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 ...
You have 256 comments on this thread, very cool for you, congrats! I think it’s a record for you.
Why don’t you ever reply on any of your threads?
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided? by P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006
It doesn't argue the question of "natural born," but argues that ALL "citizenship" granted under the rubric of Wong Kim Ark is incorrect, and inconsistent with the rule of Elk.
Pretty easy read.
Oh, rather than go ask my mommie anything, I think I will just hang around and watch you Vattle Birthers get your nightly thumping.
I can understand people not being interested, avoiding threads that bore them or they think a waste of time.
What I do not understand is posting on threads one considers boring or a waste of time and telling people concerned about Constitutional issues that they are “kooks”.
No, I don’t undestand that at all.
I also don’t understand why any actual conservative thinks it doesn’t matter that a president may very likely be fraudulent and ineligible, although I can see why conservatives might think other issues are more worth their time. But I cannot understand why a conservative who thinks other issues are more important would then spend his precious minutes on threads/topics he thinks are a waste of time...
Why do you continue to post things that you are seemingly unable to understand?
The difference between personal opinions and established principles constantly escapes you.
Blackstone’s are in no way reflective, nor effective upon US law. There is another commentary that was in greater acceptance at that time; why did you not quote therefrom?
Because you chose the abberant commentary that supports your abberant political philosophy.
I had to look up Vattle Birthers to see where you were going with that. I think I found an article you wrote on the subject that is a little long winded, but I get the gist. These are the people I have a problem with and that is why I jumped on this thread to defend the eligibility of Rubio.
This parents citizenship stuff is where the whole movement seems to have gone after the Obummer BC was produced and Corsi came up with nothing for the book. It smacks of desperation and I have no interest in it. This was never a qualifier before in vetting a Pres candidate and I am not sure why it needs to be made one now.
WKA was certainly clumsily written, but they definitely saw the difference between 14th ammendment citizenship, which they named Native citizenship, and Natural Born citizenship.
YOU WROTE:
“Over 160 years of American eighth grade students being taught that Natural Born meant that both of your parents had to be citizens should be a good place to start.
No other idea even existed until the last decade.”
So I provided you multiple quotes, including legal cases, going back as far as 1795.
“Because you chose the abberant [sic] commentary that supports your abberant political philosophy.”
Aberrant?
“1. departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2. deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type; exceptional; abnormal.”
Hmmm...my legal interpretation is backed by 200+ years of quotes, and every state, every court and every congressman. Yours is endorsed by WorldNutDaily.
Which of us is “aberrant”?
“ineligible” bump
In other words, the assertion becomes that one could view Article II of the constitution as requiring the president be native born, and it would change nothing.
Why then, have both terms, if they are indistinguishable?
And utterly ignorant to rely upon a state court case that is contrary ot the legal authority I have referred to and which mistates what Wong Kim Ark says and which was not written by anyone with any knowledge of the Framers and what they meant.
Threads can be posted for the enlightenment of others without needing any comment.
And utterly ignorant to rely upon a state court case that is contrary ot the legal authority I have referred to and which mistates what Wong Kim Ark says and which was not written by anyone with any knowledge of the Framers and what they meant.
I think it was wrongly decided. But, even if one accepts the majority, I agree with you that it did not find WKA to be a natural born citizen; even though his parents were permanent residents of the US.
You must have found one of my White Papers on the subject if it was long winded. There were Vattle Birthers before Obama coughed up the long form but their arguments were just as wrong then. For some Birthers the Vattle stuff is their “Plan B”, which is just sooo a dead end.
>> “Just thinking aloud, after skimming through the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion, that the prevailing wisdom (which I think is in error) holds that “native born” and “natural born” are and always have been synonymous.” <<
.
You should read it again.
It holds exactly the opposite. That is why they coined a new term, ‘native citizen,’ rather than using an existing term that they recognized to have a decidedly different meaning.
I don't know how you came upon my comments, but if you bother to look at the title of the thread, we have a group of people here who are using the same strained logic to make one of our best candidates ineligible for President. That is why I am wasting precious seconds debating people like yourself using tortures argument to smear him.
The only Constitutional issue here is the fact that people can't take what Article II Section I Paragraph 5 means. There is no qualifier for anyone's parents to be Natural Born for that person to become President.
Daily? Without ever making a comment?
OK
The familial lineage of a candidate was never as obscured before.
Nobody questioned the citizenship of the parents of candidates because there was no doubt about it before (excepting Arthur, partly because he was obtuse about it, and partly because he ran for VP, and therefore received less scrutiny).
-PJ
I think you misunderstand my post. I was saying that the likes of Rogers, etc. find the terms to be synonymous. I don’t.
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.