My One and Only Post on Birthers

The Provocateur ^ | 07/29/2009 | Mike Volpe

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, I see the problem. You can’t really “look it up”. I have been arguing from common law and common sense, but neither are “legal proof” that I am right.

I haven’t really been thinking of the “legal proof” aspect, because I have been arguing with people who have asserted without evidence that they are factually correct, when they are not.

For example, you can cite no law which would support your belief that a person born to a U.S. citizen mother on U.S. soil would not be considered “natural born”.

But, if your argument was that the issue is not settled in law yet, you would be literally correct. I have no doubt what the results of such a case would be, and since we have had a Vice President already who was believed to be born on US soil, to a citizen mother and a foreign father, precedent also is on the side of accepting US birth to a US parent as citizens, and therefore natural born.

And in fact, even in the VP Arthur case, the argument wasn’t over the term “natural born” (as regards his father), but over whether he had been a citizen at birth, since his father’s country claimed him as a citizen by their laws.

There was a SEPARATE argument with Arthur that he had been born in Canada (this is of course very analogous to the arguments about Obama). The Canada argument, if proven, would probably have been persuasive. The argument that he was not a “natural born citizen” based on his father did not carry the day, and that was before the 14th amendment.

[Redwood Bob]

“There are also two different newspapers in which Obamas birth was announced all the way back in 1961.”

*******************

The newspaper you cite is a high school student newspaper. Since almost 5 years have gone by, the odds are that the kid is now of legal drinking age. Maybe you could track him down, feed him drinks, and he’ll give you all the details of the Vast Conspiracy.

[Ghengis]

bump