NBC lies about Obama's birth certificate and eligibility to be President \

Wow, a whole paragraph.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Life got in the way of FReeping as it does every once in a while.

Your bizarre theology concedes to Barry by giving the Congress the magical power to redefine words.

I don't see how the word "theology" comes into play there.

But the power to define terms is hardly magical.

For example, you could take a look at the Second Amendment.

Define "a well-regulated Militia"

There are those who define that as being the National Guard (I'm not one of them)

Or, you could take a look at 10 USC §311, which defines it as being:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

But, looking at our case, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

But section 5 of that amendment says this:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That little sentence there gives Congress the right to make laws like the ones I cited.

You are stuck in the other side issue, which conflates and confuses birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship with a series of complex "legal" arguments which are irrelevant to the simple prima facie case for Barry's ineligibility due to his status as a natural-born British subject.

You may have a point, but the question is, is he a natural-born British subject or is (was) he a dual citizen?

The complex legal questions come into play as he may have inherited British citizenship from his father (as Kenya as a British colony at the time of his birth), and that would likely be the case REGARDLESS of where he was born; he also would have inherited US citizenship from either the location of his birth (if he was, in fact, born in the US) or from his mother's status as a citizen (if she met the residency requirements that the convoluted web of law that I've been bringing forth in earlier posts). Now, of course, she might have forfeited her US citizenship due to her marriage to this guy (don't know one way or the other), but that has never been asserted to my knowledge.

But this brings up a whole bunch of potential fallout, for example:

Are you willing to tell a bunch of military brats who were born overseas that they can never aspire to be the President? (Most are, by nature, dual citizens, particularly if they were born in civilian hospitals)
Are you willing to say to a bunch of good children of immigrants (to include Bobby Jindahl) that they are not eligible to be president? (His parents were still Indian citizens, having come to the US on student visas only a year before Jindahl's birth. So, technically, Jindahl would have been a dual citizen)

See, that's the web you're weaving.

Your anti-American attitude vis-a-vis the intent of the Founding documents allows later generations to "define" the Constituion anyway they want, i.e. changing the document without going through the formal amendment process.

Anti-American? My Gawd, that's the first time in my life anybody has ever accused me of being anti-American.

But, as far as the content is concerned, please note the comments on the 14th Amendment, above.

You are setting the table for the 111th Congress, which you claim not to trust, to "define" natural-born in such a way to make Barry eligible.

It would be hard to do so, unless they were to explicitly make a law retroactive. Otherwise, the law that was in force when he was born was the law that applied.

Those are unConstitutional bills

Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to write those "unconstitutional" bills

yet you are endorsing the Congress' ability to pass them as "law."

The 14th Amendment would be what gave them the ability to do so.

If you are thinking strategically, a few moves ahead, you should know that your complex anti-Constitution anti-American legal philosophy virtually concedes the game to Barry before it starts.

Well, good luck dealing with opposition with your "pro-American" "pro-Constitution" philosophy. Good luck keeping people's attention, as well.

Hope this helps.

Hardly.

The 14th Amendment does not give Congress the power to redefine Article 2. The words in the Constitution mean what they meant when they were written; and the 14th Amendment does not purport to amend or redefine Article 2 in any way.

I can’t get teary-eyed over children who were born in an overseas American empire; something the Founders were against — and remains largely unConstitutional — being barred from being President.

And I am perfectly happy with the natural-born British subject and anchor-baby Bobby Jindal not being President. You may have a crush on him, but that is no excuse for engaging in an anti-American crusade.

I can’t get teary-eyed over children who were born in an overseas American empire; something the Founders were against — and remains largely unConstitutional — being barred from being President.

Wow. What a tough position.

Even the founders weren't as hard-core as you are.

…And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…
United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

(In fairness, this Act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1795 etc., etc., etc. until the current law (Immigration and Naturalization Act) was put in place with its current hodge-podge of rules)

That is incorrect. I am merely reiterating the Founders’ position and language and knowledge.