Skip to comments.Attorney Stephen Pidgeon to Glenn Beck
Posted on 01/05/2010 7:16:47 PM PST by Man50D
click here to read article
Ohhh -- so then the U.S. Senate never unanimously approved Senate resolution SR511 back in 2008 regarding the issue of McCain's natural born citizenship??? Is that what you're claiming???
The only time in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the words "natural born" appear in the decision is here...
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "
And that is only in reference to a pamphlet, to wit...
Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853...
Hey, LorenC, your "hearing" may be challenged, but how is your "seeing".
You see, it was called a "hearing" and it was real and it took place, and it determined that McCain was a natural born citizen because he had American citizens [plural] for parents -- something that Obama lacks no matter how you Obamanoids want to slice and dice it.
That might be persuasive...if you hadn't simply made it up. All it takes is a visit to the U.S. Archives to see that you're just lying now:
Did you think I wouldn't check the actual text of Constitution, and would just assume you were telling the truth about the Founders writing in ALL CAPS?
It was no slip up by the DNC...
Ah, I see. You don't actually have an answer to why no one alleged Obama was ineligible until summer 2008, so instead you're trying to change the subject entirely to paperwork filed by the DNC in August 2008. Shrewd, but it's a technique I've seen Birthers use all too often before.
That's a pretty inapposite analogy (not the least because unlike a missing bank robber, Obama's identity and location are hardly in doubt, making the "never caught" aspect totally off), but if I had to make it parallel the facts of Obama's eligibility, it'd go something like this:
A man publicly announces that he's going to rob a bank. When and where. He becomes a nationally known figure, and his autobiography about his dreams of bank-robbing becomes a bestseller. His relationship to that particular bank-robbery is mentioned in practically every background story on him. No one ever does anything to stop him. Finally, he robs the bank, as promised. Everyone knew he was going to, and now everyone knows he has.
And the legal system's response is...absolutely nothing. The bank doesn't report a robbery, the police don't record one, the feds don't investigate, and the US Attorney doesn't prosecute. They don't even acknowledge that a bank was ever robbed, though the guy is still a national figure and still talks about taking the money.
That's your analogy for you. The fact that it plays out rather absurdly is due to it being such a poor analogy to begin with.
From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.
Again, that's just untrue.
Obama announced his run for the Presidency in February 2007. No one, anywhere, was questioning the facts of his birth until March 2008, and no one alleged that his father's Kenyan nationality made him Constitutionally ineligible until June 2008.
I know you'd like to push back the dates of when all this started, and pretend like it didn't begin over a year into his campaign, but you're wrong.
OK, let's go back and look at what MHGinTN originally wrote, and to which I responded:
"When the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship, there was no question that both his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framers sense, whether he was born on American land. So, the stupid Senate was following the Vattel definition in their hearings..."
First, there were no "hearings." I've read enough posts about Vattel to know y'all love your plurals, and "hearings" certainly means "more than one hearing."
Second, MHGinTN wrote "the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship." No they didn't. McCain's natural born citizenship was mentioned in a single question-and-answer in a wholly unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing.
Here is the transcript of that hearing, from April 2, 2008. The title of the hearing is "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security." It's 350 pages of oral testimony and attached documentation about the Department of Homeland Security. The only talk of Presidential eligibility comes on numbered page 12, right as Leahy wraps up a round of questioning. "McCain" is mentioned by name precisely once in the entire hearing.
So if you want to look at one question and one one-sentence answer, in a hearing entitled "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," where McCain wasn't questioned or even present, where there was no evidence presented, and the only person who gave any testimony was the Secretary of Homeland Security, and declare that it's not misleading or inaccurate to say that that constitutes that "the Senate held hearings regarding McCains natural born citizenship," then be my guest.
Third, MHGinTN wrote "For some reason unfathomable to Drew69, the Senate wanted to confirm the other leg of eligibility in the framers sense, whether he was born on American land." Check the transcript. That's just false. The Senate didn't "confirm" anything. They didn't question where he was born. It was just accepted as a fact. The reasonable it's unfathomable is because the Senate didn't do it.
If a tree falls in the woods and you don’t hear it, did it fall???
If a hearing takes place in the Senate, and you deny it, did the hearing take place???