Cook hasn't been granted conscientious objector status.

How are they going to nuke their home countries then? I think its a really bad idea to start questioning the american born requirement, because with it will come questioning of the 'citizenship thru birth' laws too. Some people have already started to challenge that idea. Things are perfect the way they are, if you're born here, you are a citizen and can become president, if you have some other land-of-birth, then you can't even be put into the position of having to go to war with it. Also, the requirement that the president be a native is OLDER than, apparently, the requirement that anyone born in the US be a citizen automatically, so again I think its a really bad idea to start re-working these basic aspects of the country.

To me, a red-blooded American who would fight to the death for this country, and wrap myself in the American flag with love on a daily basis, I don't care if Obama was born on the moon - he's a great man, and he is President.

We should allow any citizen to be President, no matter their birth location. To me, what matters more is the other aspects of Presidential requirements - the office seeker be old enough to know what their doing, and lived in the USA long enough to be as, if not more, American than Nygdan, above.

Next thing we'll have Nygdan calling me out for having an Indonesian name, and by my birth there, accusing me of not being American enough to be President.

Birthplace does not matter. Loyalty and love does - and that's not conferred by where your mother went into labor.

I went back and reviewed the Constitutional Convention debates, and I could not find any debate on the natural birth portion of the President (I could have overlooked it I suppose). It would seem they did not consider this to be a matter of vital debate. In that vein, I don't think this is the most important thing to consider when we talk about making changes to the Presidency. First among those, I would think, would be the possibility of making the term of office a single 6yr term (as was debated in Convention, although they put the number at 7).

The reason why it matters, is to prove that the President of the United States will be loyal to the American people.

Due to our out-of-control immigration system, this rule which keeps our government in check, will no doubt be thrown out, just like the Constitution itself.

I feel Obama is more "himself" when he talks, in Europe. I do not believe that he has the United States in his best interest. It would not surprise me to see him hand us (United States) over to the European Union, possibly his next term.

Quite honestly, I do not think that anyone coming from another country should be allowed to run for public office.
By allowing this, we are opening up a door for anyone to rid the United States. I believe that might be one sole reason for this law. The Democrats have already torn up our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I think the Law was put into place for a very good reason and should be followed.

I believe it is wrong to have someone from another country to be the President of the United States. I believe this to be true for the majority of the countries in the world. No one other country would allow a foreigner to run for any public and governmental office. Why should we be any different? When we have man/woman from another country trying to lead our country, we don't know if this individual will look out for the best interest of the country. How do we know he/she will not turn on us and use our enemy against us? We don't know what the mindset of this individul is, if they truly care about the people and the dreams and success of this country. I hate the fact that Obama has so many different ethnic indiduals in the white house who hate white people, who hate capitalism, who hate the faith of this country. These individuals don't want America to succeed. They want us to be powerless and be dependant on other countries for help. America DOES NOT BOW DOWN TO ANYONE and that is exactly what Obama is trying to make us do. He is not a citizen of this country and he should not be the President of anything in this country.

Why don't we call this whole 'birther' movement by its real name: blatant racism. Obama's citizenship is obvious to all but the most intellectually-challenged, or more likely, racially-motivated Americans. This would not be happening had McCain been elected. Or Clinton. Or anyone else who happens to be white. This is racial paranoia, which cid and vman aptly proved above, pure and simple. Perhaps when this decreasing subset of the American population is finally dragged into the 21st Century we'll be able to have a constructive debate on the Constitutional requirements of the Presidency.

"Major Stefan Cook, the "birther" soldier who was granted has requested conscientious objector status because he refused to fight for a president he believes is illegitimate."

Major Cook took the oath required of an officer in the US Army, where he obligated himself to "defend the Constitution (emphasis mine) against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and alleigence to the same". The Constitution, is the foundation of all laws of the United States. The military's first responsibility is to the Constitution, not the President. Maj. Cook is a veteran of Desert Storm and has been under arms and under fire as a civilian contractor in support of the US Army - he is NOT a concientous objector EXCEPT in the sense that he knows his oath obligates him to ensure he is following the commands of a lawful chain of command, both for himself and for those he commands. (Reference the Nuremburg trials and the Geneva Convention.) He is an American Patriot and his example should be followed by all who took such an oath, are honest with themselves and have integrity.

The Founders included the requirement to ensure those who were not fully invested in the welfare of the people of the federated states would be precluded from holding the position which could do the most damage. They also provided for a means to change the Constitution which has not been used to alter the requirement for the President to be a "natual born citizen". So it still stands.

If we dismiss the requirements of the Constitution, then of what value are the laws themselves? Why have them at all?

It seems that is what those who are in power now want: to create anarchy and chaos to destroy the United States. Is that what you want?

The author asks:

"Why should it even matter if Obama was born in the U.S.?"

Because, unlike the author of this article, a natural born citizen would most likely know how to spell "persistent."

And, I quote:

"The weirdly persistant belief held by many Americans that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States [...]"

Cheers

Vman states: "We don't know what the mindset of this individul is, if they truly care about the people and the dreams and success of this country."

That is complete and utter hogwash. Do you really mean to say that the loyalty of a person to the American Constitution is only determined by their birthplace? Let's list a number of fiercely loyal and law-abiding American-born persons who you believe would be more qualified to be President than a foreign-born individual who is naturalized.

-Jeffrey Dahmer
-Timothy McVeigh
-John Wilkes Boothe
-James Earl Ray
-Alger Hiss

Give me a break. You are the un-American one in this discussion. You are the one who refuses to accept the fact that the United States of America is a nation of immigrants - and a national where citizenship is based on SOIl, not BLOOD. If you are naturalized, you are an American. Plain and simple. If you violate the laws of the land, you lose all, or most, of your rights - thereby making you less American. The 'natural born' anachronism should certainly be amended.

Vman states: "We don't know what the mindset of this individul is, if they truly care about the people and the dreams and success of this country."

That is complete and utter hogwash. Do you really mean to say that the loyalty of a person to the American Constitution is only determined by their birthplace? Let's list a number of fiercely loyal and law-abiding American-born persons who you believe would be more qualified to be President than a foreign-born individual who is naturalized.

-Jeffrey Dahmer
-Timothy McVeigh
-John Wilkes Boothe
-James Earl Ray
-Alger Hiss

Give me a break. You are the un-American one in this discussion. You are the one who refuses to accept the fact that the United States of America is a nation of immigrants - and a national where citizenship is based on SOIL, not BLOOD. If you are naturalized, you are an American. Plain and simple. If you violate the laws of the land, you lose all, or most, of your rights - thereby making you less American. The 'natural born' anachronism should certainly be amended.

One of the main reasons the provision was put into the Constitution was to prevent Alexander Hamilton from ever becoming President. He was very close to Washington, and his enemies were worried that the Bastard of Barbados would actually win, whenever Washington left. So they made up that rule.

I personally think it's a bit daft. A duration of citizenship requirement would be just as effective, say...25 years. If someone can become a senator after being a citizen for nine years, I think 25 or possibly lower would be just fine for the Presidency.

I believe that might be one sole reason for this law. The Democrats have already torn up our Constitution and Bill of Rights.The loyalty of a person to the American Constitution is only determined by their birthplace?

About Me

I agree that this provision of the Constitution should be changed. But it is the Law now.
Obama's Kenyan family contends that he was born in Kenya. His mother was at the end of her term of pregnancy when she visited Kenya. And she was a minor not capable under the then existing law to transfer citizenship to her son.
Obama has only showed a certificate of live birth not a birth certificate from Hawaii. And there is no record of
his mother being in a Hawaiian hospital at the claimed time of his birth. (Children are usually close to their mother at the time of their birth). So there is the strong prima facia evidence that he was not a "natural born citizen".
But if he or his family assumed that he was a citizen then when would they have acted to apply for citizenship for him? And is he a citizen now?
The courts have continually refused to consider this issue; for Goldwater born in Arizona territory, for McCain born in Panama Canal Zone, ... They say they do not have jurisdiction. Maybe it is the Senate that counts the votes, or a member of the Electoral College has standing to bring it to court ... but it is not clear.

Quite honestly, I do not think that anyone coming from another country should be allowed to run for public office.
By allowing this, we are opening up a door for anyone to rid the United States. I believe that might be one sole reason for this law. The Democrats have already torn up our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I think the Law was put into place for a very good reason and should be followed.

Resveratrol

The ironic thing here of course is that McCain /wasn't/ born in any of the states, he was born on a military base within a foreign country. And I agree, if McCain had won, there wouldn't be any controversy like this. Obama was obviously born in the US.

That doesn't change the fact that the constitution and the founding fathers felt that a US native must be president. And this is perhaps all the moreso important now than back then. The founders created the position of the 'presidency', like with the president of a bank or a corporation. They didn't want a prime minister or a powerful 'consul' (which I beleive was another considered position) or any kind of headman. They wanted a President of an organization that executes the directives of Congress. But today, its the Presidency that appoints Czars (and this is not something that can be unfairly pinned on Obama either), the Presidency that Declares Wars (in fact if not in law), its the Presidency that dictates foreign policy, and its the Presidency that sets major internal policies like health care, immigration, economy, even police powers through the Dept. of Justice and FBI.
So if the Founders felt it important enough to specifically state that the president be native born, and not the congressmen or supreme court justices either but the presidency alone, then its all the more important now that the president is the 'most powerful man in the world'.
Being born in the US is a pretty simple and straighforward requirement to be the /leader/ of the US. We've never had a problem where there was some guy who had the support of the bulk of the population to be president but couldn't because he was foreign born, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I mean, the constitution is one of the oldest, still functioning, statements of government around, MAYBE those dopey founders knew what they were doing???

More than an issue of being "fit to be president," it is an issue of following the constitution. As it states, only a natural born citizen can acquire presidency, however, it doesn't clearly define "natural born." If the president was, as a matter of fact, born in Kenya, he couldn't claim to be a natural born citizen by jus soli, of course. Now, a lot of people argue that he IS an n.b.c. by jus sanguinis. But then again, his mother was eighteen when she gave birth to him, therefore falling short of the requirement that a US citizen parent must reside in the US five years after their fourteenth birthday.

I still do believe, however, that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.