Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE

VANITY

[Chance Hart]

First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his “BHO 2’s” birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as “Brother”, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their “Brothers” and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now – 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.

[philman_36]

I was just doing a little research on the @Koran burning at Bagram and came back to see the usual and expected inanity that had been left for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

I was going right along with you until I got to the above statement. What about Obama’s several years of upbringing in Indonesia, where he became known as “Barry Soetoro?” Do you deny that this happened? If so, why?

Not at all. I believe Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Definitely under Indonesian law, and possibly under Hawaiian law as well. (States will not tell you anything about adopted children.)

I think the 1971 adoption by his grandparents (When Barack Obama Sr. *AND* Stanley Ann just happened to fly into Hawaii during the same time period) was an effort to undo the mess created by Stanley Ann running off to Indonesia where their grandson was picked on.

The evidence appears to indicate Obama was adopted TWICE! First by Lolo Soetoro, and secondly by his Grandparents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Soetoro, Stanley Soetoro, and Barack Obama Sr. (On "Family business") at the Airport in 1971. Thereafter Barry stayed with his grandparents. (You tell me what likely happened.)

[DiogenesLamp]

BTW - didn’t every state let Obama on their ballot?

I guess you missed the part where Roger Calero was on the Ballot in New Jersey and New York for the Presidency despite the fact that he was born in Nicaragua to Nicaraguan parents?

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=50998

They let an actual FOREIGNER on the ballot, and you think they are CHECKING anyone's credentials?

Again, you are using the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum". What you don't get, is just because everyone thinks a certain way, does not mean they are CORRECT.

[Harlan1196]

I want to err on the side of the law.

You are wrong on the NBC = two citizen parents. The courts will reject your argument.

[Harlan1196]

There are many respected conservative legal scholars and judges that think Roe v Wade is bad law. Some of them sit on the Supreme Court. There is a mountain of published legal thought on the controversy.

There are absolutely no respected conservative legal scholars and judges that accept the NBC = two citizen parents. We know what the Supreme Court feels about the issue - the Chief Justice swore in Obama. There is no published legal thought on the matter (beyond birther websites).

Criticism of Rove v Wade is well within the mainstream of American legal thought. WKA is the only operative law on NBC within the mainstream of American legal thought - there is no controversy.

In the legal system, some opinions count more than others. When it comes to NBC the opinions that count are not on your side. They would be on your side for Roe v Wade but not WKA.

[Harlan1196]

Everyone knew he was ineligible - the SWP has a long history of running entire tickets that were ineligible. And not just New York.

“Since they weren’t going to be elected anyways, the Socialist Workers Party didn’t care that they nominated a ticket entirely ineligible to be elected. Why? Because Róger Calero is both foreign born and also not a US citizen; and Arrin Hawkins is too young. To avoid ballot access problems for the SWP, as the constitutional ineligibility may also render them unable to be listed on the ballot in some states, the 2000 SWP ticket of James Harris for President and Margaret Trowe for Vice President are being used in states that will not permit the Calero-Hawkins slate to be listed. It is not the first time the SWP pulled this stunt. In 1972, the SWP nominated a Presidential candidate — Linda Jenness — who was also too young to qualify for the office (so the party used a replacement nominee in some states to achieve ballot status). They regularly do likewise in US Senate and Congressional races by nominating candidates too young to be eligible to serve. “

http://web.archive.org/web/20070730141140/http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm

Some states don’t appear to have eligibility requirements to get on a ballot, some do. They still would not be able to actually take office if they won.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you two want to push out I can go on the clock at 1..../s

Thanks, but I should be good. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

I want to err on the side of the law.

No you don't. You want all the hodgepodge of law that has occurred subsequent to 1787 to alter and/or obfuscate the correct meaning of a constitutional term.

You are wrong on the NBC = two citizen parents. The courts will reject your argument.

And now I am beginning to think you are stupid. Again! With that non sequitur!

Let me make this very clear for you. I do not give a D@MN what a Court says about this issue, ESPECIALLY one that has not looked at the evidence. *YOU* may need a minder to tell you what to think, but the rest of us are intelligent enough to research this ourselves and find out what the founders meant.

They most certainly did not mean to allow anchor babies.

[philman_36]

The courts will reject your argument.
What you're doing is called psychological reinforcement. It's also used in psychological warfare. You present something as factual when it isn't.
@The Battle for Your Mind - Propaganda, PR and PsyOps"If you think about how you think, you will find your mind is made of memories, facts, and that sort of thing; you picked these up through continual reinforcement... Using a computer metaphor, your mind is hardware (the grey matter, providing you with senses, nerve endings, neurons) and software (combined from that odd core of your being that is doing the reflecting, and the material it is reflecting upon, kind of like a computer program and its data). That isn't the whole story, of course; there is an unidentified extra component, the 'wetware,' that gives you free will, volition, self-awareness. We know next to nothing about how this piece works; it appears to be an odd combination of chaotic and stochastic processes, transcending both. About the only thing we know for certain about the human mind is that we haven't even begun to utilize it to its full potential." Michael Wilson, from: "Memetic Engineering PsyOps and Viruses for the Wetware"
You keep saying this while there is nothing whatsoever to indicate what any court will do in the future.
You're expressing an opinion, not a fact, and it will never be anything but an opinion until a court actually takes up the case instead of throwing it out on technicalities.

[Harlan1196]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system that I can’t help you with. That “hodgepodge of law” is the American Common Law. Whether you give a damn what a court believes is irrelevant - that is our system of justice and it is not going to change because of your pet peeve.

The present definition of NBC is the same as it was in 1787. NBS=NBC=born on US soil.

You disagree - I got it.

[philman_36]

And now I am beginning to think you are stupid.
Read #409. He isn't stupid, he's a snake!

[Harlan1196]

History is always a good predictor of the future when the facts being argued don’t change.

Every birther case in every court has failed. Every one, every time. All the way from a Georgia administrative hearing to the Supreme Court.

Now what’s different now? Nothing’s changed. Same argument by the birthers - same grounds for rejection by the courts.

Of course it is an opinion. But an informed one.

[philman_36]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system that I can’t help you with.

Just like you've seen this, or something similar, many, many times.
He goes the extra mile and throws in a little degradation to your intellect for good effect.

[philman_36]

I notice that you don't deny that your statements are psychological reinforcement.

You think people aren't smart enough, or knowledgeable enough, to recognize what you're actually doing.

[philman_36]

History is always a good predictor of the future
when the facts being argued don’t change.


How right you are.

Think "they're subhuman" as "the facts" being argued.

[Harlan1196]

Shall we go back through both of your posts and pick out the straight out insults thrown at me? “Stupid”, “snake” and “liar” for starters?

If you don’t like the tone of the discussion then clean up your own act.

You are so unhinged you can’t even recognize your own hypocrisy.

[Harlan1196]

I also didn’t deny that I was still beating my wife.

[philman_36]

“Stupid”, “snake” and “liar” for starters?
I didn't call you stupid. You're very smart and subtle at what you do.

You are so unhinged you can’t even recognize your own hypocrisy.
You've got it so ingrained in you that you can't even stop what you do even when you're called on it.

[Harlan1196]

Think “idiotic” as “the analogy” being made.

That’s one of your more incoherent posts - a jump from the workings of the American justice system to genocide. Wow.

[philman_36]

You’ve got it so ingrained in you that you can’t even stop what you do even when you’re called on it.

[Harlan1196]

“both of your posts” as in you and DiogenesLamp - that’s why included him on my reply.

Reading comprehension is a ongoing problem for you it would appear.

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

[Harlan1196]

“both of your posts” as in you and DiogenesLamp - that’s why included him on my reply.

Reading comprehension is a ongoing problem for you it would appear.

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

[philman_36]

You’ve got it so ingrained in you that you can’t even stop what you do even when you’re called on it.

[Harlan1196]

So I am a propaganda Jedi? Cool!

[Harlan1196]

And you can’t stop being petty and obsessed with me. Pretty ingrained in you it would appear. Even when called on it.

[philman_36]

So I am a propaganda Jedi? Cool!

@Self-enhancement
Strategic construals can also be more subtle. People make self-aggrandizing interpretations not only of their own attributes, but also of others in order to appear greater by comparison.

[philman_36]

And you can’t stop being petty and obsessed with me.

@Factitious Disorder by Proxy
Generally speaking, the goal or objective is to assume the “sick role,” and subsequently obtain the benefits that are generally imbued on them as a result.

[philman_36]

Please, continue. I'm pretty sure that others are finding this very illuminating and most instructive.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are many respected conservative legal scholars and judges that think Roe v Wade is bad law. Some of them sit on the Supreme Court. There is a mountain of published legal thought on the controversy.

I know of no legal scholars that think Roe v Wade is GOOD law. Even the Supreme court couldn't think of a good reason to retain it except "Stari Decisis"! (Which means Shut the F*** up! We've made up our minds, and facts won't change it!)

There are absolutely no respected conservative legal scholars and judges that accept the NBC = two citizen parents.

There are TWO, quite respected conservative legal scholars who have written articles that say being born on our soil DOES NOT MAKE YOU even a CITIZEN. (Let alone a "natural born citizen.") I am going to post links to their articles, but I can tell it is a waste of time to tell you ANYTHING. No piece of evidence will wake you up. Hell, you can't even READ the stuff i've shown you so far.

Ann Coulter:

George Will:

I don't expect either one of them to knock any sense in you either.

We know what the Supreme Court feels about the issue - the Chief Justice swore in Obama.

That is one possible explanation. Another is that he is IGNORANT about the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." Another is that he may have known what is correct, but felt it was in the interest of the nation to ignore it. (As the court did with the last Roe v Wade challenge.) You really are a simplistic thinker. I can usually see several possibilities with any group of facts.

There is no published legal thought on the matter (beyond birther websites).

Well, there's John M. Yinger

There's Lawrence B. Solum

There is Notre Dame President Charles E Rice.

There is Alexander Porter Morse.

There is Dr. David Ramsey's "Dissertation on the Manner of acquiring the Privileges and Character of a Citizen of the United States."

There is the Essay written by Legal scholar and Ambassador Breckenridge Long."

There is the Legal Opinion written in American Law Review by Legal Scholar George D. Collins.(page 134)

There is the Opinion of this Law book from Harvard.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

There is Aristotle:

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

And John Greshack:

et al.

Yeah, other than that, we got nothin.

Rube.

[philman_36]

You think people aren't smart enough, or knowledgeable enough, to recognize what you're actually doing.

And on rare occasions you come up against a hard ass like me who can "see right through you". See "Saran Wrap".

[philman_36]

Pardon me while I just post a little keyword item for myself for your “most excellent” and thorough reply.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some states don’t appear to have eligibility requirements to get on a ballot, some do. They still would not be able to actually take office if they won.

And you think this is reasonable? That a state should tolerate the expense of having an election for a non-eligible candidate when checking eligibility costs THEM nothing? What if the guy won? How many million dollars down the toilet for nothing? Seriously?

If you think this is rational, you live in a strange little world. In any case, you cannot argue that someone has been proven eligible because ALL 50 STATES had them on the ballot,

"BTW - didn’t every state let Obama on their ballot?"

while at the same time arguing that it's okay if they don't bother checking.

Some states don’t appear to have eligibility requirements to get on a ballot...

Your position has gotten so twisted that you now appear to be arguing with yourself.

[Harlan1196]

Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.

From Ann:

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”

From George:

“Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”

Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”

I agree with both, by the way.

Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?

[DiogenesLamp]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our justice system that I can’t help you with. That “hodgepodge of law” is the American Common Law.

No, you incorrect but pompous idiot, it is not COMMON LAW, it is POSITIVE LAW enacted by Legislation. The VERY OPPOSITE of "COMMON LAW."

When a Law is CODIFIED, it ceases to be "COMMON LAW." Why am I listening to anything you have to say? If you can't even get basic comprehension of terms right, what hope is there for you to get anything right?

Whether you give a damn what a court believes is irrelevant - that is our system of justice and it is not going to change because of your pet peeve.

It will if there become enough of us, and that is exactly my intention. As Franklin said:

"when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."

With enough effort, we can get equal play, and with enough further effort, we will take over the meme. 50 Years from now, people will be saying "Everyone knows that a "natural born citizen" requires TWO AMERICAN PARENTS."

The present definition of NBC is the same as it was in 1787. NBS=NBC=born on US soil.

Except when applied to British Subjects (The Tory Loyalists who REMAINED British Subjects after the war) Indians, Slaves, Diplomats, Women who married Foreign Males, and in at least one case involving a fellow named James McClure.

Oh, and did I mention the Marque de Lafayette? He and all his Male Children's descendants, by an act of the Maryland Legislature, are "natural born citizens" forever. (Though NONE of them were born on the soil.)

You're theory also includes several million "Anchor Babies" and "birth tourists."

Not much of a consistency you got there. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Read #409. He isn't stupid, he's a snake!

I don't mind people lying to me when they do a good job. If they put enough care into it, it doesn't look like they are lying. But when they are lying obviously and stupidly, I consider it an insult to my intelligence.

Lying in such a way as to get easily caught is the hallmark of a childish mind which has not learned better.

[philman_36]

But when they are lying obviously and stupidly, I consider it an insult to my intelligence.
Come on, now...@It was intended as a joke!
Perhaps a poorly delivered one, in hindsight, but a joke nonetheless. {;^)

[DiogenesLamp]

Every birther case in every court has failed.

Every Abortion case has failed. Every Homosexuality case as failed. Every Property rights case has failed. Every Prayer in Public places case has failed. Every Gun Rights case has failed... No wait! We WON that last one. "Ooops there goes, another rubber tree plant."

Now what’s different now? Nothing’s changed. Same argument by the birthers - same grounds for rejection by the courts.

Same argument from you. Apparently your side can make up their mind without needing any facts or reasoning, and then keep repeating the same fallacy argument ad infinitum.

[DiogenesLamp]

So I am a propaganda Jedi sent here to mess with people’s minds? I am glad you have maintained a sense of humor - you had me worried for a while.

More like a useful idiot."

It's not like you don't know what is going on, (though judging by your confused responses, that is a good working theory) but that you think your efforts are for some greater good than the mere "truth."

[DiogenesLamp]

Pardon me while I just post a little keyword item for myself for your “most excellent” and thorough reply.

Ha! I left some stuff out. For one, I forgot to mention Emerich de Vattel. Part of my problem is remembering where I put everything! :)

[Harlan1196]

Couple of things:

John Yinger is an Economist.

“John Yinger is Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics; he also directs the Education Finance and Accountability Program”

Charles E Rice is not the president of Notre Dame, just a retired professor. He does not argue for two citizen parent. He wants Congress to investigate. He says Obama may be eligible.

Alexander Porter Morse. 1904? He is talking only about children born overseas. He does not explicitly support the two parent rule in America:

“It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible”

Ramsey? Prior to the 14th Amendment. Superseded.

Your Breckinridge Long essay? You understand he worked for Woodrow Wilson and this is a political hit piece on Charles Evans Hughes who in 1916 was running against Wilson?

George Collins? A tiny snippet from a losing lawyer embedded in a long news article? Really?

The “Book from Harvard”? Out of context snips on a birther website in a essay written by “Linda Melin, citizen researcher”?

Solum is a good article but makes no stand either way. His paper is a discussion on the proper way to interpret Constitutional language to determine original intent.

[GregNH]

I would add Dr Herb Titus to your list above.

Atty., Dr. Herb Titus: Obama Not A Natural Born Citizen

[philman_36]

Part of my problem is remembering where I put everything! :)
I keep it simple. I just put everything up.
Now if I could only remember where up is...

[Harlan1196]

We are a common law country (with the exception of the state of Louisiana). There are two main legal systems in the west:

Common law and Civil law. There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.

A common law judicial system has as its basis the idea that the same set of facts should mean the same thing every time. Hence the emphasis on case law and precedent.

The Common Law = the entire body of legal case law that involves the interpretation of law. Minor v. Happersett? Part of the common law.

Common law is not informal law. Don’t know where you got that peculiar notion from.

Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.

[philman_36]

We are a common law country (with the exception of the state of Louisiana).

Bringing up the past again?
Well it isn't an "either/or" answer.
There's Constitutional Law, from the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.
There's statutes and ordinances on the federal, state, or local levels.
There's common law, that being the concept of precedence.
And there's administrative law at the federal, state, and local level.

Come to think of it, you never did answer this question either.
How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?

The only reply I got to reply 236 (that's the reply where my question is) was this...

Can you show a single Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional issue where case law and precedence was not a factor?
If we were not a common law country, why are eligibility lawyers using Minor? Are you saying it is a binding precedent on a Constitutional matter?

You didn't answer the question. In trying to redirect you don't take the other aspects of our system of law into consideration believing that all of our law is common law when it that is only a part of it.
Common law, that being the concept of precedence as you're indicating in yur questions above, is only part of our legal system.

So maybe I'll try again...How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?

[philman_36]

There is no such thing as Positive law.
Your bird has flown over the cuckoo's nest one time too many.

@Positive Law

Those laws that have been duly enacted by a properly instituted and popularly recognized branch of government.
Positive laws may be promulgated, passed, adopted, or otherwise "posited" by an official or entity vested with authority by the government to prescribe the rules and regulations for a particular community. In the United States, positive laws come in a variety of forms at both the state and federal levels, including legislative enactments, judicial orders, executive decrees, and administrative regulations. In short, a positive law is any express written command of the government. The belief that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules and regulations laid down by the government is known as Positivism.

Those laws that have been duly enacted by a properly instituted and popularly recognized branch of government. Positive laws may be promulgated, passed, adopted, or otherwise "posited" by an official or entity vested with authority by the government to prescribe the rules and regulations for a particular community. In the United States, positive laws come in a variety of forms at both the state and federal levels, including legislative enactments, judicial orders, executive decrees, and administrative regulations. In short, a positive law is any express written command of the government. The belief that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules and regulations laid down by the government is known as Positivism.

positive law n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law," was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). (See: natural law)

[Godebert]

"Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away."

Where is the term natural born Citizen mentioned anywhere in the 14th Amendment?

Here is a hint:

NOWHERE!

NOT ONCE!

IT IS NOT THERE!

[philman_36]

Here's a shorter definition...
@positive lawn. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
See also: natural law statute

Do you want another?

[DiogenesLamp]

Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.

You DO have a knack for getting stuck in the weeds. Yes, they are specifically referring to Illegal Immigrants, but the BASIS by which they are saying they can be excluded is because they do not fit the criteria of "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Which is the SAME SITUATION that Barack Sr, as a Foreign National, illegally in our country was in. (He lied on his Visa Application. Had he told the truth, he would not have been allowed in the country.)

From Ann:

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

You even QUOTE the part that covers Barack Sr.!

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”

It does not confer citizenship on the children of LEGAL TEMPORARY residents either.

Here is the Debate on the 14th Amendment. John Bingham (The Bill's Author) is Speaking.

Next you'll tell me the guy that WROTE the 14th Amendment is mistaken as to what it means. :)

Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?

The "Two Parents" is not mentioned because it was obvious and redundant. It is like saying "male and female Parents". You will notice that Ann uses the PLURAL of resident(s).

As for Wong Kim Ark, it can be interpreted three ways by my count. Two of them make sense, and the third one is YOUR interpretation.

1. It did not use the term "natural born citizen" and therefore does not address the issue of Presidential Eligibility at all. It declares the children of two Legal residents are "citizens" like any other "naturalized" citizen.

2. Even though it did not use the term "natural born citizen" which must have been left out by an inexplicable and amazing oversight, it DOES address Presidential eligibility, and holds that the Child of two parents permanently and legally domiciled inside the United States (except for Indians) are "natural born citizens" even though the debates on the 14th amendment indicate they had to be "Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

3. Anybody born here is a "natural born citizen." (Except for Indians.)

As you can see, the possibility which is most suited to the simple mind is the one you prefer.

[Harlan1196]

The common law is not a body of laws. It is a body of legal cases that is used to interpret the law. Any type of legal decision and case law, including Constitutional law is part of the common law. Common law is the super set that encompasses all case law.

That is why our conversation has been centered on past legal cases. We are discussing what precedent was or was not established and how it bears on the eligibility issue. We are discussing the common law.

[Harlan1196]

And the common law is used by the courts to interpret those positive laws.

They are not in conflict - they discuss two separate things.