Replies

Under American law this is not a patriarchal world. Now you are arguing that it is through the father? I thought it had to be both parents? Any argument will do in a pinch I suppose.

I put the emphasis on the father because Obama's father was the foreigner in post 122. It is still two US parentS for a natural born citizen.

There is no American law that is needed to state natural born citizenship because there is no need for it. They don't need to be naturalized by the state. However, the Supreme Court has stated without a doubt who are natural born citizens:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parentS who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

I have obscured and blurred nothing. You started out with a lie saying I was injecting race into this when I was not the one making the argument about the necessity of being of European descent to be American or White to be President; I responded to it.

BS, it was you who made race the issue here as a sideshow to BS your way all over this thread. It has been explain to your demo-butt, but you pout and cry and say racist! You are so full of crap.

Here, I'll save you some time you can go all over FR posting this .gif.

Amusing!

Your stupefying!

“Sir Thomas More’s Life of Richard the Third. He tells us that Richard calculated by murdering his two nephews in the Tower to make himself accounted “a kindly king”—not certainly a ‘kindly’ one in our present usage of the word[204];

but, having put them out of the way, that he should then be lineal heir of the Crown, and should thus be reckoned[185]

as king by kind or natural descent; and such was of old the constant use of the word.”

(204) [The two words are intimately related, ‘king’, contracted for kining (Anglo-Saxon cyn-ing), ‘son of the kin’ or ‘tribe’, one of the people, cognate with cynde, true-born, native, ‘kind’, and cynd, nature ‘kind’, whence ‘kindly’, natural.]

connecting the dots..the word true-born

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20900/20900-h/20900-h.htm#Page_184

You read “doubts” and conclude that it is a definitive rejection. You read a statement that concludes that those born in country of two citizens parents are definitely natural born citizens, and from that you want to READ INTO IT, that ONLY the children of two citizen parents born in country are natural born citizens, when nothing in the statement would warrant that steadfast conclusion.

Still going with your LIE that I started the race thing? Why when it is SO OBVIOUSLY a lie? My first post that had anything to do with race was to call out the poster who was insisting that only WHITE people should be eligible for the Presidency and that only the descendants of Europeans born in the USA are actually America.

But go ahead, lets keep going over it again and again, let us keep the “birthers base their argument on 0bama not being eligible on him not being the descendant of Europeans and him not being White” thread ALIVE AND KICKING!

Amusing!