Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed. See 12 more questions posed on this topic or submit your own question on the Q&A page.

Answered by a visitor on Sep 18, 2009 12:20 PM - It is not only a question of where the President was born; it is really a question about his allegiance to the United States.

The framers of the Constitution wanted to assure that the person who would be President, and who would also be Commander-in-Chief, would have complete allegiance to the United States and be free of any foreign influence.

The way they did this is to require that the President be a natural born citizen. This is a requirement placed only on the office of President. A member of Congress need "only" be citizen. The problem is that the Constitution does not define ?natural born citizen?.

Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) had no doubts about who is a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens. He does have doubts about the citizenship of someone who is born on U.S. soil irrespective of the citizenship of the parents.

Ask yourself this question. Would you want someone like Yaser Hamdi be eligible to be President? He was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents while they were here on temporary visas. He returned to Saudi Arabia as a small child and had no further connection to the United States. He was later captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. (See Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, September 29, 2005)

We need to take the definition of natural born citizen seriously. Presenting a birth certificate attesting to your birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to resolve the issue. This is a national security issue of utmost importance.

Answered by a visitor on Dec 15, 2009 4:17 PM - An answer to that question written by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

[From the moderator: This is one potential argument, and should not be considered definitive.]

Answered by a visitor on Sep 19, 2009 11:49 AM - You must be thinking of the theory that was put forth by Philip Berg in his law suit challenging Obama?s eligibility. In it he alleged that Obama was born in Kenya. According to Berg, who cited U.S. citizenship laws in effect at the time (August, 1961), Obama could not have acquired U.S. citizenship from his mother because the law required her to have lived in the U.S. at least 5 years subsequent to her 14th birthday.

If, in fact she did give birth in Kenya (which I doubt), she could not have conveyed citizenship to Obama since she was just short of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.

But ultimately, it is not the age of the mother that is relevant. It is whether or not she is a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. According to the putative definition of natural born citizen, both parents must be U.S. citizens, and the birth must be on U.S. soil.

I say putative because natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution and no court of law has yet ruled on the definition.