IMO, BP was advocating for upholding the Constitution and for those who don't like it, to change it. That's what the Supreme Court said in Minor. BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.
Interestingly, BP's point seems to be confirmed in Canada of all places. In 1907, evidently they had some racial backlash because of a wave of Asian immigration. This comment seems to confirm a very British tradition:
"Rev. Dr. Fraser said he was body and spirit with the movement, as he almost felt that unless some steps were taken to stop the influx his own pulpit would soon be in the hands of a Jap or a Chinaman," the Daily News-Advertiser reported the next day.
"There was no such thing as this cheap or common labour that was talked about," the Presbyterian minister was reported to have said. "It was pure Anglo-Saxon blood that had made the Empire and it would never be made with a mixture of Asiatic blood."
link to: "When racism ruled"
And speaking of British empire, when one looks at the British tradition, seeing as how so many folks are quick to say that we follow English common law on citizenship, there have historically been plenty of racism isues in the British colonies: Australia, India, New Zealand, Africa ... Does this mean those persons who support an English common law definition of citizenship are advocating a racist agenda??
To quote Shakespeare, IMO, the accusation that BP is racist or a bigot is "much ado about nothing."
From what I see, bushpilot has been researching the language etymology of natural-born citizen as strictly related to the understanding and intent of the founders. The reaction from Obama sympathizers has been to treat that as if BP has a personal racist agenda, which we all know is a typical tactic used against anyone who questions Obama’s legitimacy. BP defended what the historical intent and language is, as well as the fact that the Constitution has not been changed, which is true. That’s why I pointed out that the Supreme Court said their job was to interpret what the law is, not what they want it to be or what THEY think it should be. Unless the constitution and/or the definition of NBC has been specifically changed, then it stands as the founders intended it.
IMO, BP was advocating for upholding the Constitution and for those who don’t like it, to change it. That’s what the Supreme Court said in Minor. BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.
________________________________________
BINGO!!! The trolls may have won a battle for a day, they have not and will not win the war unless FR is turning into DU lite.
I don't agree with your Anglo-Saxon angle. None are more Anglo-Saxon than Germans.
@The latter included the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were all from northern Germany or southern Denmark.
Like this one about Germans? @The Support of the Poor - Benjamin Franklin 1753
He even used part of @one of Franklin's essays himself on that thread...
@#138
I too shall miss his efforts on the eligibility issue, but on that alone.
I wish someone would have asked BP1 if *he* wanted the presidency restricted to certain whites, or if he was simply convinced that’s the way the Framers wanted it, and it hadn’t be constitutionally modified/corrected yet. There is a difference. I know BP was a stickler for originality/original intent. Also, it’s strange he never gave any prior indication of being a racist or a bigot. None at all. Odd he would wait so long, and then let fly (so to speak). Usually racists have a harder time concealing it, and let hints slip here and there. I never saw any of that w BP.