Posted on 11/28/2008 5:01:06 PM PST by pissant
Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.
Ah. Discrimination rears its ugly head again but in a FAR more serious way this time.
And the eligibility as for being a natural-born citizen is “out-dated”? Since when? Where was I when this great country of ours decided that you can come from anywhere and run for our highest office?
And not to burst the author’s bubble(head), but most would assume that one’s birthplace plays a massively important role in presuming one’s undivided, whole-hearted loyalty to the country of which he’s leader.
What a pile of dung.
Remember John Madden & whoever the guy is in “The Replacements” talking about the exceptional playing ability of one ‘Ray Smith’? There couldn’t find anything out about him except that he’d been a resident of the state of Maryland for 2 years and that he knitted. (hint: think prison)
Sound familiar?
Exceptin polygamy ISTM BillyJeff legal under sHaria law.
Too bad they couldn’t get it fixed BEFORE he took office.
They can call it “stupid” all they want, but it don’t change it.
And this, in my opinion, proves that he is not natural born.
Maybe that was why when pressed about becoming President, they were hesitant. But somebody jumped the gun!
You and me both. I was hesitant and unbelieving because it sounded incredulous that someone would have the nerve!
But after it wouldn’t go away, I started reading all the loopholes and realized this really could have happened!
Now, I don’t think, I believe it 100%.
But what about Ex Post Facto law. If his mom was unable to transfer citizenship at birth, legally at the time of his birth, and he was born outside of the US, then he is not a natural born citizen.
Right. The more logical steps our arguments have to climb, the lesser the chances of a significant number of people understanding them. Your first option of simply stating that natural birth is a foggy term sounds the most clever. Since the term has no strict definition they’ll make it more clear by adopting the thought-not-required definition of either parent being an American. This will have the most appeal. It lets the rock-star candidate win and ensures no intellectual toil.
Ok. Went to the link. Unless I didn’t read closely enough, I didn’t see any citations for the “stupidest” type of claims.
Just in case you haven’t seen this.
“Obama is not going to give up the BC. His lawyers will argue that the Constitution does not define “natural birth” and that a proper definition will be that one or more parents are American citizens. Period. No matter where you are born. That will be sufficient for many if not most Americans unless a very, very powerful argument can be made that there is a clear and strong legal basis for defining it differently”
How about this specific one:
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.
I don’t care how much the people don’t care, the law is the law. Once we start avoiding the law and start treating our courts based on a system of emotion, we are screwed and it doesn’t matter anyway.
I would like to give this statement the "Dumbest Statement Ever Made" Award for this and the last millennium. There any MANY reasons for this requirement AND NONE OF THEM ARE "EMOTIONAL."
Awww, come on FlingWing, you know those founding fathers just hated Mexicans and other immigrants. /s
LOL!
I also learned what it took to change the constitution, when I was in 8th grade. Unfortunately, I recently read a story about how terribly sitting congressmen did when asked basic civics questions.
With these leftists, nothing is absolute. The media will be a willing co-conspirator. They will say ‘natural born’ is vague, or undefined. They will ask if the will of the people should’t supercede this ‘silly’, ‘outdated’ provision...especially during such an ‘important time’. If the media behaved responsibly, I think we could avoid riots and bloodshed...I predict they won’t behave responsibly. I’m sure some of the same thoughts are going through the SCOTUS heads...I hope they fulfill their responsibilities and defend the constitution.
that would be a constitutional amendment, and that is 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states...won’t happen.
I think that’s 3/4ths of the states.
Go figure
I,too, hope it works out differently. Keep in mind that the intent to deceive throughout this sorry tome carries with it the implicit self admission that ‘His’ birth credentials failed to meet the eligibility to serve in office set forth in the Constitution.
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.