Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
LOL...I've seen both spin and denial before but you ain't no top and you sure ain't no river in Egypt.....you know damn well what he was eluding to.
Funny desperation that!
Yes.
Hi there James.
Just wanted you to know I got a copy of my Long Form from Hawaii.
I think this settles a bet doesn’t it?
You have nailed the issue. The judiciary is probably the most corrupt feature of our current government. Besides the ex-post facto phrase, there have been outright frauds perpetuated like the 16th and 17th. The court simply sits as a rubber stamp for tyranny.
Impressive list, you have my vote!
“They were doing all they could to assure the people who were following them, that their leadership in the future would be led by those with sole and singular loyalty to the United States of America only, and BY BIRTH.”
Are you referring to natural born citizens like Rev Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw), or Bill Ayers?
They wished to avoid the foreign entanglements of a President born overseas, with high political ties and stakes in the affairs of foreign countries.
“Both books were due on Nov. 2, 1789”
Proof the copy George Washington had did NOT include the phrase “Natural born citizen”!
Now that you have proof of your eligibility, will you be announcing your presidential candidacy here on a birther thread?
Danae in '12
Agree, it's his birth right
Something tells me you have wet dreams over the WKA decision.
Prove it didn’t.
Furthermore, prove to me how the phrase would get into the constitution if all the various founders who were also fluent in french, and there were a few... tell me, in the careful and obviously deliberative debates they held, all the work they did, the writing, the re-writing... that a singular phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” was some sort of TYPO??? A mistranslation? And WASN’T caught by the other French speaking founders?? One that found its way independently into all the english translations? Riiiiiiigh.
Dude. Seriously. I have to thank you for the laugh today. It was a good shot, but ya know.. yea. Fail.
At least Danae would be Constitutionally legit.
Just love your Alinsky use of the word "birther", btw.....
At least they were born here and are LEGITIMATELY constitutionally qualified to run for President. They could announce tomorrow. They could also PROVE their 100% American heritage.
I dislike them both rather distinctly. I don’t think they held true to the promise of America, because they have turned out so corrupted from those ideals. And BECAUSE they are clearly extremist wing nuts with ZERO loyalty to the United States, by their own words and deeds.
The founders trusted us in so far as to be able to determine loyalty for ourselves. They did not envision a time when people would FORGET what the word means! Ayers and Wright aren’t LOYAL to the United States, and anyone could come up with that information in seconds based on their words and deeds. They would never get CLOSE to becoming POTUS, the public would not have them.
They did the best they could, and that meant just starting with the conditions of one’s birth, because that is where Loyalty begins. Birth. There is NO wiggle room on it, its the ONLY way to try and determine a person’s loyalty and where it may lay is from starting with the conditions of their birth.
Uh no. I think not. I like being a nobody.
I cannot prove something to someone who refuses to accept the truth. But prior to 1797, Vattel’s book read, in translation, “The natives, or indigenens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
The French original was “Les Naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nes dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” An Internet translator has it “The Natural or indigenes make those who make nes in the country of Parens Citoyens.”
“tell me, in the careful and obviously deliberative debates they held, all the work they did, the writing, the re-writing... that a singular phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” was some sort of TYPO??? A mistranslation?”
That is the point. It didn’t come from the French, but from a well known and “precisely analogous” LEGAL term, “natural born subject”, with citizen substituted for subject due to the difference in type of government.
“They did the best they could, and that meant just starting with the conditions of one’s birth, because that is where Loyalty begins. Birth. There is NO wiggle room on it, its the ONLY way to try and determine a person’s loyalty and where it may lay is from starting with the conditions of their birth.”
That is what the Supreme Court found, and I am arguing FOR! By BIRTH, not LINEAGE!
That 1st statement says it all. You have no clue as to how to interpret the words in the Constitution. SCOTUS Justice Joseph Story can help you with this ignorance problem you have...
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law...a rule of equal importance is, not to enlarge the construction of a given power beyond the fair scope of its terms, merely because the restriction is inconvenient, impolitic, or even mischievous. ..every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss...read the entire section of Story's interpreting the Constitution here:
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm
Sorry, the two are tied together. A child of TWO PARENTS (lineage) who are citizens, AND born on the soil of that Nation.
If your logic were correct, a child of illegal immigrants could be POTUS.
Give me a freaking break ok. That is such poor reasoning, well... I am embarrassed for you.
Good information, thanks so much for pinging!
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.
AP/Huffington Post First Posted: 04-19-10 01:42 AM | Updated: 04-19-10 01:54 AM
NEW YORK -- If George Washington were alive today, he might face a hefty overdue library fine.
New York City's oldest library says one of its ledgers shows that the president has racked up 220 years' worth of late fees on two books he borrowed, but never returned.
One of the books was the "Law of Nations," which deals with international relations. The other was a volume of debates from Britain's House of Commons.
Both books were due on Nov. 2, 1789. According to the Guardian, "At today's prices, adjusted for inflation, he would face a late fine of $300,000."
New York Society Library head librarian Mark Bartlett says the institution isn't seeking payment of the fines, but would love to get the books back.
The ledger also lists books being taken out by other founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and John Jay.
The entry on Washington simply lists the borrower as "president."