Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark R. Levin: Dual Citizenship is Citizenship by Statute, Not 14th Amendment Citizenship
ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | April 7, 2010 | Linda Melin

Posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by patlin

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE II

Sec 5 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.

Nearly a year ago now, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how cone he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco's birth?

[audio http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/levin-on-14th-amend-dual-citizenship-8-13-20102.mp3]

Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say Israel

Mark: hahahahaha

Caller: You know what I am saying

Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them

Caller: No, no, it could be that….

Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, us, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens

Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand

Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah

Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn

Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, thank you…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you

Yello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; constitution; dualcitizenship; levin; marklevin; naturalborncitizen; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last
audio is at the link: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/mark-r-levin-dual-citizenship-is-citizenship-by-statute-not-14th-amendment-citizenship/
1 posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:27 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: patlin

I wonder if any recalls in all the birth certificate debates whether Kenya recognizes Obama as a citizen. If it does, then he shouldn’t be president.


2 posted on 04/07/2011 12:48:47 PM PDT by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

Kenya was British when Obama was born and according to their laws, Obama is still a “British protected person”


3 posted on 04/07/2011 12:50:25 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

“I wonder if any recalls in all the birth certificate debates whether Kenya recognizes Obama as a citizen. If it does, then he shouldn’t be president.”

So if Mongolia were to recognize Mitt Romney as a Mongolian citizen, would that disqualify Romney from being President of the US?


4 posted on 04/07/2011 12:55:06 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patlin

If citizenship IS designated by statute, then we should be able to take care of the birthright citizenship question statutorily. That is basically what the 1898 birthright citizenship Supreme Court ruling says: that in the absence of a Congressional statute, all born on American soil are citizens. Congress could have fixed this more than 100 years ago, and certainly within the past 20 years or so when the problem became so evident.


5 posted on 04/07/2011 12:59:16 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin; trumandogz
Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen at anytime prior or after Obama’s birth. Barak Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and is ineligible to be President of the United States as per Article II of the United States Constitution by the plain meaning of the term as understood by the Framers when the document was written.
6 posted on 04/07/2011 1:04:20 PM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

The only citizenship that is designated by statute is the citizenship of alien immigrants, their children & of course the dreadful citizenship given to babies born here to illegal aliens. Children born to 2 citizen parents are natural born, their citizenship can not be taken away without leaving them stateless, unlike children born to aliens, legal or illegal, who have a foreign allegiance to fall back on. These children can never be left stateless, therfore they are not natural born and they are not citizens for Article II constitutional purposes.


7 posted on 04/07/2011 1:05:36 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Tell that to Mark


8 posted on 04/07/2011 1:06:25 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Please cite a court ruling or federal legislation which defines natural born citizen as only those who were born in the US and have two parents who were also American citizens at the time of the birth of said child.


9 posted on 04/07/2011 1:09:20 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

But why would Mongolia do that? There is probably something required to “accept” the recognition, but it’s way above my grade pay.


10 posted on 04/07/2011 1:10:10 PM PDT by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: patlin

But I’m sure Kenya recognized it’s “British-protected” citizens as Kenyan when it became a nation, don’t you think?


11 posted on 04/07/2011 1:11:17 PM PDT by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I doubt he knows that Jindals parents were not yet Naturalized when he was born.


12 posted on 04/07/2011 1:13:07 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

You are talking about Article II, and, I assume Obama; I am talking about the 14th Amendment. Cada loco con su tema.


13 posted on 04/07/2011 1:13:10 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

“But why would Mongolia do that?”

Mongolia as a sovereign state can pass whatever citizenship laws they wish.

“There is probably something required to “accept” the recognition...”

I’m not an expert on Mongolian law, but Mongolia, being a sovereign state, could pass a law that states:

“Every American who is a Natural Born Citizen of the US is now also a citizen of Mongolia and no action is required on their part to gain their citizenship. In addition, Mongolian citizenship may never be renounced.”

Now please explain to me how the citizenship laws of Mongolia or Kenya are recognized and enforced in the United States?


14 posted on 04/07/2011 1:18:51 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Please cite a court ruling or federal legislation which defines natural born citizen as only those who were born in the US and have two parents who were also American citizens at the time of the birth of said child.

There is none but that doesn't mean what I stated is not true. A state, probably the only entity that has standing in this question, has not yet reached the Supreme Court for a ruling. Also, there were no court rulings when the Courts began adjudicating cases in this country so how were common question solved where there was no previous rulings or laws on the books? Maybe English Common law, Law of Nations, Blackstone, etc...

15 posted on 04/07/2011 1:21:29 PM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
HELLO! It is common knowledge that Jindal’s mother was already pregnant when she landed on US soil & that both parents were here on student visa, the same as Obama’s father, when Jindal was born. Jindal has never hidden this fact.
16 posted on 04/07/2011 1:25:13 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

“There is none...”

Exactly. And until there is such a law passed, no one can be in violation of the law.

And even if we were to pass such a law next week, ex post facto would come into play.


17 posted on 04/07/2011 1:26:20 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

They are not. That’s my point.


18 posted on 04/07/2011 1:48:37 PM PDT by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

trumandogz says:

“Please cite a court ruling or federal legislation which defines natural born citizen as only those who were born in the US and have two parents who were also American citizens at the time of the birth of said child.”

Okay, the “Naturalization Act of 1790”. It was passed by the FIRST Congress, (meaning pretty much the same guys that WROTE the constitution, so I think they know what they are talking about.)

It says, and I quote the salient part:

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .”

And here is the link in case you want to read it yourself.

http://web.me.com/joelarkin/MontereyDemographicHistory/Naturalization_1790.html

Basically it says that NO WAY can a man with a foreign born father be even a citizen, let alone a “Natural Born Citizen.”


19 posted on 04/07/2011 1:53:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“Natural born citizen” is a citizen at birth, someone needing to take no additional steps of any kind to be a citizen. Why is that so hard to comprehend? People are twisting the laws and themselves into pretzels trying to define “natural” as anything but what it actually means.

United States Code, Title 8, Section 1401 states:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

It doesn’t say both parents must be US citizen. It says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A mother that is a US citizen giving birth in the US is, indeed, subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so is the child. It doesn’t matter the father’s nationality. He could be a space alien for all anyone cares.


20 posted on 04/07/2011 1:58:16 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Your reading comprehension sucks. Even you own quote says “that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”

That clause is talking about persons born outside the country.


21 posted on 04/07/2011 2:00:05 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

And you why the country is in such trouble & why the people are so ignorant of American history? Take a look in the mirror pal & you’ll get your answer.

Mark said born NOT owing allegiace to any foreign nation that the US makes treaties with. Period. All others are citizens by statute.

Need a mirror?


22 posted on 04/07/2011 2:03:29 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeToad said:
“It doesn’t say both parents must be US citizen. It says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A mother that is a US citizen giving birth in the US is, indeed, subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so is the child. It doesn’t matter the father’s nationality. He could be a space alien for all anyone cares.”

Not sure what you’re getting at here. For MOST of this nations existence, Citizenship was determined ENTIRELY by the father. A Woman became an automatic Citizen if she married an American man. This was only changed in 1920, when women first acquired the ability to transfer citizenship to their offspring independently.

A woman having a Foreign Male’s child would bear a child with another nation’s claim on him. British common law asserted that An English Father automatically makes the child a subject of the British Crown. Ergo, divided loyalty.

This stuff is axiomatic. Divided loyalty is the anti-thesis of “Natural Born Citizen.”


23 posted on 04/07/2011 2:05:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“Mark said ...”

Mark is often full of sh*t. Nowhere is there any concept of a special class of natural born citizen. “Natural” means what it is and not what you want it to say to try to discredit Obama or anyone else.


24 posted on 04/07/2011 2:06:35 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Children born to parents, regardless if one of them is American, fall under international citizenship laws 1st, US code second per treaties signed with the countries. In Obama’s case, he was British 1st, American second per the 1948 Nationality Act & the 1870 treaty with Great Britain. As far as Jindal’s citizenship, he falls under India's citizenship laws 1st as both his parents were here on temp student visas when he was born. They had no legal authority to consent to their child getting American citizenship, because they, themselves were not US citizens. Have you read the Constitution lately?

“We the people,.....to us and OUR Posterity”

It does not say we the people...to us and all foreign Posterity now does it?

25 posted on 04/07/2011 2:11:10 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“For MOST of this nations existence, Citizenship was determined ENTIRELY by the father.”

No, it wasn’t. You read that crap on the Internet and spread it like gospel. What an intellectually lazy bum you are. Since this nation’s founding anyone born here was a citizen. We did that to protect people from England’s King trying to claim all perosns here as British subjects.

Due to modern needs that privilege was narrowed in 1952 to be what 8 USC 1401 is. Sorry you’re obviously just too focused on trying to claim Obama’s dad is not a US citizen therefore Obama cannot be.

Fact is, I think people such as yourself are liberal trolls trying to discredit the entire claim that Obama wasn’t even born here. You and your liberal freinds have come here trying to make it sound as if he was born here, then make a claim about his father that won’t hold up so the whole thing dies out.


26 posted on 04/07/2011 2:11:43 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeToad said:
“Your reading comprehension sucks. Even you own quote says “that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”

“That clause is talking about persons born outside the country.”

It says that Citizenship cannot descend to anyone with a foreign born father. THAT is the salient point. It is an indication of the Mindset of the Delegates of the Constitutional convention, ergo, it’s what they intended when they wrote article II.

I will point out to you, (Lest you think you are actually dealing with a simpleton as seems to be your impression.) that an ACT of Congress CANNOT redefine the meaning of an Article of the U.S. Constitution. ONLY an Amendment can do that. The Act of Congress is therefore meaningless, as are any subsequent codes or regulations.

It isn’t my reading comprehension that is faulty. It is my judgment in assessing your intelligence. I wrongly assumed you were astute enough to understand the point I was trying to make. Now that I see you require everything spelled out for you specifically and in an infantile manner, I will accommodate you to the best of my ability and the length of my patience.


27 posted on 04/07/2011 2:12:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“fall under international citizenship laws 1st,”

Bullsh*t. You’re making even more of this crap up. Fairy tales of the conspiracy crowd mean nothing. US law comes first, stupid.


28 posted on 04/07/2011 2:12:59 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
your reading of “natural” means that the soil of the nation gave birth to the child, not the parents. Your reading means the child is the offspring of the government, not the parents. How is this natural? Explain it to me?
29 posted on 04/07/2011 2:14:24 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“It says that Citizenship cannot descend to anyone with a foreign born father. THAT is the salient point.”

You took something out of context then claimed it to be true. Again, your reading comprehension is horrible. Did you ever get past the third grade? Seriously? Go back and read it again. We seriously need to abolish the public screwel system.


30 posted on 04/07/2011 2:15:16 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“your reading of “natural” means that the soil of the nation gave birth to the child”

Listen, stupid, I have said many times what natural means, which is actually a sad thing to have to do for anyone because it means they are just too ignorant of the English language.

Let me repeat it again...I’ll type slowly so you can keep up.

“Natural” simply means not having to take additional actions, as in, you are naturally stupid. I don’t think anything made you that way, I think you were just born stupid.


31 posted on 04/07/2011 2:17:54 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Let Harvard Law to explain it to you. According to them, Obama & Jindal are not natural born citizens per the 14th Amendment.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/


32 posted on 04/07/2011 2:19:07 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Basically it says that NO WAY can a man with a foreign born father be even a citizen, let alone a “Natural Born Citizen.””

Not sure how much you keep up with current events, but in 1868 we passed the 14th Amendment.


33 posted on 04/07/2011 2:21:22 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

34 posted on 04/07/2011 2:22:10 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: patlin
Now that Trump has put his toe in the water and told Levin that he won't get burned, **NOW** Levin speaks up.

Well....It's better late than never,...but...I am really disgusted with these so-called conservative bobble-head yappers. Collectively they have the gonads the size of a dust mite.

Levin the constitutional expert...yeah right! ( eye roll). However....To give Levin some credit. He was at least silent. He didn't insult the birthers like Coulter, Beck, and Medved. Unlike the later three, in time, I'll forgive him( and Rush, too).

35 posted on 04/07/2011 2:23:53 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeToad said:
No, it wasn’t. You read that crap on the Internet and spread it like gospel. What an intellectually lazy bum you are. Since this nation’s founding anyone born here was a citizen. We did that to protect people from England’s King trying to claim all perosns here as British subjects.”

English law held that anyone born to a British Father was automatically a subject of the British Crown. I would show you the appropriate references, but I’m afraid they use big words and your simplistic comprehension wouldn’t be up to the task.

“Due to modern needs that privilege was narrowed in 1952 to be what 8 USC 1401 is. Sorry you’re obviously just too focused on trying to claim Obama’s dad is not a US citizen therefore Obama cannot be.”

I’m not so simple minded to think that anything short of a constitutional amendment can change the meaning and intent of an Article of the U.S. Constitution.Apparently you are. Go play with your code books until you figure our otherwise. Perhaps you can find a code that DOES override the Constitution itself?

“Fact is, I think people such as yourself are liberal trolls trying to discredit the entire claim that Obama wasn’t even born here. You and your liberal freinds have come here trying to make it sound as if he was born here, then make a claim about his father that won’t hold up so the whole thing dies out.”

Yeah, *I’M* the Liberal troll who is arguing that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Obama to meet Article II requirements, while you are trying to argue that he is. Apparently the term “troll” means something different for you than it does for people of normal intelligence.


36 posted on 04/07/2011 2:25:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

“They are not. That’s my point.”

So therefore, if Kenya were to recognize Obama as a citizen, it would have no bearing on his elgbility to be president.


37 posted on 04/07/2011 2:25:40 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: patlin; CodeToad
your reading of “natural” means that the soil of the nation gave birth to the child, not the parents. Your reading means the child is the offspring of the government, not the parents. How is this natural? Explain it to me?

In the second sentence, you made the fundamental error that all Democrats and statists make: you equate a nation with the government of a nation.
38 posted on 04/07/2011 2:26:40 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

This clip is from August 13, 2010. Almost a year ago and he still is pushing for Jindal. As far as Marco, I have no opinion as we do not know the status of his parents at his birth.


39 posted on 04/07/2011 2:26:40 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: patlin

There is a supreme court case from the 70’s/80’s regarding the right of citizenship to children borne from soldiers in Vietnam’s relations with native women. The ruling was that while obviously a child borne to an American woman overseas was a citizen (didn’t mention “natural born”, but didn’t need to), for the child to claim his paternity granted citizenship, paternity had to be established. The notion that the child of an American woman born while she happened to be next door in Canada is ineligible to be President is nonsense.


40 posted on 04/07/2011 2:28:51 PM PDT by jdub (A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“You took something out of context then claimed it to be true. Again, your reading comprehension is horrible. Did you ever get past the third grade? Seriously? Go back and read it again. We seriously need to abolish the public screwel system.”

I quoted the exact words AND posted the link so that it could be read in context. Perhaps you should take your dyslexia medicine?


41 posted on 04/07/2011 2:33:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.

You can stomp your feet, scream and shout, cry like a baby, and even poop your panties, but it won’t change the meaning of natural and it won’t change the law as it always has been and most likely always will be.


42 posted on 04/07/2011 2:33:12 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Read it again, it doesn’t mean what you claim it to mean.

*sigh* Or just go have an adult explain it to you.


43 posted on 04/07/2011 2:35:56 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
thanks, bad choice of words, can't be perfect all the time. I get frustrated because these drones rely on feudal law where the sovereign IS the government, not the people who make up the government.

Foreign parents who give birth on US soil are NOT part of our government and therefore can not legally consent to add their newborn child to our membership by the laws of nature that govern “natural born” citizenship. Natural born citizenship can only come in the way of both parents being members of the society, thereby leaving a child stateless should the child be denied citizenship in the society.

better?

44 posted on 04/07/2011 2:38:44 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeTode said:

“Mark is often full of sh*t. Nowhere is there any concept of a special class of natural born citizen. “Natural” means what it is and not what you want it to say to try to discredit Obama or anyone else.”

I think you are one of those “ObamaConspiracy” drones that i’ve encountered before. Well I whipped your @$$es last time I went over there, and that was ALL of you! You’re gonna need to come back with some more of the paid help I think.


45 posted on 04/07/2011 2:42:21 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Listen up drone,

Stupid is as Stupid does and you are in a long line of them.

Obama, himself, said that he had British citizenship at birth. Jindal, himself, stated that he was a citizen of India at birth. Citizenship at the time of birth is the only citizenship that applies here. Not something that happened later because they made a choice. That choice makes them citizens by statute, not by nature. By nature they will never be left stateless because they have a former foreign citizenship to fall back on. PERIOD!

46 posted on 04/07/2011 2:45:24 PM PDT by patlin (Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: patlin

One of the ways to embarrass Soetoro is to make a big issue out of the fact that Jindal, although born in the U.S., and a citizen of the U.S. from birth, is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President.

Because Obama is INELIGIBLE for the same reason as Jindal, EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii. (Which is doubtful.)

Bypass the whole birth-certificate issue.


47 posted on 04/07/2011 2:47:49 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jdub

The topic isn’t “Citizenship” it is “Natural Born Citizenship”. You will note that Article II uses TWO different terms. It uses the term “Citizen” and it also uses the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

If they meant exactly the same thing, they would not have included the specific words “Natural Born Citizen.” They would have simply used the term “Citizen.”
(Watch CodeToad whine about context from this excerpt I use to illustrate my point. :) )

“No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a CITIZEN of the United States...”

See? They are two different things. Article II SAYS so.


48 posted on 04/07/2011 2:50:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
The problem I have with "please cite" requests for plain-meaning terms is where does it end? Can you cite a ruling that defines a "state?" The Constitution talks about the relationship between the states, the people, and the federal government, but we don't question the meaning of "state." What does that mean for the standing of, say, Massachusetts? They call themselves a commonwealth; does that invalidate their participation in the United States? So why demand a citation for natural born citizen when that was plainly understood the time?

-PJ

49 posted on 04/07/2011 2:53:42 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeToad said:
“I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.

You can stomp your feet, scream and shout, cry like a baby, and even poop your panties, but it won’t change the meaning of natural and it won’t change the law as it always has been and most likely always will be.”

Perhaps you need to take your Tourette’s medication as well. Now you seem to be talking to yourself. No doubt you do what the voices in your head tell you to. :)

For someone that can’t comprehend that Article II itself makes a distinction between “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”, I think we must conclude that whatever you are taking just isn’t working. You either need to increase your dose, or try something else. I advise you make an appointment with your psychiatrist.


50 posted on 04/07/2011 2:56:32 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson