Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Your argument has nothing to do with what is correct law. It only has to do with the consequences of a judgement which people don't like. It shares this characteristic with the O.J. Simpson trial. Many predicted riots if O.J. was found guilty.
The point is irrelevant to what are the facts. We do not believe in rulings based on threats in this nation.
Jeff Winston is the definition of “Twisted.”
Obama is most certainly not a constitutionally qualified candidate. The son of a noncitizen cannot be a natural born citizen. A british subject by birth cannot be a natural born citizen.
A correct interpretation of the constitution requires a child of two citizen parents.
Deposit your excrement elsewhere.
Your document is FAKE. McCain did not release a copy of his birth certificate, but he did show it to the Washington Post reporter who did this story. The Reporter verifies that it is not the document you have posted.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
Yes, the dastardly deceitful ‘work’ that went into them.
It figures that one dedicated to the urban terrorist Obama would would see beauty in such devious exploits of our constitution.
Obama is precisely what Article 2, paragraph 5 was designed to protect us from. And you are precisely what defines Treason.
Marvelously well stated.
I cannot imagine what these three goons have on the management of this site, that they are allowed to remain here destroying the site’s stated purpose.
There must be something like what they hold over Boehner and Roberts I presume. Pray for the Robinsons without ceasing!
This argument is valid as far as politics go. It is NOT valid as far as Legality goes. The reason the guy gets away with it is because the public in general doesn't care, and neither does the court system. The reason they don't care is because they have a widespread belief that "natural born " simply means born inside our boundaries. The courts have the same mistaken belief, which I believe is the result of a long standing misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the 14th amendment. It's lingered long enough to become accepted as true whether it be actually true or not. Had the issue been clearer to the courts and the public, (such as him being under the age of 35) then the legal issue would trump the political preference.
None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.
One of the central arguments of we "birthers" is the belief that we don't have the responsibility of proving he is not qualified. *HE* has the responsibility of proving he is. It may be argued that this was never required of other Presidential candidates, but never before did we have a presidential candidate who had gone around for years telling people he was from Kenya. Since *HE* made it an issue during his life, *HE* invited greater scrutiny upon himself.
Obama should have been required to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate showing him to have been actually born in Hawaii, (Hawaii will give birth certificates to people who were not actually born there, so that is another difficulty which should have been addressed) or he should have been excluded from the ballot in all 50 states as having not demonstrated the qualifications to run for the office of the Presidency.
The system broke down on the state level because state officials merely accepted a statement signed by Nancy Pelosi alleging he was qualified. Nancy Pelosi doesn't actually know what she is talking about, and the state officials should have required certain proof, not a signed allegation.
If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.
I don't think it will require so much in the way of presenting ancient documents. I would simply present the 1960s Supreme court ruling regarding Aldo Mario Bellei, and argue that Ted Cruz shares exactly the same characteristics of birth as does this man who was stripped of his citizenship. I would further argue that it is ridiculous to believe that a "natural citizen" can be stripped of his citizenship short of committing treason.
If the Characteristics of your birth do not make you a "natural born citizen" then subsequent acts cannot make you one either. Ted Cruz's residency in this nation after the age of four is irrelevant to his status at birth.
I agree. It doesn’t matter what is the truth, they will redefine it until it means what THEY want it to mean.
I wish he had gotten his wish. Much damage to the nation stems from his Presidency.
Well said. Schmeegle salutes you!
In those days, "native" (derived from "Natal" meaning birth) was interchangeable with natural-born as demonstrated by the Minor v Happersett decision.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
In the Founders' and Framers' days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.
I've made this point as well. In those days, if a child is born in the United States, the vast majority of the time it is because the parents have made the decision to immigrate here and become American Citizens. The occasions where they might be here only temporarily and with intent to return to another country were exceedingly rare during the era of sailing ships.
For all practical purposes, the term "natural born" and "native" (meaning "born here" in modern parlance") are the exact same group of people. The exceptions are so rare as to be dismissed in conversation on the topic. And that is how we arrived at the current confusion.
People came to regard the two terms to mean exactly the same thing, when in fact, they do not. It just became a shorthand way of speaking, rather then specifying the tedious distinction.
>> “Keep on living on the fringe.” <<
.
HH, You are the deceitful fringe. The traitorious fringe.
I assume that you are a retread of a previous trojan that got zotted; here’s to your soon re-zotting.
Sure you could, if your position had any basis in fact whatsoever. But birthers are often in the position of being unable to support their theories except by becoming increasingly strident in their groundless assertions.
Well then let's clarify something right now. Do you regard "birth tourism" and "anchor babys" as reasonable and acceptable?
I will generally not respond to you. You have personal reasons for wanting the term to mean what you believe, and there is no point in arguing with you about it. You allow emotion to color your reason.
Wait. Now you want us banned from the site because we don’t subscribe to your birther nonsense? If your argument is as great as you contend, why hasn’t any elected official throughout the land taken it up? There’s plenty of conservative officials who could have withheld Obama from the ballot. Are they all minions of Axelrod too?
Odd that a brand new signup date has all the nasty “anti-birther” tactics and phrases down pat.
Almost as if you’d been here before, doing the same thing, under a different screen name, possibly.
You defile this site
Your every post is destructive to the stated purpose of this site.
You despise our constitution, and desire to continue Obama’s destruction thereof.
Other than that, you’re a swell guy.
Given his circumstances at the time of the war of Independence, it is not reasonable to assume (in the absence of evidence) he held different political beliefs from that of his family. Of course he was a loyalist at the time, but he eventually changed his mind. The bigger issue is his training in British law, which mostly translates to American law just fine, but with the exception of Citizen/Subject law, where the American principle is in strong contradiction with the English principle.
So Rawle was EXTREMELY well positioned to know exactly what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen.”
Except I don't think they discussed this. I will freely acknowledge that some people of the era (such as Rawles) believed that Subjectship/Citizenship is the direct result of WHERE you were born, while others (Dr. David Ramsey) believed that it was inherited from the parents as being part of their civic nature.
That people could believe such drastically different things can be explained in only one way of which I can conceive. Each thought the other shared their own opinion, and in absence of discussion or clarification, they continued to hold their respective beliefs. Because they believed themselves to all be in agreement as to what was the meaning of the term, they felt no need to discuss it.
The salient question is this. What did the Constitutional Conventioners and Ratifiers believe? I think they believed what made sense. That the Presidency should be reserved for only the strictest interpretation of citizenship; For someone who has no divided loyalties whatsoever. For someone whom no other nation can lay a recognized claim upon.
They were well familiar with the Royal inbreeding of the Crowned heads of Europe. They knew full well how one nation would gain advantage in the Monarchy of another by blood ties of allegiance to another nation. Often the Monarch of England was a German.
I believe they prudently wanted to avoid such conflicts in our Executive office.
I agree, that's where the current definition became cemented into the public mind, but neither the 14th Amendment, nor Wong Kim Ark makes such a claim. The claim is read into both the amendment and the decision. We have been dealing with the legacy of this error ever since.
Quite a conclusion to reach, especially since you base it purely on a misinterpretation of natural born citizen.
WAPO becomes a conservative fact checker, got it.
Please notify the ADMIN's that we shall no longer challenge WAPO.
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.