Why senator Obama impeached only after results declared and before becoming President
http://end-times-computers.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-senator-obama-impeached-only-after.html

Then during the 1920′s the various Indian Nations,
tribes and other groups were granted citizenship. At
that same time the hereditary & elected Chiefs became
President of their people. Many of whom have served
with great distinction in the U. S. military. At this
time, these United States are made up of 50 States and
6 Dependencies which have varying relationships with
the Federal Government. All legal residents born in
those areas are Citizens except for American Samoa.
Anyone born there is an American National and so it
would seem ineligible to serve as U. S. President.
This is in recognition that Samoa still has hereditary
Chiefs and the people travel back-and-forth between
American Samoa and Western Samoa

Furthermore, Mitt Romney’s father George was a serious
Republican candidate in 1968 and the issue was brought
up that since he was born over-seas while his parents
were on missionary work it wasn’t clear whether or not
he could serve as President. I don’t know the case #
but I do remember it going his way. Although one can
argue that since McCain’s dad was “working” for the
United States when he was born he should be granted
automatic citizenship.

There is another problem with these suits. If a Court
is disinclined to really look at the issue they can
decline to accept the case when someone appeals an
adverse ruling. It might prove interesting to see what
reason they give for NOT hearing the case.

Let’s look at the other side of this issue. There is
absolutely no question that Obama’s father never was
an American citizen. So he would gain his citizenship
from his mother who was married at his birth. However,
considering how young she was then, was she legally an
adult? Before the 26th Amendmant was adopted there were
situations where someone was not viewed as an adult
until they turned 21. Let’s say for arguements sake
that a valid case could be made that Obama cannot serve
as President. Does anyone here honestly think any Court
of competent juridiction would even accept this case?
Again, it would be fun to read the self-serving reason
given to reject that case.

It was written that way by the Committee on Style, and approved by the Convention, to indicate that either a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of at the time of adoption of the Constitution, was eligible. A lot of citizens in 1787 were not natural-born yet, since the nation was only officially 11 years old.

If your argument is accurate, and it’s not (for it to be accurate the comma before the “or” would be gone), then only those natural-born or citizens when the Constitution was ratified, and none thereafter, would be eligible. That makes no sense at all.

You’re getting verb object subclauses and modifying prepositional clauses mixed up here, and the “at the time of adoption” is a prepositional subclause. According to the rules of the English langauge back then and now, the prepositional clause applies its modification to the nearest object clause or subclause–in this case, “a citizen of the…”

Or at least that’s what my PHD English professor with 50+ years experience told me.

That political fact produced the temporary language –

*or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution*

The *been fourteen Years a resident within the United States* obviously meant a long time resident going back to 1774-1775 — The Constitution took effect on 4 Mar 1789.

This stuff AIN’T atomic physics except to the party hack MORON Supremes — who mystify everything since they are party hack MORONS.

If and when a Prez candidate is allegedly chosen by such Art II – 12th Amdt electors or the 12th Amdt House of Reps. BUT who is NOT qualified, then there will be a real case.

The *natural born* stuff has to do with ALLEGIANCE to a regime at the instant of birth.

Sorry – if a gang of pirates or terrorists or wartime enemy aliens drop off their 9 month pregnant slaves into the U.S.A. area, then would the kids born be *natural born* U.S.A. citizens ??? Duh.

This is one more mess due to the party hack Supremes in their typical moronic screwing up of BASIC stuff.

Then the next part following the semicolon delineates the qualifications required for all circumstances, i.e. at any time after the Constitution has been adopted.

Personally–yes, I know I’m full of half-assed ideas!–I’ve always thought that the requirement to be a natural born citizen is just the result of people not knowing how commas are used to create subclauses. (See end of post for the words of the Constitution.)

The subclause is “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” NOT “or a citizen of the United States”.

That second comma is the giveaway–if it WASN’T there, then you could take out what is enclosed and it would read No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President.

As it stands, WITH the second comma and the resulting subclause that follows it removed, it reads No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of President.

ACTUAL TEXT
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.