Posted on 06/24/2011 6:25:19 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
And what question might that be? I dare say it would have been quicker if you just asked it. I don't relish the thought of perusing backwards in the thread. I have enough messages to answer now.
5) Spend at least 3 or 4 hours doing outside research into historical writings regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." And by "outside," I'm talking about outside of Donofrio's and Apuzzo's blogs, although you can certainly include those as well. There's plenty of material on the internet.
6) Go through Donofrio's post on Minor v. Happersett setting a binding precedent, very carefully and logically. See what logical fallacies you can pinpoint.
All of your suggestions revolve around the same fallacy; That a court can better tell me what the founders meant than the founders themselves. I reject that notion outright in favor of "first principles." Writings years later by people unconnected with ratification are poor and misleading substitutes for contemporary writings from the founding era.
Histrionics ill suit you. I believe I said something along the lines that "I look forward to the day when people who intentionally sowing false and misleading information to obfuscate this eligibility issue are brought to a reckoning." Another commenter said something like " He means he wants you shot." I responded, that "I didn't say that, but I would cheer if you were." The more you whine about it the less motive I have for reconsidering my original opinion. I simply find it hard to believe that anyone who spends so much time on this issue can be so obtuse or so badly informed except intentionally so, and are therefore an enemy agent.
I wish you a good life.
I'll bet.
I responded, that "I didn't say that, but I would cheer if you were."
By your own words you are comdemned.
I wish you a good life.
I responded, that "I didn't say that, but I would cheer if you were."
By your own words you are comdemned.
Do you mean I admit the truth when I am asked? That's where we differ my friend.
But my applying for an Italian passport doesn't require me to renounce anything. You claim to have read about this subject for three years. Maybe you can point to the actual law that says that applying for a second passport as a dual citizen requires renunciation of natural born citizen status and what the actual process for that would be.
I have less than no interest in “debating” with obots.
It’s a dirty thankless job. Feeling passive agressive towards other Freepers does not help the soul. That has been why Christian Constitutional conservatives always let the Commie Atheistic minion of Satan perform all their tricks unanswered. We know our Father said that he will seperate them.
When you decided (of your own free will) to pledge your allegiance to Italy. You negated your “natural born Citizen“ status that perhaps you may have ever had.
You decided that your sole allegiance to this nation was not necessary. (Just like the Jews that do this).
You have decided to not qualify for the CiC.
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. A natural born Citizen can not be a dual national. They are the same arguement.
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060114035952/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Yes, clearly you're more comfortable when your opinions are not challenged.
There's no "pledge of allegiance" involved. As I've said before, under Italian law, I'm already considered a citizen, even though I'm four generations removed from anyone born there. The act of applying for a passport doesn't require an oath of allegiance to Italy, much less any act of renunciation of any status here.
(Just like the Jews that do this).
Hmm.
You are wrong here, Bubba.
It gets tiresome when the crowd of people who stumble in these debates build another arguement.
Do you say you can get a passport from Italy per request, no questions?
“Hmm.”
I said “Just like the Jews that do this”.
Think about it some, Bubba.
All you really have for us is how Italy reckognizes you as a member of their nation. Thus you are just as much what we call a 14th Ammendment citizen, I believe.
However, you decided that your allegiance to this nation was not worthy enough to worry about that silly stuff.
Till Now...
“Hmm.”
I said “Just like the Jews that do this”.
Think about it some, Bubba.
I wanted to add that I know there was a tribe of Judah and then the other tribes. Tribe of Israel are not the same.
However, I know Jesus, who was born of both houses, was also born a Jew. (In the technical sense by being born from the King line and the Blood line) But it is said that Jesus had the just soli covered. :D
ROTFLMAO.
No, it’s because I’ve seen you and your fellows in action. I’ve also stepped in dog poo on the sidewalk.
I read and learn, but have not links or info at my fingertips. And even if I did, all these obots have been shown the facts a gazillion times. They have no interest whatsoever in truth or the Constitution. What their motives are is known to themselves, and often revealed in their comments.
Perhaps a pocket Constitution is in the future?
I loved how direct your one sentence summed up my three posts of paragraphs.
Tis the mark of brilliance. :0)
I need to add - I honor with great respect and admiration those of you who do the work and research and keep posting the facts here, despite the ill usage by the obots.
Which sentence, the one about dog poop?
;-]
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.