an example of "liberal macho"
"[CNN's Anderson] Cooper
marching on January 11, 2007,
in New Orleans against violence"
Posted on 04/21/2010 8:28:03 PM PDT by MrChips
OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?
You’re welcome. I felt your comments should be affirmed because so few here get the details right on this. It’s usually wild, delusional conspiracy theories or absolute, total disregard and contempt for the eligibility issue.
There are legitimate eligibility questions that need to be answered. And there is no definitive SCOTUS ruling.
The reason defining natural born citizenship was never a problem before the now is because of something called "derivative citizenship." Before the mid 1920s all women held the citizenship of either their father if single or their husband if they were married. This means that if a Irish man married an American woman, the woman would also become Irish. However, if an American man married an Irish woman, then the Irish woman became an American citizen. Consequently, if a couple was married with an American Father it was pretty much impossible to have anything but a Natural born citizen. (In the case of illegitimate children, the children received the father's citizenship unless the father was unknown in which case they inherited the mothers citizenship.) This system was rejected by the progressives as too "patriarchal", but that is the reality of it. Most of the Western world used to pass citizenship through the father.
Only now that the government allows a husband and wife to hold different citizenships independent of each other do we have confusion.
"Okay, what is the name of Obama's birth doctor? It's written on every BC. It's on mine, it's on yours. So if you know it, announce it right now. If you DON'T know it, WHY NOT???
This will force them to acknowledge that they haven't seen Obama's real, actual BC. Simple and irrefutable.
true. But remember, the Supreme Court simply took its power to judicial review (Marbury v. Madison). If you can get your name on the ballot and be elected and the VP gives you the nod and the secret squirrel handshake and you are sworn in, you are President. The fact is, Obama has created the precedent that unless you are naturalized then you are natural born. The Supremes could change that but until they do, I stand by my statement.
The 14th Amendment dealt specifically with former slaves who were being denied citizenship by some states, and has been interpreted to mean that citizenship cannot be denied to anyone born here. This erroneous interpretation of the 14th has led to the phenomenon of so-called “anchor babies” born of a mother who merely crossed into the country to give birth.
Most nations have done away with such controversial policies that are detrimental to the economic wellbeing of the country, among them Canada and Australia. We have no such policy, we have a deliberate twisting of Constitutional meaning for political and economic ends, political on the left, economic on the right.
The 14th Amendment neither dealt with nor altered the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to the office of President, so any understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” must resort to original intent. You can debate that intent all you want, but that is where the answer lies.
Far greater minds than yours or mine, genuine Constitutional scholars, have stated as much. Of course, they stated this during the controversy over McCain’s eligibility and fell oddly silent when it came to the equally questionable Obama. But, the statements do apply to either instance.
What does *not* apply, is the 14th Amendment.
"[CNN's Anderson] Cooper
marching on January 11, 2007,
in New Orleans against violence"
CORRECT
Did I call you a nazi or clarify for those that think he was that nazi’s were socialists...If they think that, they are ignorant which is not an insult, it mearly means uninformed...as far as I know only the media and leftys call Nazi’s right wingers..they are ignorant....
I fear you are correct that Obama has set a precedent. I believe that is exactly what he intended to do.
If you read further in the Minor decision, they talk about the original naturalization acts in the United States, such as 1790 and 1804, in which the citizenship of children of aliens is dependent on whether the parents are naturalized. To me, this shows that our founders rejected the so-called English common law notion of natural born subjects. Second, if you read Shanks v. Dupont, they acknowledge you can be native born, but not be a U.S. citizen, depending on whether your allegiance adhered to the British crown. But even if you accept English common law, that the children of aliens could be natural born subjects, that was dependent on whether the alien parents remained in the country. Wong Kim Ark talks about this and it's why they make permanent residence for the parents a factor in determing that the plaintiff was a citizen at birth. Obama's father, of course, was not an immigrant nor a permanent U.S. resident, so he wouldn't even meet the Wong standard for being a citizen of the United States.
Fraud is a poor precedent.
WRONG! Please read what I said before you tell me I’m wrong. I never said he wasn’t socialist, fascist, evil, or liberal. I said he was right wing because the terminology is reversed in some cases in the country the man was born in.
No doubt.
There is no precedent if the ineligibility of the office holder is successfully challenged. It’s arguable that any claim of precedent is weakened by repeated, unsuccessful challenge, barring any definitive SCOTUS ruling bearing directly upon the matter.
So, going all Joy Behar and saying “so what, who cares?” is not the best course of action, even if you think the “issue” is not an electoral winner. There is more at stake here, the very electoral process itself, as far as the Executive Branch is concerned.
I, for one, don’t want some future Soros protegé attaining the highest office in the land. We’ve seen the damage done by this comparative piker in a little over a year. Imagine someone a little less inept giving it a go. We’ll all be citizens of the world in no time.
I dont remember reading where you posted that it was reversed in some other countries.If you did then it was my mistake and I stand corrected.
That's why I said like it or not.. I am read on to all of this. I know the original intent of the 14th. I hope all of you understand I am arguing from a practical perspective. I would be in the front of the line dancing my ass off if Obama was thrown out of office for being ineligible. I would be equally elated if I won the lotto 3 times in a row. I expect the likelihood of either event nearer zero than any other infinitesimal number I can imagine.
If I were you, I would choose my words more carefully - such as:
" ... If you gained citizenship at birth you are a natural born citizen ..."
You are merely stating your opinion about this - back it up with documentation. And remember, the definition of "natural born citizen" that counts is the one that the Founding Fathers knew - not modern interpretations of it.
Please be advised that there are many posters on this thread that HAVE done the research into this AND are more than willing to rip you a new one if you can't back up your statements with documentation. And they WON'T use Vaseline ...
To enlighten yourself before proceeding, I would suggest reading ALL of the following: Calvin’s Case [1608], the British Nationality Act of 1730, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws Of England, and Dicey’s A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws as they pertain to citizenship/subjectship.
Is that true? I have never heard that angle.
What do you think the Constitution means by a "natural born citizen"? Hint: "natural born citizen" cannot mean "citizen," because if they meant the latter, they would not have added the qualifying words, "natural born." The meaning must be defined within the context of the grandfather period the Founders provided for non-natural born citizens to hold the office. Note that the media conspirators never go to first principles on this matter.
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.