Posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer
That is an extremely good point. We are all subject to the mind-sets of our upbringing. An immigrant such as your friend would not, naturally, have the same care or concern the Framers (and Freepers) do in protecting the inviolability of our new government. Their children, on the other hand, raised by naturalized parents on U.S. soil under our government rule, more likely would.
Thank you ... that’s what I get for posting late at night :-)
FYI
Where is the actual relevant passage that shows that a “citizen at birth” is somehow not a “natural born citizen”?
Bingo.
I have three questions for you and would appreciate hearing your opinion. Actually I would like anyone to weigh in if they can answer my questions or give their opinions.
Do you think it is possible that the SC Justices will consider joining the cases together and hear them AFTER the Electoral College vote due to the fact that Obama will not actually BE “President-Elect” until AFTER the vote on Monday?
I understand that a Judge in the Washington State SC has decided to hear a case. (I hope what I heard is correct.)
Is it possible for the Washington Supreme Court Judge to issue a stay in that State’s Electoral College vote on Monday?
The Electoral College meet at each state capital to cast their votes on Monday. If one or more Electoral College members of a particular state raise the question of constitutional qualifications, does that state Electoral College group have to resolve the issue before casting their votes?
Yo no speako legalo. But, IMO, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set to allow the electors meet and vote at all.
To date, we have found dead and non registered voter electors and have challenged them with no procedure in place to have these electors removed.
To date, NONE of the California electors have been certified.
If the electors are allowed to meet, this election will have a precedent in place by allowing an ineligible candidate voted in by POPULAR vote and not by a working, certified, vetted electoral college.
It is a false assertion that stumps you. Since we have—as posted—the words of the men who actually authored aspects of the Constitution, such as Bingham, we have the meaning they intended for the term ‘natural born citizen’. The negative naybobs are always playing semantic games to try and destroy hope and spread their negative perspective coloring everything they touch or address. Don’t ya know it must be hell living with such insulting little pricks (little nettles, nothing more). They must tear down hope and spit on peace in order to feel alive!
“The constitution cannot overrule the vote.” In some other nation, perhaps, but here in America—at least up until the affirmative action fraud raised his wicked inger to usurp the office of presdient—the process is followed or the Constitutional Republic is no longer valid. We have a way to vote for change to the Constitution. The recent election was not that way.
You have purposely conflated ‘natural born citizen’ with merely citizen. Nice job
You have an obvious cart and horse problem. Why? ... First, the term ‘natural born citizen’ can be understood in its specifics because of the words we have from the framers of the Constitution. No, the definition was not in the Constitution. Many specific things are not in the contract, but the courts have a way to sort that out. At another level is citizenship and the vagaries thereof throughout the history of the Republic. The highest most strict definition is natural born, then comes the conflating crap you seem hung up on, like having the poor horse dragged along by the cart full of obfuscations you prefer.
Yes, I know all about Title 8 — BUT — “Citizen” does not equal “natural born Citizen” and you’ve added the part about “natural born Citizen” which is a lie!
Arnold Schwarzneggar, Governor of California, is a “Citizen” under the 14th Amendment. He is ineligible to be President because he was not born here.
That particular website states its opinion concerning Title 8. If what they are pushing as fact were true, 19 lawsuits and 32 states’ electors wouldn’t be preparing to hurl this country into a Constitutional crisis (Civil War?) this coming week.
If you want to read facts about what “natural born Citizen” means, see the following for the clearest explanation I’ve yet to read:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/divided-loyalties-pt-1/
“Divided Loyalties, Obamals Eligibility Problem, Part 1”, by Judah Benjamin
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/divided-loyalties-pt-2/
“Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 2”, by Judah Benjamin
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/
“Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick”, by Judah Benjamin, is a good place to start.
Good luck!
Who would have thought that an “I vote present” product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America?
***That’s an extremely sad commentary on the completely inept campaign of McCain.
I'm an Australian. Forgive me, but I believe it was deliberate. Everything I read and hear, points to that.
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.