[DiogenesLamp]

Whether or not it was the conspiracy you imagine, the CRS report does recognize the time scale: “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.

What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.

Given that I have repeatedly posted the following which completely disproves your statement, I can only come to the conclusion that you are LYING when you say that.

1916:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within

1884:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

At this point, I will remember you have definitely been notified as to the untruth of your statement. Should you make it again, I am going to call you a liar, and I am going to link my comments back to this post where you were notified once again that this issue has a long history, and is not the result of people picking on poor little idiot Barack.

And just for good measure, we'll throw in the Boston Globe, 1896.

[edge919]

Excellent find on the clipping.

[bluecat6]

Page 5 of Breckinridge:

“Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.”

That is fairly clear. To be constitutionally “natural born” you have to retain that status FROM birth, not just AT birth. Not that Obama had that status AT birth if the legally accepted birth circumstances are correct.

[BladeBryan]

“Given that I have repeatedly posted the following which completely disproves your statement, I can only come to the conclusion that you are LYING when you say that.

1916:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within";

Let’s read it and see who’s lying. Long argues:

“Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”

Oh look — he wants to apply the law from *more* than a century ago, though writing 95 years ago.

DiogenesLamp cites: “1884:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States";

Is that too hard a subtraction problem for you, to figure out that 1884 is more than a century ago? Or are you justified in disputing my claim of “in our time” because you are over 127 yeas old? Here again are the claims you were trying to refute:

Whether or not it was the conspiracy you imagine, the CRS report does recognize the time scale: “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.

What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.