Newsvine – Obama’s Legal Problem Under Article II of the Constitution – Is He Qualified To Be President? — FYI.

Much has been written about McCain purportedly having a problem being a “natural born” citizen under the US Constitution. But is this really a problem? From what I have seen, it is not.

What is more surprising is that Obama, the Constitutional Law lecturer (Obama apparently was never a professor, as he has claimed, or assistant or associate professor), may not be qualified. This argument needs careful consideration by the Democratic Party. If he is not qualified, then the Democratic Party could end up with no president at the hands of a Supreme Court that has clearly not shown a propensity to vote in favor of Democrats.

This issue is not as straightforward for those who believe this country allows anyone of any parentage, whether a US citizen or not, to be considered “naturally born,” an essential element of any US president. Indeed, as I have written elsewhere and been attacked by typical personal venom, there is almost undoubtedly a valid Constitutional argument that Obama is not qualified despite the many statutes and precedents that one could cite to the contrary.

  1. Max Bell says:

    And here I thought the issue was that it was that both his PARENTS weren’t citizens.

    My bad, apparently.

  2. David says:

    This is one of those nonsense rules that should have been amended long ago. Perhaps it made sense in the days when British loyalists might try to infiltrate the government, but it certainly does not now.

    In the end, anyone who is elected President of the United States by the People should be allowed to serve that office. Anything else is undemocratic.

  3. Keith says:

    NO person has ever been sworn into office in the US on the Koran. It is a common lie. Check

  4. bill says:

    He won’t win anyway.. so what is the point of all of this?

    Actually, the only ‘candidate’ that is legal is Pillory! ha

  5. TooMuchTravel says:

    There he goes again, looking for hit counts.

    By feeding the animals, you make John et al richer by responding to this bullschnit. Hit count goes up, google ads go boing, Dvorak gets rich.

    If you were to call him on this, then perhaps he’d stop.

    Nah, I don’t really believe that.

    Why couldn’t you get a nice cleavage shot on there instead, John?

  6. LOL says:

    #33 Keith

    Yes and no. No Congressman has ever been sworn into office on a Bible, or a Quran, or any book…ever. Those are just after the fact photo-op reenactments of the swearing in ceremony (the official ceremony is done en masse without any books).

    But as for the photo-op, ONE person, one and only one, has used a Quran (which is just neat, I could care less, I think all religions are bullshit). Keith Ellison, Rep MN, is an open and proud moderate/normal/sane person who just happens to be a Muslim. He’s not a terrorist any more than all Christians belong to the KKK. Anyway, Ellison used a Quran for his “photo-op” fake ceremony…it was a copy of the Quran ironically originally owned by Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Jefferson). So says, the Nation, Fox News, Washington Post, CNN, Wikipedia, and Keith Ellison himself.,2933,233983,00.html

  7. zefyr says:

    John, After all my years of loyalty… I’m so disappointed in you!

  8. chuck says:

    If John McCain wins the election, and during his inaugural address announces that he has converted to Islam (thus removing all reason for Al-Qaeda to hate us), would that be grounds for impeachment?

    And anyway, is Hillary disqualified from being President because she’s a woman? C’mon!

  9. gregallen says:

    Is this whole issue a bogus one? — put forward by McCain and the GOP to make Obama seem “brown and foreign”?

  10. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

    This article seems designed to deflect attention and vigorous debate away from McCain’s similar issues regarding true “natural born” status relating to his birth on Panamanian soil. If I had to guess, Potter’s attempted tradeoff seems to be “we won’t look too closely at your candidate if you don’t look too closely at ours.”

    Untrained legal opinions were cheap today 😉

  11. TakeIT2 says:

    And this trash was repeated here for what purpose? It is a vacuous question you asked.


  12. jbellies says:

    If you’re relying on old law, you might at the same time check that:
    i) a woman is a person
    ii) a black man is a person
    iii) a person of mixed race is natural born.

    If you go back in time far enough, is any of the above true in law?

  13. toilet paper says:

    Could we start having our politicians sworn in by placing their hands on a roll of toilet paper? At least we would be honoring something useful that way.

  14. Mister Catshit says:

    #1 & 36, LOL,

    And since Republicans can’t get any “facts” right, it was Keith Ellison was is the Muslim in Congress (not Senate) who was sworn in on the Korean, not Obama. Do Republican’s not have fact checkers?

    While you corrected your “Korean” comment later, you didn’t correct your other error. Ellison was NOT sworn in using a Koran.

    In #36, you admit no one is sworn in using any text. OK, so what is the problem? In the article, I don’t even see any reference to Ellison in the article.

    Just a tidbit of trivia here. Every President has been sworn using a Bible. Excepting informal settings (such as the death of a President) the President supplied their own bible, usually their own but occasionally a historically significant copy has been used,

  15. #44 – toilet paper,

    Could we start having our politicians sworn in by placing their hands on a roll of toilet paper? At least we would be honoring something useful that way.

    It would take more than that to make our politicians useful and worthy of honor.

    Oh … you meant the toilet paper. Yes, useful, especially for the assholes we’ve had of late.

  16. Angus says:

    If both parents were US Citizens, then where they were born is irrelevant, they were born US citizens. I’m not sure of Obama’s father’s citizenship. If he was a naturalized citizen then the point is the same. If his father was a foreign national, then Obama most likely had dual citizenship at some point in time, and then things could get a bit murky.

  17. Nick says:

    At #35!

    Bang on!

  18. harawitz says:

    Obama was born in Hawaii of an American born mother. Last time I looked, Hawaii was part of the United States at the time of his birth. This is a non-issue. Why raise it?

  19. ArianeB says:

    Well this is the stupidest thing I have heard since that guy that claimed that since Hillary is married to Bill that legally they are one, and therefore Hillary is ineligible to run because her husband has already held the office for two terms.

    Nicole Kidman was born in Hawaii to non-citizen Australian parents. She is considered a citizen of both countries.

  20. MikeN says:

    This whole thing that you shouldn’t mention Barack’s middle name because it is racist, well Barack Obama was the first person to do it!

    Don’t have the exact quote in front of me, but it was something like
    “What bigger contrast than to have Barack Hussein Obama instead of George W. Bush”

  21. Mike Johnson says:

    Why is there no BULLSHIT rating for this piece? It stinks.

  22. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #42 – And this trash was repeated here for what purpose? It is a vacuous question you asked.

    If you don’t understand what this blog is about, shut the fuck up until you do.

    It was repeated here because its in the news and we talk about current issues and events… and non-issues if they are current and getting media attention. And there is nothing wrong with that.

  23. Les says:

    The paper, if you followed the like makes the case (with supporting documents) that:

    1) If you are born to two US citizens (not neccesarily Natuaral born US citizens), then you are a Natural born US citizen. It does not mater where you are born, if your parents are both US citizens, you are a Natural born US citizen.
    2) If you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen, but not a Natural born US citizen unless both of your parents were US citizens.

    He makes his point by quoting the following law:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”

    and claiming that “children of citizens”, since it the plural “citizens” means both parents.

    I don’t know if he is right or wrong, I dont know if I agree or not, but it certainly is interesting.

  24. Les says:

    I left out:
    The Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” This does not provide that such persons would be considered “natural born.”

  25. Mister Catshit says:

    #54, Les,

    If you are born to two US citizens (not neccesarily Natuaral born US citizens), then you are a Natural born US citizen.

    Well, not really. In the case of John McCain, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403

    Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, … is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    A declaration means he is naturalized,

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


    Sometimes it helps if you check out the source material instead of relying on Rush Limbaugh.

  26. SwampGas says:

    The real issue here is this: If Barack and Hillary did the test tube thing and the embryo was implanted in Chelsey and she gave birth in Tibet, would the child be a Democrat and would it run for President?

  27. patrick says:

    #56 You shouldn’t have omitted a key part of

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

  28. whit says:

    Mr Dvorak,

    Doesn’t take much for libs to turn on you.

  29. Mister Catshit says:

    #58, patrick,

    I really do understand your reading comprehension problem. The question isn’t if McCain is an American citizen. The question is whether or not he is a “natural born” citizen. If a person is granted citizenship or declared a citizen, they are not natural born.

    I don’t think McCain should be barred from the Presidency. That would be nitpicking to the extreme. Obama has introduced an amendment in the Senate to remove any ambiguity on this point. Having said all that though, it appears that McCain does not meet the strict requirements of a “natural born” citizen.


Bad Behavior has blocked 14257 access attempts in the last 7 days.