JW:”If you want my opinion...”
Actually, I don’t think there are many on this thread who do.
Interesting how you still didn’t address Windflier’s question...
All these questions about citizenship have almost eclipsed the equal crime of the cover-up which, as we have seen in the past, is often the bigger problem in the long run.
Actually, I don’t think there are many on this thread who do. Interesting how you still didn’t address Windflier’s question...
JW Fogblower isn't ever going to give an honest, satisfactory answer to any question which would cast Obama in a bad light.
A month or so ago I asked him a purely hypothetical question regarding how the architects of a new nation's constitution would go about setting the citizenship standards for the office of President, and you should have seen him dance. Fred Astaire would have been jealous.
Obviously he couldn't answer it, because the only logical answer would have decimated all the hundreds of thousands of useless words he's posted on the subject.
I washed my hands of the fraud at that point and fingered him for the infiltrating disruptor he is.
The question presumes to pretend to know what the Founding Fathers "would" do.
It's a bogus, BS question, because ANYBODY can claim the Founding Fathers would support their particular mission.
SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't force people to be deprived of having the fulfillment of being loved by the person they're in love with, would they?
SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't want people to suffer from a lack of healthcare, would they? They would want EVERYONE to have access to healthcare. Isn't the right to life the most fundamental right the Constitution protects? Isn't that the number one thing they fought for? And freedom, and the right to the pursuit of happiness?
And SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't want people to have to live in fear for their lives from all of these modern, semi-automatic weapons.
The fact is, using Windflier's argument of "oh, SURELY the Founding Fathers would have supported THIS," you can push any damn thing you want.
That's NOT how we determine what the Founding Fathers supported, and what they did not support.
We determine what they supported by what they SAID, and by what they DID. They didn't write,
No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, except one born on United States soil to two citizen parents, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
No, they wrote:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
And those words - "natural born Citizen" - had a very specific legal meaning that was understood by everybody.
And we can know what that meaning was, by what all of the most credible and authoritative people in our society wrote and said about it. Those who were legal experts. Those who wrote entire books on the Constitution, such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker. Those who were close to the Founders and Framers, such as Philip Mazzei and the Marquis de Lafayette.
And all of those historical figures - every single one of the AUTHORITATIVE AND CREDIBLE ones - were in agreement, with themselves and with the entire tradition and law of the United States. They all agreed that anyone born US soil was a natural born citizen, whether his or her parents was a citizen or not. And they agreed that Presidential eligibility required being born on US soil (no reference to parentage at all), or being "born a citizen."
But there are people who want to ignore that, it seems. They want to throw out every bit of historical evidence, and every highly-respected early American legal authority that says their theory is wrong.
Because they don't care about our highly-respected early American legal authorities. They care about the theory.
Actually, I don’t think there are many on this thread who do.
If he doesn't want it, then he shouldn't ask for it. Ya think?
I'd say that's pretty elementary. Wouldn't you?