Hi Gaby,

Thanks for posting this video. It's an old one and if I'm not mistaken it was posted in the past or a very similar one was. I personally find it incomprehensible that even the most progressive liberal would support a program like Obamacare knowing they'll lose their liberties and worst of all their health benefits will be decided for them not by their doctor's but by committees. Needless to say their privacy will be invaded as will their income and bank accounts. How can anyone in their right mind support something so draconian?

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hello friends, I'm sad to say I'm back from a wonderful vacation, but I'm glad to have a little time for my friends. I just received this very disturbing video from a good friend and I want to share it with you. With this government we might as well all commit suicide then to let this SOB dictate to us. I get so upset just to hear his name.

Hello Friends,

Unfortunately Solyndragate hasn't been discussed in this thread to date. Here you have a perfect example of the corruption of the B Hussein regime that knowingly gave Solyndra over a $500,000,000 while the previous administration refused to lend them one red cent. All the predictions were that the company would go bankrupt (and they did) and this administration knew this. BUT, Solyndra contributed money to the fraud and great pretenders past campaigns and were rewarded for doing so. They were frequent visitors to the White House and recieved the "loan" at the expense of all tax paying citizens of the United States.

Now that Solyndragate is being investigated by the House Energy & Commerce Subcommitee On Oversight & Investigations the Management of Solyndra to a man all pleaded the fifth Amendment in order not to answer any of their questions. They were all sworn in to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and did so with their right under the fifth amendment not to answer questions that would incriminate them. Interesting isn't it?

This scandal involves B Hussein's goons and of course himself. He was aware and cognizant of the fact that this company will go under and any monies given to them on the taxpayers dime will be lost for eternity.

Below are 2 videos of the Solyndra management team pleading the fifth. The first a youtube short version and the second a CSPAN video that is a bit longer but with the full "testimony" of these crooks.

Shalom,

Peter


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsnn5cNCrrE&feature=related

This is not a youtube video so click on the link to watch the full farce of Solyndra managentnt pleading the fifth.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40628

Hello Friends,

The issue of B Hussein's eligibility or more correctly his ineligibility to be President of the United States is a sign of the times. Our political representatives from both sides of the aisle have totally ignored the biggest political scam in the history of the United States. This doesn't say much for these politicians and even worse is the apathy of a many citizens to what is an obvious case of fraud with malicious intent.

B Hussein knew and knows he's broken the law and lied not once but many times about this issue but that's not surprising since he lies about almost anything with impunity and disregard for the people he's supposed to lead and represent. Let's impeach this imposter and convict him for all the crimes he's guilty of and ........ throw away the key for all time.

Unfortunately the same rule applies to Senator Marco Rubio. He's a US citizen, born in the United States but his parents weren't citizens at the time of his birth. The difference between Rubio and B Hussein is that he's worthy of the office he holds and would be a worthy candidate for President and Vice President. He has a proven record and experience that suits the office he holds and any other office in the land. We know where he was born and with B Hussein there is much doubt and unanswered questions about his place of birth. But even if he was born in the USA his father wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth and consequently he's ineligible to hold the office of President.

Te below article covers this issue and more and is well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

Obama’s ineligibility: Marco Rubio can’t be President or Vice President

Like Obama, he is not eligible for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen

The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.

The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.

Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.

The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.

In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.

Obama was never eligible to be President. The Republican Party did not object because, like the Democrats, they wanted to circumvent the Constitutional requirement that the President and Vice President be natural born citizens.

Having for years failed to amend the Constitution by legal means, the permanent political class grabbed the opportunity to amend it through a backroom political deal.

Having become complicit with the Democrats in violating the Constitution, the Republicans joined them in a deliberate campaign of disinformation and outright lies to cover-up their malfeasance.

Both parties believe that they have successfully amended the Constitution by fiat. If they are not challenged, expect far more of the same.

The United States is no longer governed by laws, but by power-hungry and greedy politicians.

The precedent of an illegal President having been established by the inauguration of Obama, the Republicans now feel free to promote their own illegal candidates.

I believe Marco Rubio is a good man and a fine public servant. Unfortunately, like Obama, he is not eligible for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen.

Both Democrats and Republicans have tried very hard to confuse the eligibility issue, mainly by focusing on what the Constitution and the Supreme Court holdings do not say, rather than what they clearly do say.

Being born in the U.S. makes one a U.S. citizen, but not necessarily a natural born citizen, which requires US citizen parents at the time of birth. The Founding Fathers specifically put that requirement in the Constitution to prevent someone having dual allegiance from becoming President.

Marco Rubio was born in the US, which makes him a US citizen. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth. Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office of President or Vice President.

Although not defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5 specifically requires, not just citizenship, but natural born citizenship.

The Supreme Court binding precedent in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) provides the Constitutional definition of natural born citizenship.

The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court included Virginia Minor in that class, thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. They did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article II Section I, Clause 5.

When the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article II Section I because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.

That holding still stands. Minor vs. Happersett has never been superseded. Never.

There is no ambiguity.

The United States is now poised before a crossroads in history.

The Republican Party has a choice, to embrace again a government of the people, by the people and for the people or choose the path of political expediency and maintain the corrupt status quo.

If they choose the former, the American people will overwhelmingly fall in behind them to a Republican victory in 2012.

If the Republican Party chooses the latter, we will stand our ground and fight to take back our government.

Lawrence Sellin


© Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

Hey Peter,

So here is another tack on the citizenship question. It may come down to precedence. It may be that nobody will have the balls to address the imposters case.

CERTIFIGATE

Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility

FEC rules naturalized citizens are same as 'natural born' in presidential votes

Posted: September 26, 2011
9:26 am Eastern

© 2011 WND

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCrjq1jg

A Guyana-born naturalized American citizen fits the Federal Elections Commission's requirements to run for president, the FEC announced in a ruling.

The case involves New York lawyer Abdul Hassan, who was born in the South American country in 1974. Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office.

Responding to criticism of possible dual-loyalty issues, Hassan said in a radio interview that a person's place of birth should not determine his patriotism or presidential eligibility.

"I am an attorney," he said. "When I undertake the representation of a client, I have to act in the best interests of my client," Hassan stated on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio.

Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore

Continued Hassan: "If I represent someone in my community … and I undertake your representation, I owe you 100 percent loyalty and my duty is solely to protect and to advance your interests."

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCrwtrm5

"It would be no different if I were to be president of the United States," he contended. "If I believe that I cannot act in the best interests, I wouldn't be doing this."

Petitioned further by Klein about the Constitution's concerns regarding those born overseas, Hassan argued many U.S. citizens have loyalty issues, as well.

"Look at all these fellows, these FBI agents, natural born Americans, who were spying for Russia," he said.

"You have to judge each individual based on his own merits," he added.

Click here to listen to Klein's full interview with Hassan.

Hassan, meanwhile, petitioned the FEC to allow him to run for president, arguing the Federal Election Campaign Act does not bar naturalized citizens from running.

In its official response earlier this month, the FEC agreed with Hassan's logic.

The FEC’s ruling, which did not receive any news media attention, concluded that a naturalized citizen is not prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act from becoming a "candidate" as defined under the act.

However, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to receive federal matching funds under the FEC's Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.

Stated the FEC ruling: "In regard to the definition of 'person,' the act defines that term as including 'an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group of persons,' excluding the federal government. There is no reference to natural born or naturalized citizens. As an individual, Mr. Hassan is a 'person' under the Act.”

While the FEC's own rules now allow Hassan to run for high office, the attorney must still clear judicial hurdles before his eligibility could become official.

At issue is the constitutional stipulation that only a "natural born" citizen can be for president.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen."

A "citizen" is defined as: "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."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

In his legal argument, Hassan contended the constitutional eligibility clause discriminates against naturalized citizens.

He cites Supreme Court rulings that interpret the Constitution as providing "equal protection" to naturalized citizens. Other rulings cited by Hassan guarantee against the discrimination of naturalized citizens.

"The natural born requirement, that was adapted in the 1780s at a time when slavery was also a part of the constitution," Hassan told Klein.

Hassan added the eligibility requirement should be reinterpreted in a way that would allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

'Natural born' argument

The issue of defining "natural born" could have implications for President Obama's 2012 bid. Many have argued Obama is not eligible since his father was born in Kenya.

According to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not fit the eligibility requirements.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the "natural born" matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, many constitutional legal arguments lean heavily toward the definition of "natural born" meaning both parents were citizens in the U.S.

The legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

The resolution clearly determined "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are U.S. citizens.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

It was clear that the intention of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Supreme Court casts doubt

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.

But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCsK5U74

Hi Rick,

I read this article and others about this joker in addition to an interview with him on Aaron Klein Investigative radio. In my opinion all this actually boils down to is that the FEC is a shill for B Hussein's ineligibility. The more they cloud the issues and give in to absurd petitions of this sort the the B Hussein fiasco will seem unimportant. Now this FEC ruling doesn't have constitutional ramifications and doesn't say that he would be accepted on any ballot.

Personally I would like to see an amendment that a person born in the United States would be eligible regardless if his parents were citizens at the time of his/her birth or not. That would not include individuals that have dual citizenship's as many of us do (including myself) cos there would be questions of the individuals ultimate loyalties. I would solve many problems and allow worthy individuals like Sen. Marco Rubio to run for President or VP.

That said B Hussein would still be ineligible and if any are interested I would be more then glad to explain.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hey Peter,

So here is another tack on the citizenship question. It may come down to precedence. It may be that nobody will have the balls to address the imposters case.

---

---

CERTIFIGATE

Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility

FEC rules naturalized citizens are same as 'natural born' in presidential votes

---

Posted: September 26, 2011
9:26 am Eastern

© 2011 WND

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCrjq1jg

A Guyana-born naturalized American citizen fits the Federal Elections Commission's requirements to run for president, the FEC announced in a ruling.

The case involves New York lawyer Abdul Hassan, who was born in the South American country in 1974. Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office.

Responding to criticism of possible dual-loyalty issues, Hassan said in a radio interview that a person's place of birth should not determine his patriotism or presidential eligibility.

"I am an attorney," he said. "When I undertake the representation of a client, I have to act in the best interests of my client," Hassan stated on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio.

Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore

Continued Hassan: "If I represent someone in my community … and I undertake your representation, I owe you 100 percent loyalty and my duty is solely to protect and to advance your interests."

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCrwtrm5

"It would be no different if I were to be president of the United States," he contended. "If I believe that I cannot act in the best interests, I wouldn't be doing this."

Petitioned further by Klein about the Constitution's concerns regarding those born overseas, Hassan argued many U.S. citizens have loyalty issues, as well.

"Look at all these fellows, these FBI agents, natural born Americans, who were spying for Russia," he said.

"You have to judge each individual based on his own merits," he added.

Click here to listen to Klein's full interview with Hassan.

Hassan, meanwhile, petitioned the FEC to allow him to run for president, arguing the Federal Election Campaign Act does not bar naturalized citizens from running.

In its official response earlier this month, the FEC agreed with Hassan's logic.

The FEC’s ruling, which did not receive any news media attention, concluded that a naturalized citizen is not prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act from becoming a "candidate" as defined under the act.

However, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to receive federal matching funds under the FEC's Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.

Stated the FEC ruling: "In regard to the definition of 'person,' the act defines that term as including 'an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group of persons,' excluding the federal government. There is no reference to natural born or naturalized citizens. As an individual, Mr. Hassan is a 'person' under the Act.”

While the FEC's own rules now allow Hassan to run for high office, the attorney must still clear judicial hurdles before his eligibility could become official.

At issue is the constitutional stipulation that only a "natural born" citizen can be for president.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen."

A "citizen" is defined as: "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."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

In his legal argument, Hassan contended the constitutional eligibility clause discriminates against naturalized citizens.

He cites Supreme Court rulings that interpret the Constitution as providing "equal protection" to naturalized citizens. Other rulings cited by Hassan guarantee against the discrimination of naturalized citizens.

"The natural born requirement, that was adapted in the 1780s at a time when slavery was also a part of the constitution," Hassan told Klein.

Hassan added the eligibility requirement should be reinterpreted in a way that would allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

'Natural born' argument

The issue of defining "natural born" could have implications for President Obama's 2012 bid. Many have argued Obama is not eligible since his father was born in Kenya.

According to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not fit the eligibility requirements.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the "natural born" matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, many constitutional legal arguments lean heavily toward the definition of "natural born" meaning both parents were citizens in the U.S.

The legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

The resolution clearly determined "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are U.S. citizens.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

It was clear that the intention of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Supreme Court casts doubt

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.

But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1ZCsK5U74