Posted on 09/20/2010 1:33:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
It is known that he attended kindergarten.
It has to be revealed, and those who covered up for him, in order to restore the Republic.
Let’s find and throw out those who have gotten money from Saudi Arabia and China while we’re at it.
That is merely your opinion, and like everyone else on the planet, you have one.
It’s not a question of him or the others not understanding. They don’t care that he’s ineligible.
I’m still wondering why you quote a poor translation made 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written as a source for the Constitution. The word incorrectly translated NBC in 1797 is ‘indigenous’. So if the Founders were following Vattel, why didn’t they require a “native, or indigenous citizen”?
“that drove me to go searching for the photos.”
Okay. I never had any incentive to search, nor any clue that they existed. Now that you have brought them to my attention, they must have a place in my thinking.
I presume that there is no indication that they are not bona fide.
“That’s him. See the self-satisfied smirk?”
Even back then? Argh.
I, like you, have to go by my judgments of the information as presented in the media.
However, there are photos of Obama at various ages of childhood. There are interviews with the grown-up boy who recalls the photo of the elementary school child Obama. There are interviews with the teachers who recall being in the kindergarten photo, so unless they are lying or misremembering, I take them at their word, given that there is physical evidence to back up their stories.
-PJ
It is known that he attended kindergarten.
They did. That's what the Supreme Court is saying. In the nomenclature familiar to the founders, all children born of parents who were its citizens supplies the definition for the Art II Sec I requirement for presidential eligibility. Minor told us this in the paragraph preceding the definition they supplied. And I've already explained to you that there wouldhave been a natural (pun intended) understanding by the framers (who were fluent in French) that Vattel was speaking of natural citizenship at birth ... this explains why the 1797 translation was changed to say natural born citizen. It reflected that contemporary usage and understanding.
Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. The cases presented were rejected by lower courts because of standing. There's no evidence that any members of the Supreme Court reviewed anything beyond that argument.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention two parents being required to qualify as a Citizen at birth.
Sorry, but technically this is wrong. The preamble to the Constitution acknowledges that our country was established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. Minor talks about this too. As a right, citizenship was reserved for the children of citizens. Congress was given the constitutional power to naturalize anyone else who wanted to be citizens, including their wives and children (which Minor also explains).
The law of the land clearly says “Born in the United States.”
What 'law'?? You're imagining things again. The Supreme Court said the requirement for president was defined in common law OUTSIDE of the constitution, expressed solely as the children in the country of parents who were its citizens.
“There are interviews with the teachers who recall being in the kindergarten photo, so unless they are lying or misremembering, I take them at their word, given that there is physical evidence to back up their stories”
It seems to me extremely unlikely that they would have actual memories of one of hundreds or thousands of kids so many years ago, or of one particular class photo.
by whom?
“That is merely your opinion, and like everyone else on the planet, you have one.”
touche. But facts are facts and you don’t have your own facts.
“Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. The cases presented were rejected by lower courts because of standing. There’s no evidence that any members of the Supreme Court reviewed anything beyond that argument.”
The United States Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court’s ruling on the consitutional grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that historically “citizen” and “eligible voter” have not been synonymous. Since the United States Constitution did not provide suffrage for women, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer that right. The Court’s decision had nothing to do with whether women were considered persons under the Fourteenth Amendment; the court ruled that they were clearly persons and citizens. It rested solely on the lack of provisions within the Constitution for women’s suffrage.
As the decision in Minor relates to women’s suffrage in particular, it is no longer good law. The ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution rendered Minor v Happersett moot and that includes the dicta in the decision that Edge119 likes to continually quote. Birthers are so pathetically desperate that they resort to quoting moot Supreme Court decisions on unrelated issues: women’s suffrage.
If the definition of natural born citizen is embodied in common law and is extra-constitutional, why are you trying to use “Minor v Happersett” which is based on settled law, the 14th Amendment?
You seem to be a bit confused.
It seems to me extremely unlikely that they would have actual memories of one of hundreds or thousands of kids so many years ago, or of one particular class photo.
I’d like to see a picture of the world famous doctor that delivered BHO??
Whether they remember each individual child in each individual photo or not, do you still think they would not know if it was them in the photo?
The point of this discussion is not whether they remember Obama, it is whether the photo is legitimate and therefore evidence that Obama was in kindergarten in Hawaii (a hypothesis that another poster questioned). That was the question that started this dialog between you and me, so let's get back to that point and close the loop on it.
So we need to establish two things: 1) the photo is real, and 2) the child is Obama.
The teachers can certainly help with #1 if they say that it is truly them in the photo. I believe them when they say that it is them.
Regarding point #2, I accept your point that it is uncertain if they remember a child from a class over 40 years ago, even if the child stood out for his differences (black in a Hawaiian school). So, for #2 we need to look at other circumstantial evidence and make a judgment call. We have other photos of young Obama in Hawaii as he aged, so we could try to see if the kindergarten child looks like the elementary school child and the child in the airport photo. I think he does, so I give it a high likelihood that it was Obama in the kindergarten photo.
Therefore, I conclude that the original poster was wrong when he suggested that it was possible that Obama was never in kindergarten in Hawaii, and that was the explanation for the missing school records.
Do you concur with this conclusion?
-PJ
“I’d like to see a picture of the world famous doctor that delivered BHO??”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170432/posts
“I’d like to see a picture of the world famous doctor that delivered BHO??”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170432/posts
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.
