Posted on 01/31/2012 1:46:56 PM PST by nesnah
OK, so I am sitting here listening to Sean Hannity and he is speaking with Marco Rubio. The conversation is moving along - no real hard issues discussed other than the Romney platitudes. Then Seah launches into this "have you been hearing about these nutty birthers" crappola. Rubio responds, or non-responds, only to say he is eligible to be a US Senator and just demures the rest.
Hannity sounded like a complete Democrook tool in his demeanor. Birther are nuts, etc. Yo, ummm, Sean, it isn't about birth certificates; it's about eligibility. Hey, Sean, do you know what a natural-born citizen is? Have you bothered to educate yourself?
You know, Sean, you are doing as much to subvert the US Constitution than your brother Barack Obama. I am turning you off for good.
If "born in the US" were what the Founding Fathers had intended then why have there been so many attempts to change the Constitution to what you're saying it already says?
5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
Nobody refuted it, and the closest Hannity came was saying "that's not going to work". Telling.
I stopped watching and listening to him also.
From your writing style, I’d guess Jiffylube or the local car wash.
Personal attacks are the trademark of the twisted mind.
same for us here too.
A few of us tried and tried and he ignored us by telling those issues are not being talked about , but ignoring how don’t ask was the biggest issue then.
One of my pals got through by lying and once on he mentioned the homosexual agenda, don’t ask and then bang the line is dead, Hannity says we seem to have lost him and then quickly moved on
Hannity is a fraud and I’m surprised by now some freepers have not woken up to just who he is
What is a personal attack about asking you to respond to a question about a statement you made?
ML/NJ
Hannity is Catholic in name only or when it suits him to get money from conservatives, he is as much conservative or Catholic as Pelosi
If they intended for it to mean born in the United States of American citizens, then why didn't they specify "second-generation American citizen?" I find the common law definition much more compelling than the court decisions and I suspect the issue is not yet settled.
But that is just my uneducated opinion and I suspect I'll refrain from commenting on birther threads again.
I understand fully that the Constitution was written in the language of the time, thus my interest in discerning original intent. I disagree that the term, at the time, meant born of two American citizens. Several presidents in the 19th century had parents of foreign parentage and no constitutional crisis ensued.
That's all. The Supreme Court is free to do as it wishes. But if Newt can tell them to go pound salt, so can I.
I disagree that the term, at the time, meant born of two American citizens.
Okay. And? The Constitution isn't a dictionary so don't go looking there for a definition of "the term" either.
Several presidents in the 19th century had parents of foreign parentage and no constitutional crisis ensued.
Really? Several? Is that, like, one or more yet less than three, several?
Care to list them?
Did they tell lies to become POTUS? And are we supposed to ignore such a breach of the Constitutional in our times simply because it happened before? It doesn't work that way. Not on my watch.
PS I see you didn't answer my question either. Is it that difficult of a question to answer?
Why the dismissive attitude? I am trying to explain to you what I think about the subject, but you continually come back at me with insulting comments. I am not looking in the Constitution for the answers -- where did you get the idea that I was?
I have read somewhat extensively on what the common law suggested as a definition for natural born. I posted that on this same thread earlier in some detail and I continue to reference it. Are you familiar at all with that or do you just ignore it?
Really? Several? Is that, like, one or more yet less than three, several?
Care to list them?
The last two from the 20th century. Are you familiar with this history? Surely, an authority such as you must be. Do you really think Jefferson lied about his parentage? Virtually everyone who had signed the Constitution was still alive and Jefferson, himself, was well-known to and held some stature with the Constitution's signers.
The concept of "natural born citizen" was an old one. It had long been held unacceptable that a candidate for high office, even though a citizen, might be influenced by his father's allegiance to a foreign nation. The mother's status didn't even figure into this, since citizenship was derived through the father. Some of the common law held that the father, even though not a citizen, if he were a resident alien on the path to citizenship, having renounced all allegiance to his country of birth, could therefore be considered the parent of a natural born citizen.
The thread was about Marco Rubio and that was what spurred my comment as what I knew of the history of the term was relevant to his situation.
Now, if you wish to continue the discussion, I'm all for it. I'm interested in learning more. But, so far, I haven't learned a thing from your posts other than that you are prone to insults without bothering to back up what you say.
I am not looking in the Constitution for the answers -- where did you get the idea that I was?
Perhaps that's your problem. Where do you think you'll find your answers?
I have read somewhat extensively on what the common law suggested as a definition for natural born. I posted that on this same thread earlier in some detail and I continue to reference it.
Are you talking about reply 68? If not you better refresh my memory as to the specific reply you're using. Keep in mind while doing so that reply 68 brought this from me...
I ask of you as well...why would somebody claiming to be a natural born citizen cite a case based upon the 14th amendment making them a citizen by statute, not by nature?
You never answered that question.
And where, oh, where did you get your information as to those past presidents? Care to give your sources?
Do you really think Jefferson lied about his parentage?
Did Jefferson need to lie about his parentage? I don't think so. It seems to me he fell into the "...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." aspect of Article II, Clause 5. So what did his parentage matter? He was "grandfathered in". Kind of a unique situation wasn't it. Didn't some more of your 6 mentioned also fall into that category?
I'm interested in learning more.
No you aren't so don't even pretend. I've read your replies on a variety of these eligibility threads. You're here, IMO, to do nothing more than spread confusion so don't play the "hurt victim" routine with me.
You're second or even third string, nothing more and just more of the same.
All I got was more of your distraction posting.
I noticed in his bio that both sets of grandparents were immigrants ~ not that there's anything wrong with that, but if we took a really good look at Sean's own family's records we might not be surprised to find that he has his own questions.
What disturbs me most about Hannity is he appears to have a chip on his shoulder about folks with roots back to the foundations of European presence in the New World ~
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.