Doug - you seem to use the term “birther” a lot in your comments. What is your definition of “birther”? Is it:
A) someone who does not believe 0bama was born in the United States?
B) someone who thinks 0bama is not a natural born citizen based on the conditions of his birth, regardless of whether he was born in the U.S. or not?
The general use of the term “birther” is a pejorative to ridicule and diminish the credibility of those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that 0bama was not born in the U.S.
The “B” definition is someone who is interested in a point of law.
Your use of the “birther” term in the context of discussions about 0bama’s natural born citizen status is an attempt to diminish the credibility of (or ridicule) the person with whom you are discussing, and redefine the current definition of the word in the process.
You are practicing Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, rule 5 and rule 10. This implies that you are not really interested in winning the discussion, just discrediting the person with whom you are discussing.
For the record, I’m sincerely disappointed in Mark Levin (and the rest of the conservative commentators). For someone as Constitutionally-knowledgeable as he is supposed to be, his inability to have a civil discussion about natural born citizenship implies there is something else going on that we don’t know about. It should be easy for him to have a show that lays out why 0bama is a natural born citizen and, in his capacity as a Constitutional scholar, put our doubts to rest. Instead, he ridicules those who broach the subject. Can you imagine the listening audience he’d have with that subject, a civil discussion and callers such as DiogenesLamp, Mario Apuzo and Leo Donofrio?
Maybe he calls them “birthers” cause it’s the only sensible reaction to attempting to have a conversation with them?
There is. It's called the 14th Amendment. Despite the protestation it was to 'free the blacks', it actually created a third type of citizenship. A national 'federal' citizen.
It's why 'illegals' seem to have special rights.... they aren't citizens.
It's why every 'disadvantaged' person gets to go to the head of the line. As federal citizens, we are entitled to only that which the federal government allows us to have.
And it's why no one in government will touch the natural-born citizen issue.
There haven't BEEN any 'natural born citizens' since our 'citizenship' began emanating from the federal government instead of the States, because only State Citizens can be natural born.
-------
I'm secure in the fact I may be ridiculed, mocked, and derided by those who make no attempt to understand this, yet my conscious gives me no choice.
It is the only logical conclusion I can come to after 12 years of studying the matter.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Legal cites concerning two classes of citizens
Yes. His regular audience + 3 more. That is until the birthers began speaking at which point half his audience would change the channel.
Exactly. As his purpose isn't to actually understand the truth, debating with him is a waste of time. I suspect someone very dear to him was born before one of their parents became a citizen, so he regards it as a personal affront to suggest that they are not a "natural" American. He argues from emotion, and with little in the way of reason.
For the record, I’m sincerely disappointed in Mark Levin (and the rest of the conservative commentators). For someone as Constitutionally-knowledgeable as he is supposed to be, his inability to have a civil discussion about natural born citizenship implies there is something else going on that we don’t know about.
I too find it very perplexing that supposedly knowledgeable people intentionally pooh pooh, or avoid any discussion of this subject. The remarkable thing is that two luminaries of the Conservative movement both agree with the underlying premise, but refuse to acknowledge that the theoretical legal foundation which they have laid down in their arguments also encompasses the central tenet of the "birther" argument. Here are George Will and Ann Coulter on the topic of "Anchor Babies."
So they both agree with the "birther" argument in principle, but they just cannot bring themselves to admit it.
On a related point, Fox News was poking around a bit in the Obama birth issue, but I have read that the staff received orders directly from Rupert Murdoch to drop it. The assumption was that he was afraid of the Federal response to his ownership of, and threats to FCC licenses possessed by his Fox News corporation. I don't know if this is true, but I do know that i've read a lot of allegations that Rupert Murdoch himself told Roger Ailes to drop this.