Posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by patlin
“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?
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.
Read it again, it doesn’t mean what you claim it to mean.
*sigh* Or just go have an adult explain it to you.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
-PJ
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.
ToadCode said:
“Read it again, it doesn’t mean what you claim it to mean.
*sigh* Or just go have an adult explain it to you.”
I guess you missed the point about it not mattering what it said. It is not binding because you CANNOT override a Constitutional Article with a statute.
It is only use is as a tool to look upon the window of the founders thinking. It has no other purpose in law or history.
The First Congress SPECIFICALLY prohibited citizenship from transferring to the offspring of a foreign father.
If it were only that easy. A lot of us have called Jindal to come clean on his constitutional ineligibility & all he has done is continue to hide behind his governors desk. Or should I say, underneath it.
I'm starting to think the strange reluctance by the establishment Republican types to confront Obama on the natural born issue is fully explained by Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Nikki Haley having the same vulnerability.
I have to leave. You guys continue giving CodeTode his deserved spankings. I’ve noticed that he’s getting spanked on another thread as well.
Good Luck.
Later people.
To trumandogz, re: U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1, and the 14th Amendment.
The phrase “natural born citizen” appears nowhere in the Constitution but in Article II, Section 1.
The phrase “natural born citizen” is not referenced anywhere in the 14th Amendment.
When reading the Constitution, it’s important to pay attention to what is, and what isn’t there.
From Amendment XIV, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States ans subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens od the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
From the Constitution, some examples of changes made to it:
>Article I, Section 2: “[Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned”...”three fifths of all other persons]*”. FOOTNOTE: “*Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment”
>Article I, Section 3: “[chosen by the Legislature thereof,]*”. FOOTNOTE: “*Changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment.”
>Article I, Section 4: “[on the first Monday in December,]*”. FOOTNOTE: “*Changed by section 2 of the Twelfth Amendment”
>Article II, Section 1: “[The Electors shall meet in their respective States...equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.}*” FOOTNOTE: “*Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.”
>Article II, Section 1: “[In the Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation,...until the Disibility be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*” FOOTNOTE: “*Modified by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
>Article IV, Section 2: “[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State under the laws thereof...to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*” FOOTNOTE: “*Superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Every edition I’ve seen of the Constitution has the same basic format to denote that something has been either modified, superseded, or chamged. All of the above examples have three particulars in common:
(1) Any portion affected by change, modification, or by being superseded is enclosed in parenthesis/brackets;
(2) That portion in parenthesis/brackets is accented with an asterisk denoting a footnote;
(3) At the bottom of that page there is a footnote stating what Amendment applies to that [bracketed] portion which has been modified, superseded, or changed.
In Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is the phrase, “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;...”
In every edition of the Constitution I’ve seen, the format is the same for that “natural born citizen” phrase: NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE at “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1 meaNS there is no constitutional amendment having application to the natural born citizen requirement.
It also means that the “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” phrase of the 14th Amendment has no bearing on Article II, Section 1.
And it means that nothing in the 14th Amendment changed, modified, or superseded the Founders’ mandate that the president be a natural born citizen. It means the natural born citizen requirement stands as the Founders intended: a notch above any other form of citizenship - and a requirement reserved solely for those aspiring to the office of president.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE of the 14th Amendment to the natural born citizen clause means all liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist moonbats - and RINOs, and Supremes - who would like to continue allowing usurpers into the Oval, and who hammer away toward their goal of rendering the Constitution completely impotent can pound sand.
You are both correct and mistaken. You are correct in that there are two terms used. You are incorrect in what you think “natural born” means. What the clause says that either a person be born here (natural born citizen), or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted (citizen) is eligible to be President. That means that they considered someone that had already sought citizenship was a person whose loyalty was not reasonably questionable.
It is clear to me that what was intended was to insure that no person with conflicting or contrary loyalties could become the President. So only those born to those already citizens (or at least a mother, despite the referral to English law, no one in modern times would say an American woman pregnant by a foreigner cannot give birth to an American citizen). Equal protection of the law would ensure that. A child born of an American citizen is a natural born citizen, end of story.
IMO, that doesn't mean O doesnt have something to hide. Some say Frank Davis is listed as father. One of my theories is that his citizenship may have been changed to Indonesian noted, and somehow that is on this record. Or maybe he really was born in Kenya, though I think that doesn't make a difference other than show him to be a liar.
i left out the part regarding those who were citizens at the time of adoption. The distinction is those born here to citizens (now citizen, nowhere did our law or Constitution require paternal citizenship) and those who became citizens before the Constitution was adopted.
When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States.
In other words, Mommy and Daddy had to be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth in the United States.
There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British “natural born subjects.” All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.
The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death.
Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien.
Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.
Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ . Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ .
.
As for “accepting”, why would acceptance enter into it? I'm sure that the Obamanation would state that he does not "accept" Kenyan citizenship. Once you try to include "acceptance", you let him off as well.
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.