“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.
Oh look — he wants to apply the law from *more* than a century ago, though writing 95 years ago.
This may be complicated for you, but Article II was written at that time, and it's provisions did not change.
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:
Your objection is beside the point. The gist of your statement is that this issue is a "made up" "Phony Balony" issue created by "birthers" just to pick on the "black" President, when in fact it has ALWAYS been an issue, and but for the persistence of people (such as yourself) who insist on obfuscating it, The American people would be better informed.
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”.
You mistake me for someone else. I see no "conspiracy." What I see is Democrat Hacks protecting other Democrat hacks. If you look at it that way, the Democrat party is nothing more than one big conspiracy. (Which probably isn't far off the truth at that.)
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.
And AGAIN, I have to explain this to you! The FIRST question of interest was whether Barack was EVEN A CITIZEN. That had to be (sort-of) established before it was even worthwhile to consider the NEXT question, that being whether he was a "Natural born citizen." Till some sort of evidence was produced to indicate whether or not he was even BORN here, there was no reason whatsoever to worry if he met any criteria beyond that. As it stands now, I've not yet seen irrefutable proof that he even has 14th Amendment citizenship.
Who'da thunk that Hawaii would issue birth certificates to people not actually born there?
The salient point here is that YOU are attempting to mislead others, and impugn the motives of those who question the eligibility of Barack Obama. You can couch it in whatever hidden terms you like, but your intentions shine through quite clearly, and in my opinion they are dishonest. I'm having none of your qualifiers such as "in our time", we both know what you are getting at.
I take you back to the year 2005, long before I ever heard of him. My wife was pregnant with our son. As my wife was a permanent resident at the time, I distinctly remember myself thinking that our son would never be able to be POTUS. Immediately followed by the thought that I would never want him to be POTUS, anyway.
For as long as I can remember, my understanding of nbC was always "born in the country to two citizen parents." And there have been plenty of other posts on these threads from other people who also have believed the same for many years. So please stop pretending that it's a new idea. It's not.
Now go away.