Posted on 06/19/2010 2:38:51 AM PDT by rambo316
Yep, you are correct sir.
The video attached to that one was more interesting: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312661/june-17-2010/david-mamet
They had m’man David Mamet on, once more confirming that he’s now a conservative, and talking about the theatre.
One way to discourage those who might learn about truth is to write long notes - or copy them. Jamese777 simply copied my previous note. If the content is sparse, readers get tired of looking for new meaning. rsxid writes long notes, but they are filled with quotations from founders which he knows many may never have seen. rsxid presents a volume of documents from founders, justices and framers agreeing with the Vattel definition.
Ramsay demonstrates that the definition of natural born citizen was not unique to Vattel. As Chief Justice Marshall said, Vattel was the most concise source, but Ramsay shows that the idea was part of our common law, and a notion found in Roman and Greek law.
The next technique is to cite long responses by important people which eventually do not address the point. In this case Jamese777 tried to make a case which has nothing whatsoever to do with natural born citizenship, the qualifications for a member of the house of representatives.
Madison's original ideas about presidential qualifications were changed by a note to George Washington from John Jay, agreeing with Ramsay, and that is our Constitution. Madison did not initially require a natural born citizen for the presidency, but the president was going to be appointed by the Senate, and was not yet clearly going to be commander in chief; John Jay, Washington and Jay did. That is our law. The debates leading to the Constitution were filled with disagreements by brilliant men whose lives, lives of their families, and futures were at stake.
If anything, what the troll Jamese777 pointed out confirms the difference between the weaker, “Native born Citizen” - the very status Obama proclaimed as his own status - and the clause designed to protect us better from foreign influence which was adopted by the convention, natural born citizen. Yes, Obama told us he was not a natural born citizen, counting on the ignorance of most people (including myself when he said it) concerning the legal definition of natural born citizen (expect trolls to exclaim that it was not defined by the Constitution, but realize that justice Joseph Story pointed out that the Constitution is a framework dependent upon common language for its meaning - I believe he said that seventy percent of the Constitution is found in our common law, but hope to be corrected by someone with better recall and the exact quote!).
Don't waste time with trolls. Read our framers. The elegant Ramsay “Dissertation...” also contains the most concise explanation of why the framers of the first constitutional republic created “citizens” and rejected the English common law “subject.” The URL of the Ramsay Dissertation follows:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789
Yes, he attended both the University of Hawaii and Harvard. But he was NEVER an American citizen. (Assuming, of course, that his natural father is the late Barack Obama Sr.)
You can learn, but don’t be confused, by noting the techniques of trolls. For those who follow Free Republic regularly jamese777 is well-known. His/her point is simply to confuse.
One way to discourage those who might learn about truth is to write long notes - or copy them. Jamese777 simply copied my previous note. If the content is sparse, readers get tired of looking for new meaning. rsxid writes long notes, but they are filled with quotations from founders which he knows many may never have seen. rsxid presents a volume of documents from founders, justices and framers agreeing with the Vattel definition.
Ramsay demonstrates that the definition of natural born citizen was not unique to Vattel. As Chief Justice Marshall said, Vattel was the most concise source, but Ramsay shows that the idea was part of our common law, and a notion found in Roman and Greek law.
The next technique is to cite long responses by important people which eventually do not address the point. In this case Jamese777 tried to make a case which has nothing whatsoever to do with natural born citizenship, the qualifications for a member of the house of representatives.
Madison’s original ideas about presidential qualifications were changed by a note to George Washington from John Jay, agreeing with Ramsay, and that is our Constitution. Madison did not initially require a natural born citizen for the presidency, but the president was going to be appointed by the Senate, and was not yet clearly going to be commander in chief; John Jay, Washington and Jay did. That is our law. The debates leading to the Constitution were filled with disagreements by brilliant men whose lives, lives of their families, and futures were at stake.
If anything, what the troll Jamese777 pointed out confirms the difference between the weaker, “Native born Citizen” - the very status Obama proclaimed as his own status - and the clause designed to protect us better from foreign influence which was adopted by the convention, natural born citizen. Yes, Obama told us he was not a natural born citizen, counting on the ignorance of most people (including myself when he said it) concerning the legal definition of natural born citizen (expect trolls to exclaim that it was not defined by the Constitution, but realize that justice Joseph Story pointed out that the Constitution is a framework dependent upon common language for its meaning - I believe he said that seventy percent of the Constitution is found in our common law, but hope to be corrected by someone with better recall and the exact quote!).
Don’t waste time with trolls. Read our framers. The elegant Ramsay “Dissertation...” also contains the most concise explanation of why the framers of the first constitutional republic created “citizens” and rejected the English common law “subject.” The URL of the Ramsay Dissertation follows:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789
In the political reality that I prefer to live in, Obama is president.
I was a birther before the election. I read enough to hope that somehow, there would be some way to stop what became more and more evident.
And even shortly after the election, I still clung to the fading hope that some piece of information would come forth that would make the nightmare go away.
But the ugly truth is that, not only is he president, but he has the support of a hard left majority in congress that is alienating the majority of voters by every corrupt piece of legislation that they pass. And they don't care.
Conservatives are being handed a once in a lifetime opportunity. The agenda being pushed by this administration is too far left for some Dems, a majority of Independents, and pretty much the entire Republican Party. November is ours if we don't screw it up. This country can't turn right, far enough or fast enough for me.
Obama's incompetence is much more than I had ever hoped for, but more than anything, I want to discredit his agenda. I fear that much more than I fear the man.
Make no mistake. I see the birther movement as a threat to congressional gains. Andy Martin, Lucas Smith, Orly Taitz, Tim Adams, Rev.Manning, Ron Polarik, etc are not helpful in advancing a conservative agenda. This movement is not benign...it is malignant.
As far as the "Is Obama a natural born citizen" question, I have read the threads and followed the links until I was cross-eyed. My suggestion is, get a competent and willing attorney, run it through the judicial system and make a case, or for God's sakes, LET IT GO! It's morphed from a worthwhile pursuit to an unhealthy obsession.
I mean, what the hell does a freeper posting something on another website have to do with zeroing out the Dept of Education budget!!
THE ANSWER IS NOTHING!!!
But just remember, in politics, what goes around comes around. Whatever legal maneuvers we use against them, however narrowly we want to define eligibility for POTUS, they will use against us. And when that young, charismatic hardcore conservative, whose parents fled a communist dictatorship, wants to make a run at POTUS, let's just make sure we leave room for him as well.
But, the Court did not have the courage to hear the case when Phillip Berg brought the case.
...Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
BTW- who is the sitting president, what is his legal name; Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro? Is the President whoever was standing in front of the Chief Justice during the swearing in? In other words could Chief Justice Roberts have sworn in Joe the plumber and it be Constitutionally binding requiring and act of the Senate for removal.
Plaintiffs, it seems to me are actually trying to have a hearing on the Constitutional requirements for office. If the Court would rule that the president is not eligible, he would not and could not be removed by the court, but the Senate who has a sworn duty would be compelled to use their constitutional authority or face impeachment by vote of the people. Of course the Congress is under the majority of the very people who are thought to have already ignored the question of natural-born status.
The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Barnett et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.”—October 29, 2009
But the ruling of the constitutional question belongs exclusively to the court. The question of conspiring to violate the constitution by members of congress may also belong to the court, but any censure would belong to the congress itself, and of course the voters through elections. The voters can only bring public pressure but the court must rule on the Constitutional question and congress must act on the ruling.
You think you once met Obama, therfore WND is accurate?
Uh, okay...
I once met Henny Youngman, so I believe UFO's are alien spaceships.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other”
Since July 27, 1868 any notion that dual citizenship was accepted was clearly made to be "NULL & VOID" by the POSITIVE LAW passed by Congress. This LAW has NEVER been REPEALED!
Doesn't get any plainer than that now does it
I read that a few days ago from a poster on Post and Email's website. I've forgotten about it thanks for the confirmation and reminder. :-) An expert on the subject of the 1866 Civil Rights Act wrote in his book the reason that the 14th Amendment came into being after Congress passed the Act is that they feared it could be overturned by a future Congress since president Johnson did veto it. Apparently that has not happened in 142 years since its enactment. I think I'll see if I can find that author again.
"1866 Civil Rights Act
14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
CHAP. XXXI.
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; ..."
Then the unambiguous statement in bold is still the law of the land.
Since Obama and henny Youngman have nothing to do with each other, find your own bunny with a pancake on it’s head
Unless you want to discuss reality, that is...
So let me get this straight, you said "I think I met Obama once, so I stand by WND" and you're accusing ME of not discussing reality?
That you couldn't grasp why I posted that line in response to what you posted says it all.
Nice post Spaulding and your analysis of troll techniques employed by Obot Jamese777.
Thank you.
Yes it is and it is being usurped everyday a child born to foreign parents is popped out within any of the 50 states. I hear the new term for it is ‘birther tourism’. Also, I'd be interested in the name of that book on the 14th Amendment.
Excellent patlin - as usual! We do not understand our own laws. Many of us are now learning, thanks to citizens with the intelligence and energy to teach others. Hopefully, we’ll all learn enough in time recover the rights we were born with and which our founders fought establish.
What an argument! It reminds me of the Clinton Impeachment for lying under oath and the Left's non-argument, let's move on, which became MoveOn.org!
The people who are well educated about tyranny and communist dictatorships will never disregard the US Constitution. In fact, they will never allow themselves to live under 0b0z0's communist tyranny. They'll have to stand against it or run away AGAIN and live in another country. There is nowhere to run, right?
Guess what, they won't run away. Their only course of action is NOT to allow this country to become what their parents ran away from. Add to that a large number of Americans who feel the same way, et voila, 0b0z0’s tyrannical regime won't stand a chance in the ballot box.
Those people don't care to run for POTUS unless their parents were naturalized when they were born here, i.e., they are NBCs!
The result, communism won't succeed in the US precisely because of those people who explain to unsuspecting Americans what tyranny can do to citizens.
If I were you, I wouldn't concern myself about what you consider "tightening up the requirements" may do to young candidates. Just follow the Constitution and evict the communist "Constitutional Professor" from where he doesn't belong, no more than one lame duck term, if he's lucky!
Come to think of it, I never saw evidence that Nixon, Ford, Reagan George HW, Clinton, or George W was Constitutionally qualified for the office of president either.
I could be wrong, but that seems to be blank.
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.