Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Marriage, for example, is entirely private. Friend of mine decided he wanted to marry his Islamic girlfriend so he went to the mosque, provided his thumb print and they were married and he was suddenly a Moslem.
When's the last time you changed your religion and got married WITH nothing more than a thumbprint ~ no ceremony.
BTW, still didn't save him from expulsion. Sukarno kicked him out anyway.
Then there's social welfare. They don't collect taxes and then give the money to the poor. It's more direct. The local mullah comes around, assesses your wealth and income and tells you how many servants you must hire.
ALL the middlemen are cut out. Now that's "local, small government" eh!
If you went to Indonesia and sent your kids to a public school you would make a mistake. Instead, you'd want to do what the rich Moslems and foreigners do ~ send the kids to a Catholic school.
Obama spent a little bit of time in a "public school", then he went to a Catholic school.
As far as "citizenship" is concerned, in Indonesia the head of household provides that. America is far different. And, in Indonesia, it's always advisable for the head of household to advise EVERYONE that everybody in his household is Moslem! ALWAYS. Even if it's not true. That's one country where you go along to get along ~ or else
We have natural-born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, sec. 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; In fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nationand
The Constitution itself does not make tho citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.Note only two categories -"home born" and "foreign born."
and
And our Constitution, In speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
A few more quotes for you from the Senate debate on the fourteenth amendment that contradict your point: Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull(reply to President Johnsons's Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).
"And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father."Senator Williams p573 equates "native born" and "natural born" as the same thing:
The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native born citizen of the United States with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States...Senator Morrill, p 570:
As a matter of law, does anybody deny, here or anywhere, that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?...the grand principle, both of nature and nations, law and politics, that birth gives citizenship itself.There's lots more, but that's a taste.
As we have discussed before, the naturalization act was about those born outside United States. It extended the definition of Natural born to those born overseas of American parents.
Also regarding Justice Story, he was a member of the Supreme court when the Venus Case was decided. During it, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL Quotes the salient passage from Vattel:
Note that Chief Justice Marshall was not ruling on citizenship in this case. You omitted the sentence prior, which is relevant to what the case was about: "It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside." You also omitted the next paragraph which starts: ""The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country..." This is what the The Venus 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) is about, "If a citizen of the United States establishes his domicile in a foreign country between which and the United States hostilities afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citizen before knowledge of the war and captured by an American cruiser after the declaration of war must be condemned as lawful prize."
When the case directly regarding who was a citizen, Inglees vs Snug Harbour, the decision was that birth in the country took precedence over parentage.
Something tells me that St. George Tucker would be none too quick to support your boy's claim for President.
Not by any stretch of the imagination "my boy". And look again at your St George Tucker quote [emphasis added]:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,
Then there's the Supreme Court in Rogers vs. Bellei:
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.Here's another Supreme Court case LURIA V. UNITED STATES, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
"Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.
you're the one who called it "soft of mind" and "bleeding heart," when speaking of the provision, not me.
You should understand the difference between supporting a law, and living with the unfortunate consequences of extreme situations under the law. I am arguing for what the Founders set forth, no more, no less. You think you can do better - great, go and try. But if you can't discuss that without making wild accusations, you're not fit to debate.
Once again, Marshall quotes a large chunk of Vattel, not just the snippet you posted, and it is obvious in context that the portion after your quote is what he is after as it applies to the case. The part you quote does not apply to the case.
I’ll have to answer the rest later - no time now.
Now you are just flat out lying about me. It’s disgusting—stop it!
If by now you don't have enough information on the President to make a good assessment of his values and character, you likely never will.
The President has almost three years in office. If you want to make arguments against him, use his very well established record.
Why someone could even argue that Birthers, with their insistence on nefarious conspiracies to cover-up his past, are working to help President Obama to deflect attention from his track record as President. Why do you think Birthers are so committed to helping Barack Obama obscure his poor performance as President?
I'm not really trying to change their minds, i'm just trying to make them look silly. I got the idea when I read about Muslim astronauts problem of how to pray towards Mecca while in orbit. Apparently it is a little difficult figuring out where Mecca will be relative to the Astronaut when you're flying around the planet in a circle.
Some Muslim religious authority decided that Astronauts get an indulgence or something. :)
What you call ‘birthers’ are people who are attempting to find out the truth about Obama’s past. If you choose to believe everything he’s said, fine. Others have examined his sick and perverse record of lying every single time he opens hie mouth and wish to examine his records firsthand.
You go ahead and trust everything Obama says that cannot be independently verified. I have dealt firsthand with Malignant Narcissists so I will do the opposite.
This is getting bizarre...
Go back and read what you wrote. Did you or did you not accuse me of wanting 0bama in the White House? Did you or did not accuse me of approving of homosexuals in the military? Did you not notice that some of those perjorative words were in quotes - quoting you directly? Nasty.
Like I said. Bizarre.
I can almost hear the Twilight Zone theme...
Yes, the level of faith you display in Obama’s honesty is bizarre.
Ahh....
No.
I sigh again.
Then try this:
The degree of faith you place in Obama’s honesty is TRULY bizarre.
Fixed it.
Ahh....
Still no.
Here’s a hint: You going in the wrong direction.
Yes, very bizarre. Support for the law or the Constitution is taken as support for the person. They need to go read Sir Thomas More.
It really is no harder to understand than my previous comment, three posts back. Some of us grasp the degree of dishonesty and deception in which Obama lives, moves, deals and survives. Many of us have seen Malignant Narcissism in action, and that aids us in discerning the kind and degree of lying he engages in.
Others simply can’t grasp that. Despite all the proven lies in Obama’s life, their default mode remains: ‘Unless a birther ***proves*** a lie [hint: there’s not enough proof in the world for these types] beyond the shadow of a doubt, anything Obama says is assumed to be true’.
The dearly departed curiosity was like that. The most haywire I ever saw him go was when I called Obama a lying liar. Sent the erstwhile curiosity totally round the bend.
It didn’t help that he was the most arrogant person I ever encountered on these threads. He was so persuaded of his own superior brilliance that he had no clue about his ignorance. He couldn’t grasp the essence of a Malignant Narcissist in twenty years of trying. It was a concept beyond his ken.
Bottom line: some comprehend the height, breadth, depth and degree of Obama’s deception. These are derisively labeled ‘birthers’.
Others are either unwilling or unable to grasp Obama’s kind and level of dishonesty. They knowingly or unwittingly prop this fraud up by attacking ‘birthers’ day in and day out. Many of these are openly leftists. I know this from spending time on the three biggest anti-birther sites on the Net. Like curiosity, their arrogance is titanic. As is their ignorance, but whatever you do, don’t mention it to them. It will just be yet another opportunity for them to mock, ridicule and deride ‘birthers’.
Remove Obama from the equation.
Is Justice Roberts a traitor?
Justice Thomas?
The GOP?
McCain?
Palin?
The Social Security Administration?
The entire Hawaiian government, specifically the Hawaiian GOP?
The Judicial branch of the US Government?
Have they all been complicit in this “cover-up”?
This is the exact same talking point I got ~a million times from [the now zotted] jamese777. Is there a place where I can see these talking points firsthand? I find such things fascinating. If you have a link, I’d love to have it—thank you in advance.
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.