Replies

I don't think I ignored your question. I answered it today

Oh, you mean this sidestepping evasion?

"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."

Jeff, that's not an answer. It's a complete rejection, and outright invalidation of the basic premise. Again, you fail, because you can't provide a logical answer without puncturing your entire argument, for which you've invested far too much to turn back now.

Oh yes, Jeff, you most certainly have conceded the argument, whether you openly admit it or not.

This entire discussion rests upon the definition of NBC. One can arbitrarily choose any of several conditions of birth to secure that definition. Logic dictates that those who are tasked with crafting the founding charter for a nation just birthed in the blood of its citizens, would not choose the qualifications for the office of President arbitrarily, but would examine those several conditions of birth, and wisely choose the one most likely to produce a citizen whose loyalty to country and ken is strongest.

You insist that the Framers chose a lesser grade of citizenship as the qualification bar for the office of President, even though they expressed the necessity of setting the highest possible bar for that office in their private letters.

Why, after fighting a bloody war that saw thousands of their countrymen give their lives and treasure, would they then be so lax as to leave the door open for someone with divided loyalties to one day assume the most powerful office in the land?

It's illogical, Jeff. It fails the horse sense test. And you have once again failed the intellectual honesty test by refusing to answer my simple question.

Jeff, that's not an answer. It's a complete rejection, and outright invalidation of the basic premise.

That's correct, Windflier.

Your basic premise is all wrong.

Your basic premise is that whatever WE think the Founders OUGHT to have done, why, that must be what they DID do.

You think that we can sit here, 225 years later, in a world that is completely different from them, not knowing those people personally, and not understanding their situation, and say, "This is what I would do. Therefore, that's what THEY did."

But that's not how history and law work.

History isn't based on what you or I would do. It's based on what our FOUNDING FATHERS and other historical figures ACTUALLY DID.

And the law isn't based on what you or I personally would do, either. It's based on what others did, who put in place the laws that we now have.

I wouldn't pass Obamacare. I wouldn't pass bills that keep spending, spending, spending. I wouldn't have passed "Cash for Clunkers," or any of a zillion other things this administration and our folks in Congress have done.

But the fact that I disagree with the laws that have been passed doesn't mean they don't exist.

We are talking about REALITY here. And the REALITY is that the Founding Fathers simply didn't adopt the definition that YOU personally think is the "right" one.

They just didn't. That's a matter of history, and of law.

You can only know what history is by looking at the FACTS of what actually happened, what people said and did. History isn't a theoretical exercise, where you get to come up with a theory, and then proclaim it true.

History is a matter of historical fact.

And virtually every historical source, and virtually every source of legal authority, says that your precious theory (that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents in order for a person to be a natural born citizen) is all, completely, totally, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Yes, there are a few - a VERY few - voices of dissent. David Ramsay. Samuel Roberts. And a few others.

But in every case, they are either less authoritative than far better sources who completely contradict them, or were actually negated by sources who overruled them, or both.

So it comes down to this: Do you respect the Founding Fathers, or not? Do you respect our history, or not? Do you respect our laws, or not?

So far, for a lot of birthers here, the answer has been clear: "No. We don't respect any of those things. We don't respect the Founding Fathers. We don't respect our history. We don't respect our laws. Not really. Oh, we'll SAY we do. But we don't."

Because if you did, then you would show it.

These idiots need “I reject the premise” tattooed on their foreheads. Because Out of the last 10 people I have backed into a corner hard, most of them have ‘rejected the premise’ in almost all of their replies.

Windy, they are so utterly devoid of skill and conscience that they no longer even try to argue. They just repeat the lib script. Soon they will reject the premise of the Constitution entirely.

Hell I had one lib tell me in all serious that 1+1 does not have to equal two if he feels it should be something else. And he was serious. Because we all make our own reality. and then ranted about quantum physics to ‘prove’ it.

Oh, and this is a valid question. But it has a very simple answer.

They simply didn't believe that people who had been born Americans, and who had been Americans their entire lives, had any significant "divided loyalties" worth messing with.

In fact, when they were discussing the qualifications for members of Congress, James Madison (you know, the Father of the Constitution) said that he wasn't in favor of making candidates for Congress be citizens for a long period of time, because it would give a "tincture of illiberality" to our Constitution.

Well, it's Congress who actually passes our laws. And there were some (doubtless you would have been in this camp) who argued that ALL of our Congressmen should be limited to natural-born-citizens only.

James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, argued against that. And he, and others who took his views, prevailed.

Benjamin Franklin "did not completely oppose citizenship for a number of years, but, like Madison, 'should be very sorry to see any thing like illiberality inserted in the Constitution.'"

Madison was even against putting ANY citizenship requirement for Congressmen in the Constitution. He wasn't opposed to having a requirement, but he thought that Congress could take care of that, and that the Constitution wasn't the proper place to put such a requirement.

So you are really opposing James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, and most of our other Framers. That's who you're opposing. Not me.

What does that make you? It doesn't make you a supporter of our Founders and our Framers. Because if you were, you wouldn't be arguing so hard against them.