I must state the obvious

The me times ^ | jan 9, 2016 | jdirt

[jdirt]

For the last few days various outlets have been bringing up the eligibility issue of the presidency. And all of them have been so dishonest. Some have stated that it needs to be litigated, some have stated that citizenship and natural born citizen is the same thing, some have stated that only one parent is required when born abroad, still another purported that our first 7 presidents weren't born here so its ok, totally ignoring the grandfather clause, Glenn Beck.

It kinda po's me when people say it should be litigated when anyone with an ounce of integrity should know that it was tried a gadzillion times.

First they lacked standing, then it was the wrong jurisdiction, then it was the wrong defendants, Then the case wasn't ripe, then the candidate became president and so it was moot, the courts said it was a political question, and the congress said it was a question for the courts, as a finishing touch the congressional research dept. came up with i think 3 different lying butt papers on the issue to help congressman explain it to their constituents.

when all else failed the people begged their congressman to not certify the election. that didn't work either. Moral of the story, the people have no recourse what so ever when the elite decide to allow a person ineligible to run for president.

So here is the obvious thing I need to state so that you know what this thing is leading to so there is no misunderstanding:

A person born in this country to 2 non-citizens (like Chinese for example) who grows up in a communist country to the age of 21, then comes to the United States and spends the next 14 years here will be eligible to be president at the age of 35. This will be the ultimate ineligible candidate. And there won't be a thing your grandkids will be able to do about it. Now if someone wants to argue that this is a natural born citizen, you get what you deserve.

Little by little they have been warping the definition of NBC to meet their desires. And yes, a definition absolutely can be inferred by contemporaneous documents. Intellectual dishonesty is the worst kind, if thats possible.

[Vermont Lt]

Your premis is wrong. The law is actually pretty settled. Your straw man argument does not hold up.

Stop being angry and find something else to be pissed off about.

[poconopundit]

Is that true about Rubio?  I read that both his parents became U.S. citizens after he was born.

Is Rubio an anchor baby?

[EternalVigilance]

Because the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen," we must look to the law to define it.

Yes. The law as understood by the framers of the Constitution, when they ratified it. You can't change the Constitution by mere statute. A constitutional amendment is required to do that.

If the birthers are correct that there are multiple types of born citizens, why doesn't the law reflect this? Why has not a single judge ever accepted such an argument?

Judges are also bound by the Constitution, having sworn to support and defend it, no matter what the legislative branch, or anyone else, may or may not do.

[Yaelle]

I don’t know details about Rubio’s birth, but if his parents or even one of them was in the country legally (on tourist or refugee visa, green card), he was born an undeniably legal natural born American. Not an anchor baby. Now, if BOTH parents were illegal, the country is torn because the law is very unclear - right now the powers that be seem to think that these anchor babies are Natural born Americans. I personally think we need an amendment to make only children born to people legally in America citizens.

[Ray76]

Obama never said he is a natural born citizen, only the he is eligible. He then produced a picture and told people - Secretaries of State, Judges, etc - to ask questions about it.

And they did.

Some people can’t tell the difference between piss and rain. Secretaries of State and Judges are soaking wet and not with rain. They’ve been made fools of.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Well said and I completely agree that this is where it’s all headed, they want to dissolve the United States of America ultimately. The border. Immigration controls. The language. Judeo-Christian values. And ultimately capturing the symbolic essence and capstone of the American system of government, the Presidency. Hold the line, folks, only at the ballot box, the SCOTUS will not do it!

[poconopundit]

Thanks. Yes, making the law very explicit would certain be a good move.

[UCANSEE2]

sorry I didn’t know how to post a vanity. please let me know.

Don't worry. You did no worse than anyone else who has posted a vanity thread. I was just yanking your chain a little because vanity posts are ususally frowned on (because the intent of the owner of the website is that you post a 'source article' and then we debate the article.

One suggestion is that you include the following in the title. (Vanity) Many do that as a form of courtesy.

As far as the rest of your comment, you kind of lost me.

So... I'll just ask you this.

Do you think the next President (whomever it is) will be able to turn this nation around and lead us back to being a prosperous and respected world leader ?