Posted on 06/29/2011 11:43:00 PM PDT by SatinDoll
This is a video explaining the Article II, Section 1, eligibility requirement - natural born Citizens - to be President of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“Propoganda”
“Propoganda.”
The word is spelled ‘propaganda’. And you obviously cannot discern between that and facts.
Well that’s embarrassing.
was a very good video
Yeah, if you watch the video the voice explains that Liberal attempts to mis-apply the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark constitute “Propaganda.”
Why is he using Black’s Law Dictionary if it has been influenced by liberal “propoganda”?
Might as well say "why use the 14th Amendment if it has been influenced by liberal propaganda." Black's Law Dictionary can be used correctly, even if it is misused by liberals. Why not watch the video?
YEP!
Would quoting its entry on natural born citizen directly be a misuse?
Why don’t YOU ask HIM?
Today, Haskins has a pop-up claiming he knows how to spell ‘propaganda’, so there has been blow-back concerning the misspelling. Claims he couldn’t change it for some reason.
These are kinds of things libtards hammer us on so I’m sensitive to it. I didn’t notice it was misspelled when reviewing the video late last night. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Only if it says something in contradiction with how the founders viewed it. 1891 is a long way from 1787. The tendency of founding principles to get muddled with time is pretty well established. Did you know that an Amendment Granting citizenship to freed slaves in 1868 is the basis for allowing the legal murder of unborn children in 1973?
Yeah, principles seem to get muddled the further from their origins.
At about 1:20 in: “Thankfully through the brilliant research of legal scholars like Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio...”
The courts were not so impressed.
The judicial branch doesn’t have the Constitutional power to remove a President. Only Congress can remove a President from office. All those attorneys throwing themselves at the courts to try and unseat Obama are wasting their efforts.
It is up to the States to ascertain the eligibility of candidates before national elections. That is why George Soros is intent on placing Democrats in positions of Secretary of State across the nation - to subvert and corrupt our election process.
You should know full well by now that quoting Birther errors is a smear.
Shame on you.
So why when you thought the error was by freedomwarrior998 your reaction was: “...you obviously cannot discern between that and facts.” ?
But when it’s the error of the creator of the video it’s just an unfortunate mistake?
“These are kinds of things libtards hammer us on...” Just as you used it to hammer on the person who pointed it out when you thought the error was theirs?
Interesting, eh?
The video is truly “for dummies”.
Natural born citizen had a well established legal meaning prior to the Constitution. That meaning included those born of alien parents, if born in country.
““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut, 1795
““And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land...“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, 1826
Minor was a case on a woman’s right to vote. The woman argued that she had not been a citizen before the 14th, and now that she was a citizen, the equal protection clause meant she had the right to vote.
The Minor case expressly REFUSED to define natural born citizen:
“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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
It takes a true dummy to construe that as a final, binding, legal definition.
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.