Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: douginthearmy
What amazes me is how much more birthers know about the Constitution than anyone else. In fact, birthers know more about the Constitution than Its very authors!

Every time I see your name I think "Oh boy! Another chance to wrestle with a pig in a pile of sh*t."

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. - James Madison

I prefer this quote from James Madison:

"A man must be naturalized to make his children such." -James Madison.

And of course, everyone, except the 13 brothers of the Holy Order of Internet Birthers, knows that the 14th amendment doubles down on this.

And this is where I explain the basic facts of life to an idiot child. Anyone who requires the 14th amendment cannot be a "natural born citizen." The 14th amendment did not exist in 1787, so it was not required for the creation of a "natural citizen." The very fact that it requires a special act of law to make someone a citizen is absolute proof that they are not a "NATURAL" citizen.

Noone born in this country is naturalized! The only exception is a child of a foreign ambassador born in America who later naturalizes. There's no point in arguing with you guys. I will end on this note so as to erase all uncertainty and ambiguity of my position.

Your position is very well understood. It is that of an ignorant fool and an idiot who continuously mouths off about concepts he does not understand, and in so doing makes it harder for reasonable people to learn what is the truth.

Even if you are correct, which you are not but I am absolutely certain that you will maintain that you are, my finem respice is that noone, not a single person of note, nor of any social or political influence of any sort in any real world scenario where flesh touches substance other than a cheetos infested keyboard supports your position.. I repeat.. absolutely NO physical manifestation of your fantasy world will EVER occur.

And if that should eventually be the case it will be thanks to brain dead stupid idiots like yourself who keep mindlessly repeating something which is incorrect so often that eventually people accept it as true. Yes, history has it's fools, and they only contribute dissonance and stupidity.

Here is another bit of proof that you are wrong. James Monroe. July 4, 1795.

A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.

It won't matter how much proof is shown to you. You have a mind that isn't moved by proof. You think what you think, and the facts be d*mned.

76 posted on 10/20/2012 11:28:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Your liberal use of the pejorative idiot throughout your screed comforts me as I join the company of other idiots such as Mark Levin.

The very fact that it requires a special act of law to make someone a citizen is absolute proof that they are not a "NATURAL" citizen.

One of the dumbest but oft repeated birther truisms disregards that the Constitution itself is an act of law. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall make no law defining citizenship of any sort they choose? Congress has been making laws defining citizenship and retroactively granting citizenship to various classes of people since the Founding. The key problem with birthers is their utter incapability to view history linearly and recognize the state of the law as it applies to the present.

Since you scoffed at the 14th, George Edwin Taylor, born to a slave father, ran for president in 1904. A whole slew of candidates who did not become president failed to meet the birther definition. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama both fail to meet the birther requirement.

Let me put this bluntly: you have to be literally INSANE to believe that the Supreme Court will EVER declare the 21st and 44th Presidents of The United States to have been ineligable and subsequently negate all their acts as president. Please beem yourself back down to the planet as you are living in an unhealthy place.

92 posted on 10/20/2012 12:44:05 PM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
"A man must be naturalized to make his children such." -James Madison

True. He was refering to the Naturalization Act of 1790. Not sure if you have been keeping track, but immigration law has been updated a few times since then.

95 posted on 10/20/2012 12:58:55 PM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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