Posted on 08/29/2013 10:47:44 AM PDT by MaxValentine
Umm, yeah. IBTZ, if anyone actually moderates this forum topic, anymore.
I've often wondered the same thing, given that Kenyan genetic science is the best in the world.
LOOK’S LIKE HE’S HOLDING THE BIG BAG!"
It occurs to me that this is as good an occasion as any other to tell you that I'm sick and tired of your intercepting, bogarting ways. Reciprocal altruism isn't just something difficult for native Japanese speakers to say, you know.
hmmm...this is where the early worm gets the bird
Kindly point to the line in the Constitution where it says that. [natural born Citizen = one that is born on US soil to 2 USA citizen parentS]
Those of us who have thought this through have come to realize that the Constitution did not fail to unambiguously provide a singular definite meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen as many have claimed. To the contrary, to know the exact meaning of those words only requires the Constitution itself and basic logic. One need not look elsewhere to lay this question to rest.
The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that natural born Citizen cannot simply be the same as "born citizen."
It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, one of our country’s very own birth documents, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude certain types of mere "born citizens."
At the time the Constitution was being written Alexander Hamilton brought forth the suggestion that the presidency be limited to only born Citizens. Although Hamilton’s plan was never an official proposal, the founders most certainly did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, no doubt often down to the appropriateness of individual words. And “natural born Citizen” versus Hamilton’s “born Citizen” most certainly was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen” as urged by John Jay.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. — John Jay
To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For a modern example of how this has been ignored and perverted, just consider the so-called anchor baby, who, though born here, may likely be raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many anti-American “progressives” and their low-information, useful idiot brethren would have us believe just that.
Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens who naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
The phrase means exactly what it states, a Citizen at birth according to Natural Law, i.e., the law of nature. And what is important about the "law of nature"? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia and it simply means that the laws of nature are unchangeable. So you see, congress cannot declare a person a natural born Citizen, because no one can change the definition - it's immutable.
The idea that someone born to a citizen mother and a foreign father and/or born in a foreign land (that claims birthright citizenship which we recognize) would somehow still meet the nbC clause is ludicrous. Such a mixed allegiance hybrid is a U.S. citizen not by Natural Law, but by statutory law per the Immigration and Nationality Act (else being born equally a citizen of three countries, such a person must absurdly be a natural born Citizen of three countries at once).
By blood and by dirt – and the anti-American, criminal identity fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
“The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that natural born Citizen cannot simply be the same as “born citizen.””
No, it doesn’t. The length of your screed beyond this point is not relevant, as your argument is built on that particular sand.
This is the singular problem with birtherism. It’s built on emotion, the insistence that one can find some secret meaning beyond the Constitution to support the emotional conclusions you have already drawn. That’s something, but it isn’t conservative.
Let’s see, I present a well-formed argument based on facts and logic from the actual Constitution, the founders’ own words and references to law.
You counter will simpleminded contradiction, no facts, no logic, nothing but Alinsky name calling and projection of your own emotional devotion to your otherwise unsupported beliefs.
When it comes to these disparate arguments, I am more than happy to the let the reader be the judge of which to believe. :)
Alinsky? You’re the one who made personal insults. I only attacked your *argument*, which was overly emotional and devoid of logic. I would never attack you personally.
Stop with the penumbras. Find the place where the Constitution explicitly says what you claim it explicitly does. Because you’ve not shown it yet.
Unfortunately the Constitution did not clearly define it, but the founders based it on Vattel’s Law of Nations - In book one chapter 19,§ 212 Of the citizens and natives :-
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
In the April 2008 senate resolution 511, it was ‘resolved’ that McCain, born to American parentS on an American military base, is a nbc.
Congress had tried several times to change the definition of nbc (from Vatell’s definition to something different) but failed every time. Why the need to change it? Because they know nbc means one born in the country of parents who are citizens, thus making Obama and the like ineligible to be POTUS!
4 supreme court cases had ruled on this - nbc is a citizen born in the country of parents who are citizens!
Do your own due diligence.
We repeat it because it is the truth.
You claim that we repeat it to make it true, when in fact you refuse to seek the truth; you would rather accuse us of making it up.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Mmmmm that’s funny. I see no reference within the body of the US Constitution that explicitly defines the words chosen in its preamble:
1) We the People (who is WE the people?)
2) ...more perfect Union (what is the meaning of “perfect” and what is a “perfect Union”?)
3) ...establish Justice (what kind of “Justice” does the preamble suggest?)
4) ...insure domestic Tranquility (what is the meaning of “Tranquility” used here, and how does the Constitution insure that kind of Tranquility domestically?)
5) ... provide for the common defense (what does “common” mean when used here, in defense of what, from what, to protect what?)
6) ... promote the general Welfare (what is the meaning of “general Welfare”, what does it mean to be of the “general” kind?)
7) ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves (and what are these Blessings, does Liberty have a defined list of blessings?)
8) ... and our Prosperity (what is “our” prosperity, what does “Prosperity” specifically mean here in its use and how is that secured by the Blessings of Liberty?)
I could point out many references/uses of language/words within the US Constitution and it amendments of which their meaning was implicitly deliberate and very much assumed by its authors having been argued extensively during the Constitution Convention debates of 1787. There was no argument between the delegates in the language of what they said, scribed and approved!
Are you suggesting that our founding fathers were scribing our most sacred laws with loose language, vague words and meaningless drivel? Perhaps you require the US Constitution explain every noun, verb, adjective or use of punctuation by including a glossary attached to it? Surely our founding fathers could not have imagined how DUMBED down the electorate and our elected guardians of our Liberty & Constitution would become, in 200 years, as to completely loose the absolute inherent meaning and explicit intent of its language. Our founding fathers and the people of the United States were excited with PASION, RESOLVE and above all MEANING with every stroke of the delegate’s pen... every word debated, argued and committed to our most timeless and sacred document of laws for the ages. To be guarded and respected by future generations who will come to know, understand and protect its chosen words and respect its supremacy that forged a “More Perfect Union” governed by Laws, not men!
Does every word chosen that is used in the Constitution fall prey to semantic games and being re-defined because we can’t find a clear source definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that John Jay, Adam Smith and George Washington understood explicitly when they themselves emboldened to the qualifications of “President”?
Yeah, let’s argue EVERY word, phrase and construct within every article, paragraph, SS and amendment of the US Constitution and render it void! That’s exactly what the rogue courts; progressives and Liberal Marxist scum do EVERY SINGLE DAY! Now that the Marxist progressive scum have completely voided the NSB requirement for POTUS by installing a fraud as our President... they’re not going to stop there... not until the entire US Constitution is rendered irrelevant!
Who in-the-hell are YOU! Some smart-a$$ clown trying to play with words of which you have NO IDEA their original intent or meaning that was understood with unambiguous unequivocal understanding by our founding fathers?!? Are you questioning their intent, their resolve, or their wisdom in choosing to include “Natural Born Citizen” as a qualification to be President?!?
So... are you that dumb, just playing semantics, trying hard to be a smart-a$$ or just clinging to your denial that the “Birthers”, as you call them, are in-fact correct? Read the debates of 1787 and get lost TROLL!
Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen appeal petitions and applications at the Supreme Court of the United States:
Anderson v. Obama: Denied a motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing in a case challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), where the petition sought an order compelling
(a) the U.S. Marshals to travel to Hawaii;
(b) the Hawaii Department of Health to release the “original” birth certificate of Obama to the U.S. Marshals;
(c) the U.S. Marshals to bring the certificate to the Supreme Court; and
(d) the U.S. Secret Service to examine and verify whether the document is a forgery).
Berg v. Obama: Application for Stay of 2008 election denied; Cert. Petition Denied. Obama is not eligible due to Obama’s birth in Mombassa, Kenya and his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.
Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission: Cert. Petition Denied. Plaintiff was a write-in candidate for president who was denied his rights due to the states not properly vetting Obama. FEC should not have certified general election results.
Craig v. U.S. Cert. Petition Denied. Appeal seeking to compel the federal government to define by statute who is and who isn’t a natural born citizen.
Donofrio v. Wells: Application for a Stay of 2008 election results being certified until Obama proves his eligibility.
Farrar v. Obama: Application for Stay Denied by Justice Thomas and Cert. Petition Denied by the Court. Rejection of the challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; refusing to stay or hear lower court finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen.”
Herbert v. United States: Cert. Petition Denied. Dismissal of a complaint alleging that Obama is not natural born citizen.
Hollister v. Soetoro: Cert. Denied. Dismissal of an interpleader case challenging Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.
Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.: Cert. Denied. Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen and Congress failed to verify Obama’s eligibility.
Keyes, et. al. v. Bowen, Obama et. al.: Cert. Petition Denied-Obama is not a natural born citizen. He has a Kenyan birth certificate and his father was not a citizen.
Lightfoot v. Bowen: Application denied for stay of 2008 election until Obama’s eligibility is determined.
Purpura v. Sibelius: Petition for Cert. Denied. Dismissal of a case challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care on various grounds, including that was not signed into law by a person eligible to be President of the United States.
Rhodes v. MacDonald: Application for stay Denied for $20,000 sanction against plaintiff’s attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Cert. Petition Denied. Dismissal of a case seeking to postpone the deployment to Iraq of an Army Dentist until Obama’s Article II, Section 1 credentials are examined.
Schneller v. Cortes: Application for stay and Cert. Petition Denied. Dismissal of a case seeking to stop the 2008 election and have the Court rule on Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.
ex rel. Sibley v. Obama: Cert. Petition and Petition for Rehearing Denied. Dismissal of a complaint containing, among other things, petition for writs “quo warranto” to remove President Obama from his current office and, also or alternatively, to bar him from running for the office of president again in the November 2012 election.
Sibley v. D.C. Board of Elections: Cert. Petition Denied. Dismissal of a complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 general election ballot.
Weldon v. Obama: Cert. Petition Denied. Dismissal of ballot challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot.
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Application for stay Denied. Dismissal of a case asking for a stay of general election results due to Obama being an ineligible candidate.
I would conclude the USSC is afraid of the issue.
I would conclude that no conservative constitutional attorney of any note has taken up the eligibility issue and written a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for an appeal to be heard) of significant legal weight to interest four conservative members of the court. (It takes four Justices to agree to hear a case by granting a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).
Judges with lifetime appointments have no need to fear anything related to their job.
For example, James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution” spoke of a position on this issue that Vattel would have opposed.
“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.”—22 May 1789, Papers 12:179—82
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.