is Birfoon
Bovilexia:
Nevertheless, here we are THREE YEARS later, and stronger than ever!!! OH, I bet that stings!!!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Your "stronger" and yet who is
a. Still the President
b. Still polling as the winner by a substantial margin ovrer EVERY GOP candidate in the 2012
If that's Birfoons winning, please oh please "win" some more, you're the best thing going for the Dems.
Nyuckles!! Good one, Bov!
rikker:
GroupThink.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
You must log in to post.
