Posted on 02/10/2012 6:27:16 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer
That wasn’t a personal attack, just a statement of the obvious based on your comments.
You are wrong and you know it... you are trying way too hard Kansas.
You are right on Georgia Girl.
Kansas is working for someone’s benefit... no doubt.
Not sure about them being tied back to any particular organization or candidate, but I suspect they have a serious man-crush on Rubio. The shrill and condescending tone is quite reminiscent of another recently departed poster.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has never defined natural born Citizen any other way than born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. Citizen parents. “
Ding ding ding!
I like Rubio, but let’s face it: he’s better off fixing Florida after the mess that RINO left it in. But if a Florida politician should be running for President, it better be Lt. Col. Allen West.
You not only know nothing;
you suspect nothing.
He has protected status.
I guess that answers my question.
Standing up for and defending the Constitution is my duty as a United States Citizen. I've taken an oath to do so and so have you, Mr. Robinson.
“You are wrong and you know it... you are trying way too hard Kansas.”
So, not only can you read the minds of the dead, with perfect accuracy (our Founders) -— You can also read MY mind, as well?
No, you are wrong, and I know that you are wrong.
Yes, I am right, and I know that I am right.
You have NOBODY, not a single person with any legal authority at all, in this Country, who agrees with you.
NOT ONE!
No, the children of diplomats are NOT “—subject to the jurisdiction thereof-—” and would not be citizens at birth, automatically.
The vast majority of conservatives disagree with bithers, on citizenship issues.
However, I have never heard a single of your opponents argue that a child of a diplomat would be a citizen. You are errected straw-man arguments.
Another point: the foreigner, Vattel, was never a citizen of this country, was never a voter in this country, was never a delegate to the Continental Congress, or the Constitutional Convention. The Foreigner, Vattel, was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and he never served in Congress.
Vattle is not a binding legal authority.
Vattle is mearly a legal reference and foot note in history, nothing more.
When Congress had no other guidlines, Courts looked to Common Law and Natural Law for instruction.
However, Congress has noe deifned Citizenship, and Acts of Congress trump Common Law and Vattel.
Birthers are not defending the Constitution. They are distorting it for political purposes. Exactly the kind of thing real defenders oppose.
Birthers are not defending the Constitution. They are distorting it for political purposes. Exactly the kind of thing real defenders oppose.
Birthers are not defending the Constitution. They are distorting it for political purposes. Exactly the kind of thing real defenders oppose.
Won't be the first time, I'm sure.
You do not know what you are talking about, others are trying to help you understand legal and historical issues, yet -— you seem to think that it is OK to tell those of us who disagree with you on this (the vast majority of conservatives DO disagree with you) -— well you do not get to tell us that we are against the Constitution.
I have just as much "right" to tell YOU that you are against the Constitution, as you do to tell me that Natural Born Citizens can have either or neither parent a citizen. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! And the Supreme Court agrees with ME, not you.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE PATRIOTISM OF ANYONE ON FR???
Quite easily. There are so many here (like you?) who don't care about what the Founders cared about. The Founders were concerned about the loyalties of those who occupied the office of President. People who deny that Presidents should be an NBC aren't thinking like the Founders, or following the Constitution.
You can not find a single quote, from a single founder, which supports your case.
Not one!
I have shown you, however, that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, agrees that Congress CAN interpret and define Citizenship issues, and that Madison also believed that being born on US Soil was enough to grant Citizenship at Birth!
Who is paying you? Why do you get so bent out of shape when people appeal to Supreme Court decisions?
I would post some quotes from the Federalist Papers and Supreme Court decisions, but I don't think evidence would sway you. You seem way too zealous and close-minded for that.
If the Moderators were awake, I should think you would be zotted by now.
I am not being stubborn, you are!
You have virtually no support, from any Conservative organization, for this cause.
You do not have the support of a single elected official.
You do not have the support of a single Election Officer in any State.
-— And the Supreme Court Decisions you birthers have posted are:
1.) Not Controlling if the case came before Congressional Action on Citizenship issues.
2.) Cases that do NOT support your position, anyway! (saying all red barns are red does not prove that all barns are red or that everything that is red is a barn! Learn the difference between inclusive and exclusive language!)
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.