Posted on 06/19/2009 5:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Apparently so. Do provide details with links for me to review and I will gladly educate myself on the subject.
No sarcasm intended or implied.
Wassamadda, buckey, didn’t notice that I framed the post as a question? LOL ... tossed that rock into the pack and look which one is yelping!
I know exactly what you’re doing. You didn’t toss anything into the pack to see who would yelp. You targeted me with the express purpose of getting a response so you could attack me further. Like I said, you’re making this personal for no reason.
Put on your big girl panties.
Yes, I know it was posed as a question. I can read English.
Still trying to conflate native born and natural born? Having fun yet this evening, skippy? By your own admission, you haunt these birther threads as an amusement.
You poor paranoid thing, I didn’t even ping you since I was using a sentence as example for Cicero to consider. I didn’t apply your name to the sentence, either, since I didn’t want to embarrass you. ... But if you insist ...
Grow up. Stop being passive aggressive. You’re not embarassing me, you’re embarassing yourself. This is unproductive.
If you want to have a discussion about the merits of the primer, I’ll have that discussion with you. If you want to attack me because I disagree with you about the author’s intentions, then we’re done here.
Pitiful, I didn’t attack you. But that was a nice try ...
When the critera used to be 10 and 5 years, Ann Dunham would not have been old enough to automatically pass along her US citizenship to her son.
This has been well-documented all over the place.
Of course she wasn't old enough. But that only applies IF she gave birth outside the country, and IF she really was married to BHO Sr. The "not old enough", which is really "not resident in the US for long enough as a quasi adult", only applies if the birth is outside the US. That's all I was saying.
But the whole section of the law speaks to "citizenship", not "natural born citizenship, anyway. She could have been "old enough", and he be a citizen at birth, and still not be natural born. But if the opposite is true, and BO was born outside the country, then he wasn't a citizen at all, let alone natural born.
He's hiding something, and given what he's already revealed, it's hard to imagine it could be anything besides birth outside the US. Why bother to marry BHO Sr if she was going to put Frank Marshal, Malcom X, or anyone else the BC? She might not have been legally married, and known it, I suppose, but that would hardly be all that "embarrassing" given everything else already admitted by the campaign and BHO's spokeswienies. Besides it would give him something to be more like his major constituencies. It would be a source of additional "street cred" .
It doesn't make them so, nor does it make them not. It only makes them a citizen, although it's also redundant, since it's the same criteria as the 14th amendment's
Not true, they can and apparently did, issue birth certificates for people born outside the state, and the country. BUT, those certificates would indicate the correct place of birth, or at least what the state was told was the actual place of birth.
The author's point that the state could have been lied to, and that this would be led credence by a long form (vault) birth certificate that shows a home birth, with the only signatures being that of Stanley Ann and her mother or father, or just her parents, since her signature would not have been absolutely required. She would not have even needed to be in the Islands.
No, they only define who *can be* naturalized. You're assuming that "not naturalized", and "natural born" are the same thing. They may not be.
But we've gone around on that question before, and we'll not stop the circling here either.
Yes they are, but none quite so clearly as the prohibition against those who are not "natural born" being eligible for the office of President. We just seem to have lost the fox with regards to the meaning of "natural born". Just as we have with the meaning of "interstate commerce". Although in the latter case, the lose was more a deliberate theft, whereas the "natural born citizen" definition has been lost more though disuse through not needing to use it.
Until now that is.
You know, every time I read that, I wonder why BHO wasn't struck down by lightening as he he said it, since he clearly had no intent to preserve, protect or defend the Constitution of the United States. Unless he thought it meant the physical piece of paper.
I have. And you're incorrect, you do have to believe that there are 3 or more classes of citizenship. The Constitution identifies two classes, natural born and naturalized. If you accept that then clearly if you aren't one then you're the other. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he's clearly not naturalized.
Always.
Having fun yet this evening, skippy? By your own admission, you haunt these birther threads as an amusement.
Well unlike many of you, Buckeye Texan takes a rational approach to his arguments. But a civil debate is just as enjoyable as dealing with your more rabid compatriots.
So like Schrödinger's cat they could simultaneously be borth? So what part of the law tips them one way or the other?
Constitutionally they must be. If your not naturalized then your natural born. Those are the only two forms of citizenship the Constitution outlines.
But we've gone around on that question before, and we'll not stop the circling here either.
True.
You're welcome (notice the way that contraction is formed, NS).
My errors in contractions aside, both cases use the terms ‘native-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at birth’ as synonyms of ‘natural born citizen’. Which is obvious since the Constitution identifies only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized.
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.