Mitt Romney not a natural-born citizen?

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Conservative Byte
Print Friendly

Amid ongoing challenges to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, some have raised questions about the constitutional status of the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Gov. Mitt Romney, contending he was born in Mexico or that his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth.

However, the available evidence shows that even under the strictest interpretation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, Romney is a natural-born citizen, according to Article 2, Section 1.

The questions have been raised because Romney’s grandparents went to Mexico in the 1800s, where Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born, July 8, 1907.

A genealogy of Mitt Romney has been prepared by eligibility researcher Charles Kerchner.

According to a Romney family genealogy prepared by the London, England, LDS Temple, Romney’s grandparents – Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney – were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States when the Mormon church disavowed polygamy. As the genealogy points out, polygamy was a federal crime in the U.S., but it was allowed in Mexico.

Continue Reading on www.wnd.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
Posting Policy:
The 1st Amendment protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference. However, you are currently posting on private web property and your comments are bound by our site's policies. We have a zero-tolerance policy for comments containing violence (threats, suggestions or direct statements permitting violent or threatening acts or sentiments), racism (suggestion that one "race" is superior to others), crassness or profanity (any word or phrase considered by courteous society to be profane), all caps (a violation of internet etiquette), discourteous behavior (calling names, rude or insulting statements directed at another user/post) or violations similar in nature to any of these offenses. Posts violating our policies of posting are subject to removal and the user may face banning. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.
  • Mad Mike

    Gee, I wonder why this same question was never “vetted” by the democrat party or the main street media when Obama was running in “08″? It couldn’t be because they always operate under a “duel standard” could it?

    • Dan

      I believe it is not specifically defined in the Constitution, but there has been Supreme Court decions defining what a Natural Born American citizen is. I’m not a lywer but I thought it was something like, if both parents are U.S. Citizens or if the child is born in the U.S. then they are natural born citizens. It seems that you need to be a citizen of somewhere if your parents are on a ship or serving your country aboad, like McCain was born in Panama while his father was an Admiral serving there. Right or Wrong, that is just my opinion.

      • haditinsd

        Mitt’s great grandfather fled the country because he couldn’t/wouldn’t live under it’s laws. He helped start a colony in a foreign country. Just what does it take to renounce your citizenship?
        Then three generations lived in this foreign colony before they decided they wanted to be US citizens again. Many of their relatives with the same pedigree are still in Mexico.
        The Authors of the Constitution were concerned about any person being president that might have undue influence from a foreign country. Looks to me like Obama and Romney have the same problem here.

        • JDubya

          Dear hadit: They can live elsewhere forever as long as they don’t have to renounce your citizenship to live there. The length of time has nothing to do with it. And all of the children born to you while you are located in elsewhere-land are US citizens too – they might also be citizens of elsewhere-land, but they are citizens of the US. That is the trouble with so many of the aliens in the US, so many people who are citizens are willing to make them citizens just because they live here – that isn’t how it works! Citizenship is a legal status between the person and the place where they live and there are all kinds of rules that go along with it depending on what locality you are in and how you got there. Romney’s parents were aliens in Mexico, not citizens of Mexico. They do not lose their citizenship because they relocated unless they made overt legal steps to do so.

          • Warthog0

            The requirement for becoming a citizen for a regular, common, every day, run of the mill are different than for a person seeking the highest office in the land.

        • http://rightwingamerica.com ACEMAN

          Romney is a white Obama! Nothing more. Newt 2012! Click on my name to visit Right Wing America! 100% Free, 100% Uncensored. No PC police! Join today!

          • Concerned Citizen

            What do you mean that Romney is a white Obama. They’re joined at the hip. Website: http://www.haasstrep68.com

      • Arthur

        On a United states Military base, considered sovereign ground by The Geneva and many other Conventions and Treaties plus our own Constitution !

        • Warthog0

          The treaty distinctly omits Colon And Panama City making him not eligible.

      • Maynard Merrell

        Dan: This is an interesting question. As I understand it, in order to be president the candidate must be a natural born American citizen. And as I understand it, that candidate running for president must be born of parents, both of which are natural born citizens; but for any one else, only the father has to be a natural born citizen. If an American woman travels to France and marries a Frenchman, any children would be French citizens. If an American male citizen traveled to France and married a French woman, their children would be American. It matters not where the mother is born, but where the father was born. This may have something to do with international law.

        • Johnnygard

          Please read the entire article. Especially the last sentence.

      • Don39

        Think again. Some research might be appropriate !Natural rights are derived from the father. the father must be a citizen by vitue of birth on US land to pass the right of natural born citizen to the son. Romney’s father was born in mexico and his fathers father was born in mexico. Romney has or could have dual citizenship but not natural born citizenship according to the Constitution and the natural law that the document is based on! Based on my research this issue of the citizenship status of G.W. Romney was an issue that was never settled when he tried to run for president and eventually dropped out. It is not clear exactly the extent the natual born issue impacted his dropout , but it was an issue that was never clarified. Mccain was born to a natural born citizen on US soil, the Canal Zone!

    • Bob

      You are so right.

    • theduke43

      I have not made up my mind about Romney but lies or no way to win people over.
      Mitt Romney was born March 12 1947 in Detroit. He have his legal, not forged birth certifacate. Yes I wonder why those questions were not asked of BO and why he has been allowed to stay in office, he should has been anauled, not impeached because anualment would make all his signed documents null and void.

      • Don39

        Being born on US soil does not make one a ‘natural born’ citizen. we can not all be Constitutional scholars, but we should have a basic understanding of the origin and background of our founding doctrine and the natural law of the time. the internet is full of crap so it takes some work to research natural law but the necessity to uphold as opposed to bastardizing the Constitution is dependent on a reasonably educated people! Under natural law the only way one can inherit ‘natural born’ citizenship is from a ‘natural born’ father! That is the Constitution and it has not been amended and can not be so done by any means but by Constitutional Amendment. Any statute, etc. deemed to do so is false on its face, i,e, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Of coure the question arrises as to wheather we are a Constitutional Republic any longer since the socialist and the current illegal regime have been so sucessful in destroying its underpinning and the current Congress and supreme court seem quite satisfied to take office spouting a lie about upholding the Constitution anddefending the nation against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. We have seen the enemy and it is us , and it is the lying traitors we send to DC to start a career by falsely sweaeing to uphold the Constitution! That includes any would be POTUS that lacks the guts to challenge the constitutionality of the Obamanation. Of course where Romney is concerned, he has a reason, he is not Constitutionally eligible either! I have confirmed that by my research of his linage and my study of Constitutional Law. I intend to file with the proper authorities of my state to challenge the legality of his even appearing on the primary ballot!

  • Wayiseeit

    Anyone in the world can be president of the USA,as long as they fly the flag of a Democrat.

    • BigJohn

      Or a Muslem Monkey.

      • JDubya

        This comment should be removed – shame on you!

        • Frank

          no it should NOT

          • Joey

            Yes it should be removed. Stop getting down to the liberal level.

        • Jerry Hutchins

          JDubya…you gotta call it like it is…no more PC crap!

          • AliveStillKickin

            Now….now….play nice…children.

          • JDubya

            I agree about the ‘pc crap’, but there is no good reason to be lewd nor lascivious in these posts. Have an opinion fine, but this mud-slinging, name-calling is gutter sniping and out of line – too much like the leftist’s methods. In fact, I suspect that it is a liberal trying to get a diatribe like this going so that he can show it as an example to his ‘friends’. I get so tired of people who think the only way to make a point is to call someone an objectionable name. The only ones they are truly hurting are themselves.

          • AlleyOops

            JDubya, please don’t let your naivete get the best of you..In a more perfect world we might expect politicians and their followers to be more civil. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and politicians and their followers get over hyped at times much like a crowd at a sporting event…even so, our politicians aren’t nearly as bad as those in other industrialized countries.

          • Phillip Hedo

            JDubya:
            Grow up! You Dems. always call for more civility when one of yours is POTUS yet you act with no decency whatsoever when a Republican is POTUS.
            The vast majority of well-meaning Americans are not paying attention to the details of how our government & the media operate, & thus they are easily taken in by the crap the Dems always pull. There has hardly ever been bigger clowns in Congress than Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Murtha, etc., yet they aren’t excoriated in the way they deserve b/c of a complicit liberal media. E.g., that idiot Bill Maher declares that our VP Cheney should be assassinated on his Iraq trip, & the media do/say nothing in the form of reprobation; while Ann Coulter merely says that John Edwards behaves as effeminate as a ‘fag’ (an empirical observation that happens to be true), and the media & others rip her apart.
            The Republicans need to take the gloves off & give the Dummycrats a healthy dose of their own medicine.

          • JDubya

            AlleyOops: That might be naivete and of course I don’t think so, but it is based on Christian principles. Argue, discuss, get peeved, etc, etc, but getting into the name calling and use of bad words (which has been pretty calm here) is just not necessary and distracts from the discourse. It also tends to keep the better minds away from making any points, naive or not. That is, it shuts off the discourse without adding anything good to it.

          • JDubya

            Phillip Hedo: Young man, you really got me that time – if anything was going to make me angry it would be to call me a Dem! I have been around this earth for almost 70 years. I was active in the Republican Party before Reagan was one. I acted like a Democrat only once and claim my naivete at that point on my youth (ala Reagan’s comment in one of his debates). However, since then I have voted straight Republican, yep I have been misled at times, but through all of this I have never found it was a good thing to try to persuade someone by calling him a derogatory name. That usually comes back to bite you where you sit and it hurts you more than anyone else. Other than that, I agreed with everything you said.

          • JDubya

            To all on this subthread: do you really mean to say that it is a good thing to refer to the current President as those two words that were used above? Maybe the Dems are right? I thought this forum was different – a place where one could discuss things without fear of stuff like that – if not, I will leave it to y’all. In fact, the moderator should have closed it post-haste.

          • theduke43

            Come on now play nice, no need for name calling, those who are at fault know they helped destroy the US. You know those democraps.
            We are to far gone folks, we cannot ever pay our bills not even the interest on them.
            Please take a breath and read history, the past 100 years of Argentina.The exact same thing as America has done.

        • wildmann

          The Reason the Conservatives LOSE, is that they Don’t Get Down to the “Recipient’s” Mental Level. Fight Fire with Nukes!!!

          • JDubya

            Yeah, right – that leads to all out war. Like we really need that. Be kind, be forceful, be factual, state your opinion as you wish they would do. That really peeves them because they no longer can play the victim card.

      • Nanci

        It’s getting so we can’t say anything we mean, regardless of the nature of it’s meaning. Slang, nicknames and labels are a thing of the past thanks to the lib dems. Decent people won’t degrade others, but they still have a right to say what they mean. The dems do it all the time and never are called on it. It’s called racism and hypocrisy.

      • Charles Bill L.

        did ya mean Muslim stead o muslem?

      • Don39

        You invalidate your comment by showing your raciam. Muslim , yes . Monkey, give the lower species a break!

    • tod

      Dr.Ron Paul 2012 !!!

      • ladyswiss

        He can not debate Obama; he does not have what it takes.
        Obama would cut him to ribbons.
        He’s more like Mr Milktoast, and some of his ideas are off base.

        I want Rick Perry as president! The media needs to give him
        a chance now – he did make some first times out gaffes, but he’s
        got what it takes to beat Obama and lead this country.

        But, I will vote for any Republican that makes it to the top of the pile.

        • lisa

          The media does not decide. It is the American People that decide and we need a voters revolution. All who are legally able to vote should make this a record breaking year and make their vote count. In addition, keep an eye at your polling place for illegal activities. Americans should be vigilant when looking for terrorists they should also be vigilant in illegals voting and the suspensious activity of the polling workers.

          • Don39

            What you advocate is an evolution. The situation can not be corrected at the ballot box, because not enough of the progressive (dem and RINO) can be replaced at one time to result in a revolution. We do need a revolution to restore the Constitution, but that can not happen at the ballot box and not until enough patriotic citizens are willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Until then the current inconstitutional state of socialism will ebb and flow accoprding to which traitor to the Constitution is in office.

        • Cs

          When we get to the level of “those others”…what are we showing our kids? Its okay to malign those who are not able to change their birth-place, their skin-tone? I have had to deal with liberals talking about my white, Southern culture, that I am a bigot because of where I was born, the color of my skin. I, also, will say that the presidential pretender is no muslim…he is playing on that status for their vote. He is Socialist Big Time!!!! He wants to be “the highest one” in the nation…OOOla, Juuuba, soooLie!!!! “give me the money”, thats his motto. As soon as he takes our Religious Freedoms away from us as Christians, all the Buddhists, Muslims, Confucisus believers, etc. will be unable to practice their beliefs, too. It will be a Supreme Court refutation of ALL Religious Practice. Many Black people detest this person..and they work diligently to stop his unconstitutional raids on our Freedoms. We must quit “muddeying up the waters”, with all these statements that just bring on more division within our nation. I saw a post here several weeks ago by a man who signed his post as an “American Muslim. In it he stated that the work of this present administration will remove his religious freedom, also. Some of the radical islamists are out to destroy us, for sure…there are, however, conservative Muslims all over the world and they are the ones being killed in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. So, lets keep it clean, folks. Lets get together to “Change America Back”!!!! United we can do it, disunited we will loose all. cs

          • Allan

            You say there are conservative Muslims: Then they must not believe in the quoran.

        • theduke43

          That is exactly what happened 4 years ago, I will vote for anyone to get Bush out. Mickey mouse could have won.
          Wait his cousin the rat did.

    • Dave

      YOU GOT THAT RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Arthur

      That is almost a fact and is a double standard that needs correction immediately !

    • Maynard Merrell

      Wayiseeit: But where do you put the flag pole?

  • mydaddysays

    One argument for why Romney is not a NBC is found within the Illinois Ballot challenge filed this month:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/15/ballot-challenge-to-mitt-romneys-eligibility-filed-in-illinois/

    I believe an argument can be made that the Romney ancestors departed the USA for Mexico because their lifestyle was prohibited here with polygamy being the focal point issue. Some may argue they never gave up their citizenship but actions seem to outweigh words. They didn’t have “Renounce Your Citizenship” forms to fill out back in those days. Allegiance to a foreign power is intrinsically tied to the concept of projection of individuals by the state. Allegiance goes hand in hand with protection afforded by the state. In Romneys’ case, the state forbid the practice of polygamy and they left the protection of the US to subscribe to the protection of Mexico–taking with them their allegiance in the process.

    George Romney was absolutely not an NBC due to his Mexican citizenship. If he mistakenly believed he did not need to naturalize, this may have infected Mitt’s eligibility. We know Romney lied about his status when his candidacy became a possibility. It wasn’t pursued because he dropped out…presumably to spare everyone the potential legal entanglements.

    I don’t know the answers to these questions because our legal system has never attended properly to the controversies which arise. All I know for certain is no one is crazy to be asking for Romney’s eligibility credentials the same as they are not crazy to ask for Obama’s eligibility credentials. The two cases seem to mirror each other in many ways.

    I welcome any rational fact based explanation of why this isn’t a genuine legal issue.

    To those who think this issue is solely relegated to blogs/web Internet chatter, here’s a strong dose of history for you: a Congressional hearing on the NBC issue in 2004 which included testimony from several experts…a hearing which revealed California Democrat Diane Feinstein was against loose interpretation of NBC.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:96813.pdf

    • theduke43

      I must opologies for where your information came from, it is false. Romney has never been a Mexican citizen.
      I am not voting, I don’t think, for him. But lets keep it honest lies get you no where.
      Since BO was allowed to stay in as president even after it was known he is not a citizen, only than did these questions come to light.
      Like I said 4 years ago, vote Bush out we don’t care who comes along just vote him out.
      Not wise than or now.

      • Don39

        You are an idiot. No one said Romney was a mexican per se. But that he could claim dual citizenship since his ancestors are MEXICAN! He is not a natural born cvitizen because his father was born a Mexican, Your name says American, but your use of the language says otherwise. Go study the Constitution and become a better than average American!

        • Johnnygard

          Don, Call people all the names you want, but where in the constitution does it say that the presidents father has to be a natural born U.S. citizen? With your logic, if a person came to this country in 1492 and had kids, they wouldn’t be “Natural born citizens” because their father wasn’t a NBC. Then their kids wouldn’t be Nat. Born Citizens because THEIR father wasn’t a NBC. And so it would go for generations. Where and how would you get the FIRST “Natural born citizen”?

    • Johnnygard

      Doesn’t matter where his father was born. Mitt was born in the U.S.A. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!!

      • Don39

        Listen johnneyfart, no one said he was not born in the USA, the issue is that his father was not thus he is not a “natural born” citizen and thus not Constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS! Take some reading lessons and learn to read something besides the ‘ last sentence’!

        • Johnnygard

          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:”
          • Anyone born inside the United States *
          • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
          • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
          • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
          • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
          • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
          • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
          • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
          * 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.
          Everything above is a quote from title 8, section 14o1, NOT OPINION.

    • Don39

      Thank you for this post and for an honest effort to address the problem. Obamais an illegal occupier of the WH. Romney would be an illegal occupier of the WH. Two wrongs do not make a right. Further the reason the RINO establishment has refused to challenge the Constitutionallity of the Obama regime has just these past few days become very evident! As I have said all along, anybody but Obama or Romney. Those who refuse to ackn owledge the provisions of the Constitution are its enemies and the enimies of this nation, and I do not give a damn about their political affiliation. It is in fact more heinous to me if they claim to be Republican or Conservative. That automatically makes them liars and conspirators! No self respecting American can ignor these facts.

    • Julian Alien

      Thank you for trying to bring the conversation back on track.Some people are easily distracted.I have been researching this matter,and I have so far come up with the founding fathers of the Mexican colonies travel notes which are quite revealing.The only thing that I can not find is an English translation of the pre revolution Mexican Constitution.Basically the Platt family(Huntsman is related),traveled down there to set up their male dominated love nest and had problems which would make a funny movie.The Mexican government were starting to get concerned about the number of armed whites occupying their country that letters were passed and representatives met officials and presto,after a little tension things were fine.I personally think that was mighty big’a'mex,but the question still remains,did they swear allegiance to quell the fears of the district representatives and the executive Branch.Either way having a father who was born in Mexico to a man who lived in Mexico for so long is not natural born,I mean what I can go to Costa Rico and have a kid with some other American and 500 years later they can come back like nothing happened?

  • AliveStillKickin

    And yet ANOTHER reason not to vote for the liar.

  • http://www.meetup.com/capitalarea912/ Richard

    I hate to say this but if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee Obama will get 4 more years or more. Once he is reelected he will consolidate his powers and elections will be a thing of the past.

    • Alice

      Oh! U R so right on with that observation. In one of “O” speeches, he already referred to “his 3rd term”. What do you think would be after that? Dictator!!!

      • Arthur

        Will not happen before a revolution of “We the People” !

      • Charles Bill L.

        Well if you count his math skills.He believes we have 57 states.that counts for his math third term.

    • Dottie

      After the FB conversation I just had with someone, I do agree.

    • Another Veteran

      I don’t agree, ANY Republican nominated will walk away with the presidency based on Obama’s dismal record of achievements, unemployment numbers, national debt, stimulus spending for zip, expensive vacations, apology tours to the mideast and Europe and the list goes on… The only people that will vote for him are those concerned about race-not qualifications and that is a sad commentary on our country. We need to get behind the Republican candidate nominated and elect him as the next president. We can’t afford four more years of spending, taxation and recinding of our freedoms.

      • AlleyOops

        Unfortunately, you’re wrong…..90% of eligible voters don’t have a clue as to what’s going on around them….less than half of those eligible to vote failed to exercise that right in the last presidential election…Americans are a lazy lot when it comes to current events and the actions taken by our government.

        • Kay

          What a sad opinion of our fellow Americans. You should apologize for being so critical.

          • Cs

            Thank you Kay…some do not, others have made it their “job” to not be snookered again!!!!! The eligibility of Mitt Romney question is proof of that. Jon Huntsman’s poor showing in all the prelims he showed up in is further proof that Americans are aware and responding. I like most of the people running. Some have not gotten good reviews because both liberal press and conservative press have their favs and spend time destroying them. I would like to see the “opening of the door” and letting each and every person willing to submit to the “grilling of American candidates” say what they feel about their candidacy. No more newscasters being “moderators” and talking heads telling me what I “just heard”….I am educated…still cognizent…and will vote whomever the people finally choose to oppose the Democrats in 2012.

      • theduke43

        even if he isn’t a citizen

      • Allan

        From one vet to another: I sure hope the Right Republican gets the Presidency this time. The American public is yelling “WHOA” WHOA’ WHOA to this WRECKLESS SPENDING FIASCO that the Chinese are allowing us to put a Total Noose Hold upon ourselves. China holds the cards and if and when they call the game WHAT’S THE PLAN?

    • Nanci

      The real damage comes in Obama’s second term. Obama has his agenda right on track. He’s wiggling to the mid-right now to get re-elected. Then watch freedom, Constitutional rights and conservatism totally abolished. It’s the Holy Dictator, himself that will invite people like Hugo Chevez, Castro and others to his cabinet to finish the job of fundamentally transforming America into a full blown socialist nation.

      • Allan

        Obama is quite the player. He still has followers which I find hard to believe. There are still persons who believe he is the cat’s meow. Persons with foresight and wisdom are capable of forecasting the destruction another term under Obama would leave us in. If the votes cast are correctly read I don’t see how The Destroyer of America could get another term.

    • Maynard Merrell

      Richard: For the last 60 years I have felt that I was voting for the lesser of two evils, except for Goldwater and Reagan. If anyone other than Ron Paul is the nominee. I will once more be voting for the lesser of two evils, meaning the lesser socialist, that the republican socialist elite wants us to vote for, in order to continue our journey into the socialist one world government that we have been heading toward for the last 80 years, and have lost neary all of our natural God given rights to freedom in the process. All we can hope for is that the people will vote enough Consitutional Conservatives into the Senate and House to stop the socialist President. I hope that’s what is happening now. Stopping Obama until he gets dumped, then repeal all of the unConstitutional executive orders that all those socialist presidents have enacted. Ron Paul said thatif elected he was going to spend his first three days in office, repealing some 37,400 executive orders. No wonder our Constitution went to Hell on us.

      • Allan

        Handling 37,000 some exec orders is 3 days would lead to quite a calamity. Sure there is a huge number but let’s not get Reckless again. Let’s just get on the “right track” and hold our course steady and without errors dispose of the garbage.

    • Don39

      One damn thing for sure, Romney will not challenge his eligibility for office and the constitution will be forever rendered null and void!

    • Julian Alien

      Derp,I voted for Ron Paul last time,now get it right this time.(not directed at you,unless you voted for someone else)

  • Sylvia M. Auten

    This whole question has NOOO substance as Military babies are born over seas, and other such cases, BUT AS LONG AS THE BABY’S MOTHER IS A LEGAL CITIZEN WHEN THE BABY IS BORN THEN THE BABY IS A CITIZEN OF THE USA. NO ONE CAN BE CERTAIN
    OF THE BABY’S FATHER, UNFORTUNATELY UNLESS DNA IS DONE, BUT THAT MOTHER CAN VERIFY AT BIRTH THAT ‘THIS IS MY BABY’ AT DELIVERY. BOTH ROMNEY PARENTS WERE USA CITIZENS. ONE OF OBAMA’S PARENTS WAS WE THINK, THE MOTHER.

    • David

      Hello,
      I am retired military (USAF) my son was born in Okinawa, and until age 16 was a “dual” citizen of both Japan and U.S.A. under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) at the time of his birth. Yes, both his mother and I are American citizens (born in Indiana and Illinois). At 16 he was, by declaration (default), signed at his birth would become a U.S. citizen. Should he have wished, he could have renounced U.S. citizenship and become Japanese.
      Now, this was in 1976, which has surely changed by now. BUT, the majority of U.S. military dependents born abroad to U.S. citizens automatically are U.S. citizens.- MSGT USAF ret

      • Allan

        I don’t believe there have been any changes:except for the age being 18. If someone know for sure I am sure everyone would like to be informed.

    • Morning Star

      According to the “natural born” law…BOTH parents have to be US Citizens, not just one. Romney’s parents were both US Citizens at the time of his birth. Obama’s parents were not. Obama’s mother may or may not have been an American Citizen at the time of his birth, since she didn’t live in the US the prior five years to his birth, but his father was definitely a British Citizen since Kenya was under British Rule. No person carrying dual citizenship can be President of the United States unless of course they are Democrats who couldn’t care less what the Constitution of the United States says. Case in point…Obama!

      • Johnnygard

        Did you read the entire article? Apparently not!

    • Cs

      The mother has to have “legal standing” as a citizen…if she is a minor living abroad, apart from and/or having no parents to vouch for her…she cannot “register” her child at the US Embassy…she is without the protection of the USA…a juvenile without verification by parents ~ who may be Citizens, by which she has no “legal standing”. That is why the work was done “after the fact” where birth certs were “manufactured”… The process of protecting children born of US Citizens abroad is mandated…check it out. If Mr. Romney’s folks failed to follow that process…in Mexico, they refused to follow the laws of US Citizenship’s birth protection…and they did so fail, because they did not “choose to reside” in the USA when their Religious Rights were denied….thus moved, established and lived for several generations in Mexico, under Mexican rules, laws, and protection…Check it out. I’ll lay odds that not one of the Romneys born in Mexico during that time were registered as “American ~ born abroad” with the American Embassy in Mexico!!!!!

    • theduke43

      The law reads born in the USA, that is why mexicans have anchor babies, once born in the US they are citizens.
      Mitt Romney was born March 12 1947 in Detroit, a matter of public record.
      The only people who have to make this stuff up is the ones who know BO is on his way out and are trying to split the GOP.
      Talk like this in splitting is the only way BO can get back in.
      The economy is gone already so what are we fighting about. No president can bring it back, we are to far gone.

    • Maynard Merrell

      Sylvia M. Auten: If my memory serves me correctly, Mitt Romneys father was once the Governor of Michign, and wasn’t re-elected because of corruption charges. You might want to look that up. Because of his political ambitions, Mitt had to move away. But where did he learn his poltics?

  • http://adrianvance.blogspot.com Adrian Vance

    Well by Golly, we are going to get a Latino President next time! It’s in the book! There is a God and he is wearing a sombrero this year! The Democratics, as they want to be called, cannot pull off this challenge without opening the public examination of that Kinko’s Special fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama whose “home country” is Kenya according to Michelle. Whee!!!

    The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

    • Cs

      Yeahhhhhhh!!! Clapping with enthusiasm!!!! I am excited that we may have something going here. I think we will win with Rick Santorum.

      • Maynard Merrell

        Cs: Santorium is a social conservative. That means that he wants to preserve social matters, and couold easily pulled into socialism. I want a Consitutional Conservative who will preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Republic for which it stands, and our natural freedoms give to each and every one of us at birth by God. Governments don’t give freedoms, they take them away. The on;y Constitutional Conservative running, is Ron Paul, who wants to preserve our Constitution. Whats wrong with that. I certainly don’t want someone who will burn it.

      • Allan

        I am leaning towards Rick Santorum: He is the only one who appears to be squeaky clean despite Obama’s accussations which most were unfounded. And the others doubtful.

  • Dorothy

    if any one has any thing to say about it get it out in the open now do not wait till he is elected then gripe about it

  • Remington 870

    In its frenzy to focus on Mitt’s citizenship, the lame brain Urine Stream media has opened up more speculation about Obama’s eligibility. Since the parents of a Presidental canidate must be US citizens, and Mitt’s parents meet this criteria, then where does this leave Obama whose father was not a US citizen? Why is Obama in the White House and the Congress and Senate looks the other way? Way to go lame brain media? You finally revealed what many Americans have believed about YOUR president Obama.

    • Maynard Merrell

      Remington870: The urine stream media, as you call it correctly, will do anything it can to take our attention away from the republican candidates, particularly Ron Paul, who scars Hell out them and their socialist/communist ideas.

  • traitors in gov

    Who cares,,,, We have a man born in Kenya (it came out of his mouth) playing fake POTUS and you want to go here with Romney… Eff off American Journalists… You suck at your job…

    America is already ruined

  • gml

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
    George Romney’s parents were natural born American citizens. Why do you idiots continue to just listen to the lamestream media and not look things up for yourselves? This family never practiced polygamy. There is alwyas a little twist to the stories in the Liberal media. They would like this guy. Which is why they are for him.

    • Maynard Merrell

      GML: If the socialist news media likes Romney, then Romney must be a socialist they like.

  • JDubya

    This subject (Romney not being a natural-born citizen) is ludicrous at best. It is of the same ilk as the comments about McCain not being a natural-born citizen because he was born in Panama. These people are doing this seriously. Their main reason, I fear, is to hide the fact that the “sitting” President is, in fact, not a natural-born citizen because one must be the offspring of two citizens of the USA to be a natural-born citizen. Romney and McCain are and were natural-born because in both cases the parents were both citizens of the USA at the time of the baby’s birth – they do not lose their citizenship because their parents might have left the country even if it was for a long period of time.

    For McCain, his father was involved with government or military so the question of where John McCain was born is moot. The only question regarding Romney would be if his parents formally renounced their US citizenship when they left the country which I suspect they did not. President Obama, on the other hand, was not natural-born because one of his parents was not a citizen of the US – his father merely lived here (in Hawaii). There is however a sticky part of this – does Barack lose his citizenship because his father was not a citizen? There is this thing called “anchor baby”. And there is some question as to whether an anchor baby is even a citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen. Barack H. Obama is an anchor baby, possibly a citizen, but definitely not a natural-born citizen.

    It will take another Supreme Court manufacturing of facts not in evidence (as was done to get authority to make babies into non-persons as in the case of the abortion decision) to get this presidency authorized. If this thing was to be handled correctly, there would be a Constitutional crisis of mammoth proportion and BHO should end up in prison for sedition for falsifying his documents and attempting to bring down the USA from within.

    How about this conspiracy theory: Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the failure to remove him from office was a dry-run to determine how the people would react to obvious wrong-doing on the part of elected officials (this wrong-doing was far in excess of Andrew Johnson’s failures – he was nearly removed except for one vote, Clinton’s vote was not even close) and to determine how far the Congress would be willing to go to remove this blight. We failed miserably and as a result we will have to reap what was sown.

  • Patrick Duffy

    This is precisely the reason the corrupt republican establishment has failed to challenge Obama’s eligibility – they want to run the same ineligible candidates. “We’ll scratch your back, if you scratch ours”. The corruption of man on earth has reached the highest point in human history.

    • JDubya

      Mitt Romney was born of two US citizens and therefore is natural-born, regardless of whether his parents spent some time out of the US in Mexico or not – as long as they did not renounce their citizenship.

      The preceding has nothing to do with the Republican establishment. However, these elites who run the Republican Party for the most part (the establishment) are no better than the old Dems. Perry and even Reagan (who I really liked) were of the same cloth. Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman are the same type of people. (The old Dems were more conservative than a lot of today’s RINOs.) Santorum, notwithstanding the attempts to rewrite things differently, has been a stalwart conservative all along as have Bachmann and Cain. The only one remaining is Santorum. I like a lot of Ron Paul’s message, but he comes off all wrong when I’ve heard him speak (ie, some is good, but too much is all wrong). And even though I want to say he would be ok, my intuition says no. He is a conservative Libertarian and is as bad as Obama or worse in many ways. I would live with Romney before I could stomach Ron Paul. Sorry, that’s my opinion right now.

      • Maynard Merrell

        JDubya: I think you should sit down in some nice comfortable place and read the Constitutiona and Bill of Rights(maybe even the Confereation papers, and the principle of the Libitarian Party, as I have done, and you might be surprices at the similarity of the principles of the Libitarian Party and the Constitution. Infact, Reagan said soemthing to the effect, that the principles of the Libertarian Party were closer to the Consttution that the principles of the republican party. I’m not a libitarian but I am a Constitutional conservative, if you know what that means. Ron Paul is also a Constitutional Conservative. If he isn’t elected, I know from experience, that we will end up with a republican Obama.

  • Reenie

    People have gone over this again and again, and it has been determined that Mitt Romney is an American citizen and can be the President of the United States. I wish people would put it to bed and concern themselves with the most important thing at this time – making sure that Obama only gets one opportunity to destroy the United States of America. We need to get rid of him NOW!

  • Moracle

    Every person should be required to show proof of citizenship eligibility, when submitting application to become a presidential or congressional candidate.

    Our time, money, and energy should not be wasted on an unqualified person running for any office of government.

    Why is Obama so soft on illegals? Is it because he IS one?

    America deserves to know whether or not Obama (and any other candidate) is eligible to be president, according to the Constitution of the United States of America…….Period !!!

    • JDubya

      Moracle: I think that the states are required to verify the veracity of their candidates to the Feds. This is a states rights issue and the Supreme Court will probably not rule against the current President unless some or one of the states brings the appeal for them to decide it. One problem for Obama is the Indiana realization that they had okayed his name on the ballot on the basis of falsified documents, for example.

      And I think you mean to say that all candidates need to be forced to show proof of eligibility for the office they seek. Unfortunately, I think it is already true that they are so required, but the states just accepted Obama’s papers without even considering the Constitution. After all, they are Democrats so whatever they want is what is done.

      Do you think it was odd that the Dems and other liberals are going after every candidate the Republicans put up with such viciousness even if they had to make it up? Do you see the pattern that is developing – they are relatively easy on Mitt Romney because they want him to be their opposition in the election. They just do enough to put up a good show. I wonder how much of the stuff that was put out by Republican candidates against each other was actually supplied by the Dems?

      I have an axiom – if you wonder what the Dems are up to, listen to what they are saying about what the Republicans are doing. It will turn out that that is exactly what they themselves are doing, but they want something to hide behind. Then they rush out when caught and say “well, everyone was doing it – especially the Republicans” like somehow that made it ok.

      Take for example, greed, wealth, crony capitalists, corruption, liars, you name it. These things are all assigned to Republicans, but in truth, more Democrats are guilty of these things than the Republicans ever thought of doing. But how does one prove it? The biggest one is big government welfare state done under the guise of social justice. Who has been the main group that profits from this? It certainly isn’t the poor people that they claim they are trying to help. The rich that got richer are those who play the governments game and get those $100,000 plus salaries from the government. They don’t give a rats behind about the blacks that they are keeping down, who believe that they are going to get free housing, free healthcare, a car, etc, etc. They just want power and they are very close to getting it. Fifty percent of the people don’t pay any taxes. Just look at Wisconsin to see what it will be like when they get full control – they will vote against the guy who is willing to teach them how to fish and how to get their own food rather than just give them fish. Even FDR told everyone what the public workers unions would do and the people of Wisconsin seem to want that much power in the hands of their public service unions. There is no check on them – look at what the SEIU is doing now – these guys are like the brown-shirts in Germany just before WWII. The USA’s existence as we knew it is just about done unless we wake up and take it away from them again.

    • Allan

      Congress is supposedly FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: From this point on we must be like the ILLEGALS and demand they verify all applicants for Presidency or any GOVERNMENTAL POLITICAL office where their decisions would have an iMPACT on the American Nation.

  • LJWB

    oh NO, not again….check those backgrounds and follow the constitution.

  • Old Sarge

    “Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution 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.”
    There is nothing in there that says anything about the parents. No one wants to see Obama removed from office more than I do but reading between the lines is not the way to do it. All that will accomplish is to bring us down to his level. Until someone gets concrete proof of his alleged African birth and has the brass ones to expose it, we are stuck with him until, at least, the end of 2012. That is unless someone has the brass ones to present an air tight case for a successful impeachment and removal.
    As for Romney, he fully qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. I have heard the argument that, at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it was said that the definition of a Natural Born Citizen was a person born of two parents who are citizens. Unfortunately, they did not add that definition in the Constitution. It is true that George Romney was born in Mexico of American parents who were Missionaries. At the time that Mitt was born in Detroit, both his parents were American citizens. That qualifies him as a Natural born Citizen. That precedent was set back in 1881 with the election of President Chester Arthur. His father was not a natural born citizen, but was a US Citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth. Although George Romney didn’t qualify to be President, his son does whether we like it or not. I am not a Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination but since Obama was allowed to become President that argument about Romney’s parents holds no water.

    • John DeSoto

      Sarge your argument doesn’t hold water, as Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen.

    • Moracle

      You can find argument for the requirement that both parents must be citizens of the U.S. in order for their child to be a “natural born citizen” here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

    • Maynard Merrell

      Old Sarg: Don’t vote for Romney and you wont have to worry about his citizenship. He’s nothing more than a damn good BSer like Obama.

  • Chris P

    McCain didn’t belong either.

  • Lenkia

    “Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. ” According to the U.S. Supreme Court of 1875, and Mitt Romney’s Grandparents were Natural Born Citizens, they were born here in the U.S. This is the case for Romney, he father was considered natural born as long as his parents didn’t give up their citizenship in the U.S.A. Therefore he is a natural born citizen because his father came back to the U.S.A. and married another American, he is not Barrack Obama whose last name is Barry Sortorro – after he was adopted. He never had his name legally changed back to Barrack H. Obama Jr.

    • Lenkia

      McCain was a natural born citizen according to the Supreme Court – see above statement.

  • JDubya

    Re: “There is nothing in there that says anything about the parents.” What do you think ‘born’ is all about? The Constitution says “natural born” which does not suggest anything other than parents of the potential candidate. There is no reading between the lines. Historians of the time and historians now agree that what was meant by ‘natural born’ at the time the Constitution was written is that the person in question had to be born of two citizen parents. They have other precedents to make that conclusion.

    Re: “Until someone gets concrete proof of his alleged African birth and has the brass ones to expose it, we are stuck with him until, at least, the end of 2012.” What does his African birth have to do with it. He was not eligible to become President because he was not “natural born” – only one of his parents was a citizen, automatically making him ineligible. It is a matter of record that his father was not born here and also was not a citizen of the US by any other means. Just living here does not make him a citizen.

    Re: “It is true that George Romney was born in Mexico of American parents who were Missionaries.” If George Romney’s parents were both citizens of the US at the time of George’s birth, he too is a natural born citizen regardless of their location (in Mexico or elsewhere) when George was born. You do not lose your citizenship because of location. The only way that George is not a natural born citizen of the US would be if either one of his parents renounced their US citizenship before he was born. This is similar to the McCain issue in the last election, though not identical because McCain’s father was in Panama in service for his country and his wife was with him – there was no question of their citizenship. Somehow people want to make citizenship a location issue, which it is not. It is a legal issue. If an ‘anchor baby’ is born in the US of non-citizen parents, the child is a citizen of the USA according to current practice (legality of this is not settled as far as I know – there are words in the Constitution that supports this position, I understand).

    Re: “At the time that Mitt was born in Detroit, both his parents were American citizens. That qualifies him as a Natural born Citizen. ” Agreed. And as far as Mitt’s desire to be the Republican candidate and eventually President if he wins the vote of the electoral college, that is all that matters.

    Good points otherwise – I didn’t know about the Chester Arthur precedent.

    • JDubya

      This was supposed to be a reply to “Old Sarge” – Don’t know what happened because I am sure I selected reply under his comments.

  • mitchell

    Would it make any different? we have a Pres,in the white house, that is’nt natural born.And I know for sure Romney is’nt a muslim.

  • John DeSoto

    Can’t believe someone had the courage to call a spade a spade… or Muslim Monkey!!

  • Bob

    Who in God’s name came up with this? They don’t care about Obama not having any records like the “anti-Christ” but now they bring up that Romney may not be a naturalized citizen. This country is crumbling before our eyes…..God help US!

  • Nogard

    “”Old Sarge says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:32 am

    “Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution 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.”
    There is nothing in there that says anything about the parents.”"

    So where in the Constitution does it say I can drive a car?

    Like most everything now there are many pages of instructions.

    We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding.

    Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the Defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the Defendant cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5

    The questions for Mitt are 1. (Rumored) born in Canada? (2) Does he have a dual citizenship?
    If the later, one might look into where, the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power.  The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

    Have a great day

    • Old Sarge

      “So where in the Constitution does it say I can drive a car?”
      In my state driving a car is not a right but a privilege.

      We can argue the fine points about eligibility until the cows come home. The bottom line is that Obama is in the White House weather we like it or not because, through apathy or ignorance, the American People allowed it to happen. Apathy put Obama in the White House and apathy will put him back in there. As I have said many times and I will say it again. APATHY IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS. NOT OBAMA.

  • Terry Black

    Yes, Romney is just as illegal as Obama, Obama will like that!

    On top of that I jyst read a News Article that states Romney would sign NDAA!

    Search: Romney Would Sign NDAA

    • JDubya

      Terry Black: No, Romney is eligible to be President as he is a natural-born child, a child of two citizen parents – did you not read anything that was written here?

      • Terry Black

        I cannot see how that is justified, when it states that Mitt Romney’s father, George was born in a Mormon Colony in Mexico!
        As the book: Where’s The Birth Certificate – Jerome R. Corsi , states Natural Born means both fathe and mother being born in America!

        Obama’s father was born in British Territory Mambassa, now Kenya at the time, that makes Obama a British subject! Of British decent!

        However no documents were ever found that declared Barack’s or Barry’s mother Ann Dunham and father Barack Obama Sr. were ever legally married.

        Would this fact not make Mitt Romney a Mexican subject? Of Mexican decent?

        • Terry Black

          It is stated in Wilipedia, that George Romney was born in Mexico.

        • Johnnygard

          Terry
          Because someone wrote it in a book, you believe it? I hear Obummer has written a book also! Please read the ENTIRE atricle that we are all responding to.

  • San Francisco Pete

    Most countries do not give their citizenship automatically just because someone is born on their soil. The US is almost unique in that regard. So if two US citizens move to or visit a foreign country and their child is born there, the child is not a citizen automatically of that country. It is usual, though, that the birth of a child outside the US or its territories needs to be declared within a certain time limit with the local US consulate. Of my four children, three were born overseas while I was stationed there with the US Army. The usual Status-of-Forces Agreements in such cases reserve US citizenship to children born outside the US and give no claim to the host country on the child as long as that Report of US Citizen born Overseas is filed. I do not believe Mexico affords it citizenship automatically just because somebody was born on their soil, therefore Romney, being born of US citizen parents (that is, if these parents or grandparents did not renounce their US citizenship or become Mexican citizens), should have unquestionably US citizenship. Since “natural born US citizenship” has not been clearly defined, there might be a fine point of contention regarding Romney, though. I always understood “natural-born US citizenship” to mean born on US soil of two US citizen parents. Obama, by the very virtue of his father being a non-citizen (even BO himself admits to that), cannot be a natural-born US citzen” and therefore is a fraud who needs to be removed from office, if the US constitution has any meaning at all.

  • Justwhistlingdixie

    Romney passes the eligibilty test as being “a natural born citizen” in the ruling by the supreme court and the federalist papers, and in the constitution as well as many other sources among the founding documents and “the laws of nations”, But Obama is not eligible to be president, one primary reason is his father was not ever a citizen of the United States, and it is not certain that his mother did not relinquish her citizenship, during her years of self imposed exile out side the United States. It is not clear and gone unreported if she ever visited the U.S. prior to her return following her years spent in Indonesia. I am sure the press has all of the family history of both branches of the Barck Hussein Obama’s family tree, but will not report it.

  • Cuzin Bubba

    Cousin Mitt was born in MIchigan.

  • http://conservativebyte one mad gramma

    I don’t believe the question is whether Romney is a natural born citizen..the question is, is his father? The state of Ga. is fighting to keep O off their ballot, a judge has agreed to hear the arguments on Jan 21. Three other states are fighting to do the same. It is a valid question…asking whether parents are natural born citizens. If the judge should rule in GA.’s favor, does that not put Romney in jeopardy of the same scrutiny? Here he is winning these primaries, we go after the O for this issue & pray for the judge’s decision to be favorable to us, yet we run a candidate with the same issue?? Not good!

    • Johnnygard

      gramma, You are making me mad. It DOESN’T MATTER WHERE YOUR PARENTS WERE BORN!! Read the ENTIRE article.

  • richard

    I believe it is specifically defined in the Constitution, there has been Supreme Court decisions defining what a Natural Born American citizen is. I’m not a lawyer but I thought it was something like, if both parents are born in the USA the child is natural born citizen. If one of the parents were born in another country and filed for citizenship and became a US citizen the child would be a dual citizen even if he was born in the US.
    They are Dual citizens and can’t be President because they could have loyalty to another Country . It seems that you need to be a citizen of US if your parents are on a ship or serving your country abroad, like McCain was born in Panama while his father was an Admiral serving there. Right or Wrong, that is just my opinion.

  • Maynard Merrell

    Personaly, I don’t want a rich politican like him for preedent anyway. Too much corruption in business. They know too many people good and bad. I just can’t trust them.

  • Maynard Merrell

    I think all of you should read the following and see whats really going on in this country and the world, instread of worrying about all these other thing that are trivil in comparison.:
    http://www.4rie.com/rie%201.html thru 207.html And:
    http://www.4rie.co/mainindex.html

  • Johnnygard

    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:”
    • Anyone born inside the United States *
    • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    * 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

    • Johnnygard

      If you don’t care to read every thing above, it boils down to the fact that if you were born in the United States, you are eligible to be President or Vice President. I’d rather not have Mitt, unless it’s between Mitt and Obummer, but if BHO was born in Hawaii, they are both eligible.

  • The Lion Den Roars

    JUST LIKE FRYING EGG’S . WHICH IS THE TOP AN WHICH WAS THE BOTTOM ? TWO AND TWO , AND YOU STILL HAVE TWO . MISS FIT’S . ONE’S A HOMO , AN THE OTHER IS A MILLION TO ONE LONG SHOT .

  • MadmaxUSA

    Citizenship rights are determined by the country in which the laws of citizenship govern. They are different for every country in the world. Other countrys citizenship laws have nothing to do with Citizenship rights and requirements of the United States. An individual born in the United states and deemed a US citizen can move to Russia on the day he was born and live there 50 years, and still be a US citizen unless he legally renounces his US citizenship. There is no evidence George W. Romney, Mitt’s father and his wife, Lenore, ever renounced their citizenship when they moved to Mexico to escape what they felt was religious discrimination in the United States. It is uncontested that Mitt Romney was born in the US. Therefore there is no legal basis for any assertion that he is not a natural-born US Citizen.

  • Wilbur Trent

    There has never been a requirement that the parents of a natural born citizen be natural born. More people wonder about children born overseas to citizen parents, a mistake make by the 1st Congress in 1790 and corrected in the 3rd Congress in 1795, some, like Obama’s Con Law Professor, claim, knowing the truth, but in the interest of misdirection, that these children, born overseas, as was John McCain, are natural born citizens.

    Here is the decided law, which repeats the common-law, since virtually all definitions of terms in the Constitution are from our common language and common law. But this statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite established precedent, cited at least twenty six times, but which citations were conveniently edited out of on-line supreme court decisions provided by Google partner, Justia.com in the Summer of 2008.

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    The statement above is positive law, stare decisis, precedence, and has never been challenged by the Supreme Court or Congress. One would need to ask the numb-skulls at the Indiana Supreme Court about their basis for a different interpretation in Ankeny, but, politics finding the Constitution’s interpretations an inconvenient truth, since Democrats ran Obama, Republicans ran McCain and Green’s ran Colero, none of whom are natural born citizens. Besides, the decision in Ankeny didn’t depend upon the definition, if I recall correctly. Indiana, as have all courts so far, hid behind lack of standing. Since every citizen is injured, no citizen has the right to ask a court for redress, which they couldn’t satisfy anyway. The law is a wonderful opportunity to deploy sophistry.

  • Eugene Whitt

    I wish people would not write articles like this above article when they do not know the facts for it is in the 13th and 14th Amendments that clearly define Natural Born Citizen and by the litmus test of those 2 amendments Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born citizen. People should not be allowed to go off half cocked about things they clearly do not know about. All I am after is the truth, plain and simple. None of us are all knowing.

  • msbetz

    American elected representatives have tried 8 times to remove the "natural born" requirement from the constitution before Obama came along…they KEEP offering ineligible candidates: McCain, Obama, Romney, Rubio, ANYBODY that can end the American constitutional requirement………obama must be prosecuted for his crimes against humanity.
    Remove Obama/Soetoro immediately.

  • Doc

    I’ve never seen such a messed up situation as America has now. The Constitution is
    completely clear. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are be not qualified to the President of
    this great United States.
    Let’s get on with what is right and elect a qualified man for president. We have to
    republicans left who are qualified and both can be President and Vice President and both
    will make a great team.
    We have Newt Gringrich and Rick Santorum and both will be great. It is true that
    Newt has the best experience and that Rick learned from Newt. We need America delivered
    from this evil obama and our nation revived again and thriving again as the greatest
    Nation in the world and not apologizing for what we stand for or how we have defended
    freedom.