Main Menu

Natural Born Citizen poll

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen? This poll lets you express your opinion on just what makes a Natural Born Citizen. Is it place of birth, parents or both? Can Congress legislate who is a natural born citizen.

Let us know what YOU think:

I think a "natural born citizen" of the United States is (select all that apply):

  • Anyone born in the United States and under its jurisdiction (25%, 164 Votes)
  • Anyone born a citizen of the United States (23%, 155 Votes)
  • Anyone born in the in the United States to two US Citizen Parents (20%, 129 Votes)
  • Anyone born in the Unted States to at least one US Citizen parent (17%, 109 Votes)
  • Children born in the United States whose parents are in the US illegally (16%, 103 Votes)

Total Voters: 296

Loading ... Loading ...

32 Responses to Natural Born Citizen poll

  1. avatar
    NBC June 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    I believe that ‘under its jurisdiction’ is an important concept which has excluded children born to foreign dignitaries who are immune from US law as well as historically, native americans who were considered to be living on US soil but under tribal law. In the 20th Century laws were passed which include native americans under the 14th Amendment.

    Born on US soil and under jurisdiction of the United States’ laws makes one a natural born citizen.
    Born to two US parents makes you a natural born citizen.
    Born to one US parent makes you a natural born citizen.
    The legality of the parents is of little to no relevance to the natural born status of the child, although I can see that there is some grey zone here as for instance a child born to foreign parents while in transit through the US or while on vacation in the US may not be considered a natural born citizen.
    What matters is what the child decides when he/she reaches the age of majority.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    One list of exclusions:
    Children of ambassadors and heads of state
    Passengers on foreign-flagged vessels in US Coastal waters/airspace
    Children of invading armies
    Indians
    Anyone named Obama

  3. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 28, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    Isn’t it only American Indians if two things happen:

    1. Only if they have diplomatic immunity, and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.

    2. Isn’t that because they haven’t actually entered the United States, because they haven’t cleared Customs?

    3. Foreign Armies aren’t subject to the laws of the United States. There are exceptions, but those are usually due to International Law, and not the Laws of the United States.

    4. Two things have to happen for this to actually happen, I believe. They are born on the Reservation, and therefore on a sovereign nation other than the United States, and if they’re born and their membership in their tribe prevents U.S. Citizenship.

  4. avatar
    Cee Cee June 29, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    Okay I just click ever one. LOL

  5. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 29, 2009 at 9:55 am #

    I think the appropriate question is, “Who should determine the correct definition of the term Natural Born Citizen … the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch?”

  6. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 29, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Do you have any evidence that any of the three branches disagree on the definition of Natural-Born Citizen?

    Ultimately the qualifications of the Presidency is upto the Legislative Branch. They’ve determined that Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President.

  7. avatar
    Heavy June 29, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    No, they have not!

  8. avatar
    Joyce June 29, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    Heavy

    When Congress sends Obama bills to sign (or not) they are confirming him in his role as president.

    When Republicans design their opposition to Obama appointee Sonia Sotomeyer, they are affirming that Obama is a legitimate president.

    In other words the fact that the Legislative Branch carries on day to day relating to Obama as president indicates that they have determined that he meets the Constitutional requirements.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    Good question.

    My view is that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to certify the eligibility of the elected president, and I do not see that the courts have jurisdiction to interfere in that process.

    However, the process of getting on the ballot is subject to judicial review. In that sense the judicial branch could define “natural born citizen”. I assume that in the end the Supreme Court would say “citizen at birth” is the definition, which then places the ball back in the legislative court to say who (in addition to those made citizens by the 14th amendment) is a “citizen at birth”.

  10. avatar
    NBC June 29, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    Contrary to what Heavy believes the Congress certified the election results and found the president to have qualified. You may not like this and disagree with the extent of the qualification process but per Constitution, the President was duly elected.

  11. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    Here is Scribe Link to certification of Obama from State of Hawaii as well as from DNC, it is signed sealed and notarized!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

    for people who don’t like Obama, they seem to be very stupid. Instead of finding, supporting and touting a candidate to oppose Obama in 2012, they waste time on this birther nonsense. If they keep up their nonsense, Obama will be a shoo in for a second term. They appear not to know that Obama has been president for over 6 months.

  12. avatar
    Sally Hill June 29, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    richCares – am I stupid for not liking Obama or for having the opinion that he is not eligible to hold the office of POTUS? I have friends who like him a LOT, but also question his eligiblity – according to your comment – they aren’t stupid like me, because they ‘like’ him? Your reasoning makes no sense to me.

    And who says we are not looking towards 2012? Of course we are – I am constantly looking for conservatives that stand out and show leadership in hopes of them being a contender for 2012. Obama is a very charistmatic individual and it will take the right person to beat him – not based on Obamas policies, but because so many people like/love him.

    I very well know that Obama resides in the White House and has for 6 VERY LONG months (the media covers his lavishly expensive social parties quite well which serves as a weekly reminder of such!)

    And it has nothing to do with the Birth Certificate – it has to do with jurisdiction at birth / nationality of his (both) parents. I happen to believe that having dual jurisdiction is a problem. And if that isn’t enough – as another poster mentions – it matters more what the child chooses at the age of majority. Well after his 21st birthday, Obama travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative (on the US Taxpayer dime I might add). This paternal relative believes in Sharia Law – does Obama? And it would sure APPEAR, from Obamas own ACTIONS that he did and continues to have divided loyalities. On his own website, he admits to being born with dual-citizenship – but fails to comment on any developments or changes to this fact during his childhood, adulthood, or presently.

    You seem to have the opinion that Obama is eligible to be POTUS – I don’t think you are stupid for that belief (even if you like or dislike him), I just disagree with you.

  13. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    “Obama travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative (on the US Taxpayer dime I might add).”

    This story is totally false, that clouds your opinion heavily. It shows you have very little discerning ability. He did not campaign for Odinaga and he is not a paternal relative. That’s OK, just make stuff up.

  14. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    The Congress certifies the votes of the Electors. The Electors, such as Sen. Arlen Spector, are responsible for determining the eligibility of a candidate.

    The reason Sen. Spector should not been an elector is to maintain a separation of powers doctrine. Consequently, if the Judicial Branch reviews the job of the Electors with respect to determining the candidates eligibility, then it won’t interfer with the action of the Congress.

  15. avatar
    kimba June 29, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    Here’s the Certificate from Pennsylvania. Spector never cast an electoral vote in 2008 because he was an elector-candidate for McCain. And as we know, McCain lost Penn. Picking Specter as an elector was a mistake on the part of the Republican Committee in Penn.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/vote-pennsylvania-01.html

  16. avatar
    racosta June 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer prize winning site of the St Petersburg Times, rates the “Obama Campaigned for Odinaga” story “pants on fire” on their truth meter. Why do wingers fall for lies so easily?

  17. avatar
    kimba June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Sorry, most of what you’ve written here is incorrect and has been debunked long ago. In particular, he never “campaigned” in Kenya and it is accepted even by the birther community that he lost his dual citizenship at age 21. Therefore, what you ‘believe’ is incorrect, long-ago-debunked information. It would appear that 70 million voters, the Electoral College, the entire Congress, the RNC, the DNC, President Bush Administration, Homeland Security and the State Dept do not have the same “problem” you seem to have with Obama. Doesn’t that ring some bell in your head that you’re probably wrong? By the way, we don’t have a religious test for holding public office. But Obama has repeatedly stated he is a Christian. I happen to admire the fact that he has more than a passing knowledge of the tenets of several religions. If you have “problems” with Obama, your remedy is at the voting booth.

  18. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Sven, you are correct that Arlen Specter was not qualified Constitutionally to be an elector…. but in fact he did NOT serve as an elector and did not cast a vote…. so it is irrelevant that the Republican party was stupid enough to nominate him.

    There could have been a very interesting legal case if McCain had won the state of Pennsylvania and the electoral vote had ended up a statistical tie (269 to 269) based on outcomes in other states as well. Someone could have then moved to challenge the entire Pennsylvania delegation, or at least Specter’s vote could have been disqualified, leaving the vote 269-268 in favor of Obama.

    But that didn’t happen. Specter’s qualifications to be an elector are no more relevant than Roger Calero’s qualifications to be President. (Calero is the Socialist Worker’s Party candidate who is a permanent resident – green card holder, not a citizen – on the ballot in 5 states. Clearly unqualified…. but it doesn’t matter because he lost the election). Quite simply there is no law that prevents unqualified candidates from being nominated or running for anything: if they lose, the issue of their qualifications or lack thereof is moot.

  19. avatar
    kimba June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    By the way, I don’t ‘believe’ Pres Obama is eligible. I KNOW he is eligible because he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. It’s not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of disagreeing. You are simply wrong.

  20. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    I think the appropriate question is, “Who should determine the correct definition of the term Natural Born Citizen … the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch?”

    The Constitution puts that decision in the hands of Congress, both by giving Congress express power to define and set rules for citizenship in general, and by giving Congress ultimate power over the Presidency, through certification of the electoral vote and the power of impeachment.

    The drafters of the Constitution could not have intended for the Judiciary to have power, because they wrote the Constitution decades before the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, so there was no particular reason for them to have supposed that the US Supreme Court would be in the business of interpreting the Constitution at all.

  21. avatar
    misha June 29, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    “Why do wingers fall for lies so easily?”

    Guess. I’ll give you a hint: he’s b.l.a.c.k.

    Hey, birthers: Obama will be re-elected, and I’m willing to wager Corey Booker will be next. Better get used to it.

    And the same crowd is going after Jindal. This is going to be fun to watch. Popcorn…

  22. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    So, we agree it is the Elector’s duty to determine the eligibility of a candidate and the duty of the Congress, with respect to the results of the Electoral College, to object to the vote results of the Electoral College if they so choose and then certify the vote after objections are dealt with.

  23. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Where does the Constitution task the Electoral College with determining eligibility?

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    am I stupid for not liking Obama or for having the opinion that he is not eligible to hold the office of POTUS?

    It is stupid to be so blinded by your biases that you do not make appropriate inquiry into “facts”, false claims and rumor circulated over the internet.

    And it has nothing to do with the Birth Certificate – it has to do with jurisdiction at birth / nationality of his (both) parents. I happen to believe that having dual jurisdiction is a problem.

    That’s a legitimate question for you to ask, but even the most rudimentary inquiry would makes it clear that all legal authorities agree that anyone born in the US is a “natural born citizen”, and that dual citizenship would be irrelevant. So its not stupid to wonder about that, but it is stupid to be easily duped by the pseudolaw and false reasoning spouted on the internet.

    Well after his 21st birthday, Obama travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative (on the US Taxpayer dime I might add). This paternal relative believes in Sharia Law – does Obama?

    It’s also stupid to believe and repeat “facts” that are so easily disproven. Obama never “campaigned” for Odinga; Odinga isn’t related to Obama (though he claims to be — but Dick Cheney is probably a closer blood relative) — and Odinga never supported Sharia law.

    It’s easy to put over a scam on someone whose own pre-existing biases makes them an easy mark, whether it is by circulating false rumors in an email, spreading propaganda in a blog, or pretending to sell something they probably want on eBay. A smart person is skeptical and will look for outside documentation to verify claims.

    What you will notice about this site is that there are links to the documents. I don’t think for a minute that you or anyone else should believe an anonymous blogger who calls himself “Doctor Conspiracy” — but you will note that on this site there are links to actual documentation to back up all the claims.

  25. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    I would agree with that statement. Each elector has a responsibility to consider all relevant factors, including Constitutional eligibility, in casting their vote.

    The Constitution, and in particular the 20th Amendment, makes it clear that Congress has the power to determine whether an elected President is qualified to serve — and dictates what should happen in the even that the candidate is not so qualified.

    However, those respective duties are not something that is subject to court challenge later on.

    Let’s flip it: suppose an elector, pledged to Obama, had decided prior to the meeting of the electoral college that Obama was not eligible, and so instead cast his vote for President for Joe Biden or John McCain. (becoming a “faithless elector“). There would not be any Constitutional prohibition against their doing so — although in many states they could be subject to state laws that mandate that they vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Nor would someone be able to sue them, either before or after the vote, to compel them to change their vote.

  26. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 29, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    Prove it, Heavy. Prove that they haven’t done their job.

  27. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 29, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    am I stupid for not liking Obama or for having the opinion that he is not eligible to hold the office of POTUS? I have friends who like him a LOT, but also question his eligiblity – according to your comment – they aren’t stupid like me, because they like’ him? Your reasoning makes no sense to me.

    Do you also believe that a document certified by the state of Hawaii is a forgery? Do you believe that Obama was born in Kenya? Do you believe that Perkins v. Elg doesn’t apply and Obama lost his citizenship if he ever became a citizen of Indonesia? Do you believe that Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian Passport? If the answer to those is no, then you may not be stupid, you just may be mis-informed of what the constitution actually says.

    Now, do you believe that Chester A. Arthur duped the entire country into believing that he was constitutionally eligible for the Presidency? Do you believe that Charles Curtis duped the country into believing that he was constitutionally eligible to be President? Chester A. Arthur was born to an Irish Citizen, who was not a U.S. Citizen at the time. Charles Curtis was born to a mother who was likely not a U.S. Citizen. Furthermore, he falls outside the 14th Amendment definition of Citizen, because he was not born in a state. He was born inside the territory of Kansas, about a year before Kansas became a state.

    So, did both Chester A. Arthur and Charles Curtis completely dupe the entire country into believing that they were constitutionally eligible?

    Furthermore, you must believe that there are more than 2 types of U.S. Citizens, when case law only supports that there are two. You believe that there’s Natural-Born, and Naturalized, plus a third type, who’s born a citizen, but not a Natural-Born Citizen. Do you have any case law that supports this contention? I’d really like to know it.

    Do you believe that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t apply here, or do you believe that it was wrongly decided?

    The ultimate argument that you’re basing your belief on is that someone who is born to foreign citizenship is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Say my parents were not citizens when I was born. Does that mean that I can kill you, and then just claim that I’m not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because my parents weren’t citizens when I was born? Would my defense hold up in a court of law? Juris Prudence says no.

    You say “Obama is a very charistmatic individual and it will take the right person to beat him – not based on Obamas policies, but because so many people like/love him.” Does it inconcivable that some people are claiming this, not based upon any principle, not based upon any policy, but because they just hate him?

  28. avatar
    myson June 30, 2009 at 4:44 am #

    “Why do wingers fall for lies so easily?”

    because they want to believe those rather than the truth !!
    so even when truth is presented they still prefer to continue believing what isn’t true or what cant be proved

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    If memory serves me right, Curtis used to say: I’m 1/8th Indian and 100% Republican. He was widely known as the “Indian Vice-President”. I never could tell for sure whether his mother was a citizen or not. The librarian in Wichita seems to think she was.

  30. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    He was actually 3/8ths Native American. His mother was 3/4th Native American. Equal Parts Kaw, Osage, Pottawatomie, and French. Charles Curtis was born in 1860, at a time when most Native Americans were not eligible to become United States Citizens (see Elk v. Wilkins). The act that gave most Native Americans U.S. Citizenship was passed in 1924.

    It is likely that his mother was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, and may have been barred from becoming a naturalized citizen to begin with. The Owane people are still fairly defiant from the Federal Government.

  31. avatar
    Bob June 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Also, Curtis was born in the Kansas Territory. (Curtis’s father was born in the State of Indiana.)

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    That fits. The accurate quote seems to be “one-eighth Kaw Indian and 100% Republican.”

    Legislation at the time naturalized a woman marrying a citizen IF that naturalization didn’t violate law. I understand that Indians couldn’t become citizens EXCEPT some could by treaty. This is why I don’t really know the ins and outs of it all.