Here's that lie again. Like I said, variations on a theme for this bozo.
Here is James Madison refuting you, but again, you will say its "ALL BULLSH*T".
I might not even fight back.
I suspect no one would be able to tell if you did. By the way. That crap you posted above...? Not worth responding to.
Of course that could be said about most anything you write.
And once again, you present another fallacy.
An opinion, expressed to a newspaper by some unknown person going by the pseudonym “Publius” - whose identity is unknown and who could’ve been literally anybody.
The original writer himself admits he isn’t even sure his opinion is correct:
“These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence - the case of James McClure is clearly a nice one - and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to general Armstrong in this transaction, still there is that dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.”
And this is what you build your case on? It’s bullsh*t.
An anonymous letter writer, with no claim to be any major authority, no claim even to have been a lawyer.
Ah, but you have the equally bullsh*t claim - without any hard evidence to support it - that the writer was none other than President James Monroe!
Except that President Monroe’s administration promptly came to McClure’s rescue, sending a letter stating that he was a United States citizen, and giving as their reason that McClure was born in Charleston, South Carolina.
So Monroe’s administration totally contradicts you.
Like I said, you have nothing but bullsh*t. And this isn’t the first time the BULLSH*T nature of this evidence has been discussed. It’s probably more like the 20th.
But it doesn’t stop you from repeating it, again and again.
So my original point was that I wasn’t aware of one single point, out of dozens and dozens made by birthers, that isn’t bullsh*t.
You’ve helped me illustrate that my immediately bringing up bullsh*t points that I then swat down like slapping a slow-moving, fat moth.
Thanks for helping me illustrate the point.
We can do some more if you like. What’s next?
Sorry, should've been:
You’ve helped me illustrate that BY immediately bringing up...
Fact is: Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot in the head.
Not up to the Clinton Deathlist standard, but there is so much we really don't know. We do know two things:
They have it all on the line with this misunderstood aspect of the Constitution, including their amnesty plan. And, the second is, the following is what was intended by Natural Born Citizen, and the underlying principles are common/similar to real estate, title, inheritance, etc. in addition to matters of citizenship and nationalization.
This is from Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Conclusion
Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.