“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
I guess this fits as 0bambi seems to be always watching tennis while speaking....something about the hypnotic bounce and return of the ball that calms the nerves.
Pretty much in recent history and with GOP collusion, all definitions are changed to whatever best suits the Liberal agenda. Good luck with this.
The link in the blog is dead
Here’s a permalink to the congressional record
And fast forward to 1952. Hope you don’t mind if I add this.
In 1952, President Truman vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, which PASSED, despite Truman’s veto.
Here’s a copy of Truman’s commentary on the veto:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~splatsresearch/images/Truman%20Veto%201952.jpg
Under the heading “Alien Births Mentioned” Trumans says:
“Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would be subjected to loss of citizenship on grounds not applicable to other native-born American citizens. This distinction is a slap at millions of Americans whose fathers were of alien birth.”
Most have already found the John Bingham statement to the joint session of congress in 1866, when Bingham was paving the path to the 14th Amendment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20621020/John-Bingham-Quote-About-Natural-Born-Citizen-Not-About-14th-Amendment
The Constitution is meaningless if citizens don't understand what it says, or means.
This Constitutional issue grows in significance as Obama makes appointments to the supreme court. Two more are reputed to be near retirement. When Obama is held to account for his ineligibility his appointees must recuse themselves because they will lose their jobs when he does. Some might think it better to await a republican president, since Obama’s successor may not make better choices, and all his appointments will clearly be as “progressive” as can clear the senate.
I believe the scandal surrounding the cover-up of Obama’s eligibility will take down many in the legislature and even some in the judical branch and should move forward before he does more damage. I think the Democrats should wish for the same because there may still be a small majority in the senate when he is removed.
Of course there are other scenarios, such as a different father than the one he told us all about. But we must proceed based upon what Obama II told us, and what he told us makes him illegitimate. He knew it of course, but he also told us he considers the Constitution an interesting historical artifact”, which “...doesn't let me accomplish what I believe our society needs”. He apparently counted on acquiring the means to nullify the Article II requirement, certainly counting on the ignorance of citizens about history, and knowing the mainstream media and Alinsky tactics would help - “birthers” was clever and effective.
I can’t follow all the twists and turns with this, but I do think something is wrong here.
My theory is the father named on the long form is not who The One claims.
Or he is listed as born white.
I also worry this may be a set up. In that everything is in order but they are saving this to discredit his detractors one day.
The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who
belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but
will include every other class of person.
Senitor Jacob M. Howard Congressional Globe,Senate, 39th Congress, Page 2890, 1st Session May 30th 1866
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Center column 3rd paragraph down:
Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>
Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”
Barry is not a NBC. Daddy was a British subject. Because he was the frontrunner of the MSM, they overlooked that requirement.
A lot of pols and Judges are about to be declared guilty of treason.
And did any legislation result from the Judiciary Committee’s looking into the matter?
That's is what this has always been about. Are you listening Bill O'Reilly? It's not about the "phoney certification of live birth" that you claim to have seen. It's about being born to two American-born citizens.
1. Did this resolution ever become an actual law? The article doesn't bother to tell us. I suspect that it did not, because "laid over" means Floor action on an amended bill is postponed for one legislative day. Note that "the rule" under which it was laid over is not defined.
There is no indication that anything ever came of the resolution beyond its being laid over. Unless the author can produce the actual, signed bill that contains this definition, we have to assume that this statement, no matter how suggestive, does not have the force of law.
2. The full text certainly does not support the breathless "game, set, match" nature of the replies. The part you so conveniently left off is that Mr. Allen stated that both parents must have moved away from the US and declared allegiance to another government. Certainly Stanley Ann Dunham does not satisfy that standard -- she was American, and lived in the US.
Conclusion: the author is grasping at straws again.
bump
Did this “bombshell” ever become law? Also, if the definition of Natural Born Citizen were so clear, why would they need to propose something like this?