Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The Mountains GROAN in labor, and out creeps a mouse.
The mouse roars. Ho hum.
You said: “ I do not go down and shoot up MacDonalds. Very few people do that sort of thing. But when a whacko does such a thing, the liberals bleed and moan and try to take my guns. Why??? There’s no such thing as a perfect, risk-free world. Because nutcases will be nutcases on fairly rare occasions is no reason to disarm a free citizenry. As they say, “hard cases make for bad law.”
Sooo, this looks to me like you get it. Asking whether or not Osama Bin Laden Junior could be the president is a “hard case” and I gave you the “hard case” answer-—yes, if he won.
You might as well ask if a retarded person could be president??? (OH is this a loaded question!!!) The “hard case” answer is again yes, and all the terrible things that might happen are just speculation, and the same type of ILLOGICAL argument the Vattle Birthers make with the “Son of Osama” argument.
All the “third kind” of citizen stuff is just hooey, and the law doesn’t require it and because there isn’t any law that backs up the Vattle Birthers, they resort to these inflaming type of questions to throw people off. Here is what a REAL COURT said in 2009, and I think it was even said by the higher court on appeal or something:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
That is about as simple as it gets. The “hard answer” is that Obama is legal if he was truly born in Hawaii.
OH PLUS, I hope you get to feeling better. When I am either sick or hungover and stuff I find that Taco Bell stuff makes me feel better for some reason. And stuff like salsa and chips and jalapenos.
-PJ
Actually, “Mouse” is one of my nicknames my family and friends call me because of my voice. Plus, they called me “Squeeky” too. . . .
Not at all. Mr. Rogers has been beaten to a bloody pulp so many times that he is no longer sensible. He continuously leaves out the vast mountain of evidence with which he has been refuted so many times. He is in a word, Unreachable. He lives in a peculiar little world where his wishes are reality. He has a fortress of solitude unpenetrated by any point of fact.
Oh, and Lamp? Curious where this mysterious 3rd, new subcategory of citizenship is found in the Cable Act. Or is my calling you on that false statement going to result in me also being dismissed as you’ve done to Mr Rogers? If so, I’ll be in fine company at least...
You may be obtuse as long as you like. You may continue pouncing on your trifle for as long as it amuses you. You may join Mr. Rogers birds of a feather if you wish. Anyone that cannot play but a one note Samba isn't worth arguing with anyways.
As the Congress could not see the consequences of the act, nor can you.
Simple question: if a baby is born in the US to non-citizen parents, is that baby a citizen?
That you think it is a simple question illustrates your lack of understanding. Under the CORRECT interpretation of the 14th amendment, NO, The child is NOT an American citizen. Under the common misunderstanding of the meaning of the 14th amendment, most people think "Yes," The child IS a citizen.
I am not even going to answer the rest of your post. I will instead give you two links to two prominent American Conservative writers regarding this issue. You might not find me persuasive, but perhaps you will understand and respect the opinion of George Will and Ann Coulter on this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
George Will Studied at Oxford and Princeton, and Ann Coulter Graduated from Cornell. Perhaps their credentials will grant their arguments a better access to your open mind.
à bon chat, bon rat.
I’m not a birther, just someone who believes in the U.S.Constitution and its establishment of law. That is why I’ve researched the issue since 2008.
If being born in the U.S.A. was sufficient to satisfy the ‘natural born citizen’ eligibility requirement to be President, don’t you think BHO2 would claim himself to be one?
He has only said that he was born in Hawaii, nothing else. He knows he is not eligible because he is a Constitutional lawyer.
Mr.Rogers, Squeeky - the moonbats are here! Have you seen Kleon; he’s another, and I saw his post on another thread earlier today.
Since Obama managed to shutdown Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen site on Wordprss, they’ve all climbed out of their coffins!
And this is what these people do not get. Their theory of citizenship begats this exact absurdity. Even THEY know it's wrong, they just can't admit it.
Read this Article by George Will and this other Article by Ann Coulter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
It is important to spread the word about what IS the truth about American citizenship. Not only does the truth make inherent sense, it SOLVES all these nonsensical problems.
“By the definition you use, the birth certificate shows the citizenship each parent held at birth.”
By Vattel & Switzerland’s definition, it does not. So which is it - does birth LOCATION make one a citizen in the USA, or does one need to show the citizenship of your parents?
“Switzerland doesn’t have any naturalization process?”
Yes, as do we - but that has nothing to do with citizenship by birth, does it...
Ah! Leo’s site is back up. Wordpress said it was all a mistake.
Sure.
As for the Swiss and naturalization, I was picking on your remark that the only way to obtain Swiss citizenship was by birth. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it, literally. Was just poking fun, and thought you might notice what you typed, and smile back.
“Sorry, but this is a delusional fantasy that I have disproven several times.”
I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with a fool. I’ve posted both a long extract, and a link where anyone who reads this thread can read what the US Supreme Court said - for themselves. Here it is again:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
And here is how the DISSENT protested that decision:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Now, you say I have a delusional fantasy that this applies.
My response is simple: All 50 states, all 50 state legislatures, all 50 state DAs, every congressman and every court agrees with MY “delusional fantasy”. The GOP & Rush Limbaugh agree with my “delusional fantasy”.
WorldNutDaily is on your side.
I cite decisions, you cite single sentence extracts. I provide links, you do not.
We’ll let everyone who reads this thread decide if there is a vast conspiracy that includes Rush, the SCOTUS, every state, the GOP & every Congressman, while you alone know the truth.
“The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue 4 times. Google it. I’m tired of posting them.”
Those famous WorldNutDaily 4 cases say the opposite of what WND claims.
Well, I was a Birther, but not ever a Vattle Birther. Dr. Taitz even used one of my Internet Articles on her website!!! Plus, I even have my very own Birther Web Sites, although I am doing Post-Birtherism stuff since Obama finally coughed up his long form. Me and another Freeper even did a youtube video about “Show Me The BirthFAX” which in less than two days after it hit youtube, Obama coughed up his long form!!!
BUT the Vattle stuff has never made any sense and it isn’t the law. There is just no reason, if it was true, that no Republican lawyers ever brought this up during the election, and Hillary Clinton either. Then, when you read the law, you see that the law DOES NOT require two citizen parents. Then to make stuff EVEN WORSE, the Vattle Birthers do a whole bunch of DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING!!! Like Diogenes Lamp today who left off part of a paragraph in a law case that he said backed up the Vattle stuff.
And, when you read the part he left off it says the Supreme Court wasn’t even going to discuss the part that he says it supports!!! Sooo, that is why I am rough on all you Vattle Birthers.
I wish you would just forget all this stuff and join what is left of the Common Sense Suspicious Birthers and focus on stuff that is important like whether or not the long form is forged, and on what I think is still VERY EXTREMELY IMPORTANTLY RELEVANT which is the WHY Obama took sooo long to cough it up and what is the mindset of Obama and his Obotski.
“And frankly, someone could still have a great deal of loyalty to a foreign state and still be naturalized, so I’m not sure why we should really attach any weight at all to the naturalization of parents.”
The Rev Wright is, without any doubt, a natural born citizen of the USA. Is there anyone who would claim he is a more loyal citizen, and loves the USA more, than Marco Rubio?
Sorry, but this was a key part of the decision. They spent a significant amount of time ... actually went out of their way to explain why Minor's citizenship was NOT due to the 14th amendment as she contended. It would have been much more expedient to say, she's right. We have a shiny new amendment that puts in a concise and succinct form. But instead, they rejected this argument.
That is simply not true. The fact that they gave one particular defintion as an example does not mean that other examples do not exist. Do you even know what the case was about?
The definition was self-limiting: as DISTINGUISHED from foreigners and aliens. The court said there were doubts about any other citizenship at birth, but pointed to the naturalization laws to help point out where any remedy might be found. There point in this review was to examine whether the 14th amendment would be needed for women as a class. The court said:
In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Why would the court go to the trouble of saying this. Their point is that the 14th amendment only applied to certain classes of persons born in the country (which would address those persons whose citizenship was in doubt). NBCs do NOT fall under this category and do NOT need the 14th amendment.
It picked that definition not because it was the only one, but because it was the one on which everyone agreed.
Are you even listening to yourself?? Isn't this how legal definitions are generally chosen?? And you're right. Everyone agreed. The court was unanimous. This is significant because they chose this definition DESPITE a constutional amendment that others might have seen as having broader applications. This decision limited the scope of that amendment. That limitation was acknowledged in the Wong Kim Ark decision, which said the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..."
Given that the only reason the Court looked at the NBC clause was to point to the only language in the Constitution that defined what a citizen was, and to show that voting was not inherent in citizenship, there was no reason to resolve exactly what it takes to be an NBC.
Sorry, but this is gobbledy gook. The language in the constitution didn't define what a citizen was. The court said, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." They found their definition by giving a near-verbatim citation of Vattel's definition from the Law of Nations. It is entirely consistent with earlier SCOTUS rulings that also cited this definition but cited it properly with Vattel. There would have been no reason to go here when they could have just accepted Minor's argument on the 14th amendment.
The court then pointed out that even women who met that most stringent definition of Natural Born Citizen didn't have the right to vote at our founding, therefore, the right to vote was not something inherent in being a full citizen. Voting rights case dismissed.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself now. Earlier you said, "If an issue is not necessary to a decision, it is not decided." Now you're saying that they had to pick the most stringent definition of citizen in order to make a decision about this woman's right to vote. You're not making sense. Second, the 14th amendment DID create citizenship rights that didn't exist before. That was the point of the amendment. The court said, "If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void." The court didn't say, "If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of natural born citizens ..." IOW, this case could have been adjudicated WITHOUT having to look at natural born citizenship. The question is whether citizens of ANY class would have a right to vote and if a state was only limiting that right to men on the basis of their citizenship. And the court goes on to say this very thing: "The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters." Do you see that?? "All citizens," not citizens under the "most stringent" definition. The court addressed NBC because it was rejecting the 14th amendment in how it defines citizen. The judgment has never been overturned. The NBC definition is exclusive and is still legally intact.
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.