Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
It appears you want to be spoon fed here and I’ve done more than my part on this.
Natural Born is not the same as native born but you seem to miss the distinction.
I also forgot to mention that his campaign stated he was a Foreign Born National. It was on Fight the Smears according to NewsMax.
So was Arnold.
That statement reflects the absolute perversion of the rule of law and morality that will bring about the internal destruction of this great country. The root concept of legitimacy is the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, not consensus. Killing babies in the womb is not made legitimate by consensus opinion.
You mistake the public's lack of awareness and ignorance of the basic facts as their implicit acceptance of those facts. When has that premise ever legitimized an immoral, unethical, or unconstitutional practice? Given that argument, the South's practice of enslaving, beating, and hanging black men was legitimate because that was the consensus opinion back then.
“The Obama campaign acknowledged at its “Fight the Smears” Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his father’s British then Kenyan citizenship. “
There is reason to believe that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii. He could prove that he was by releasing the Long form. The short form only says his birth was registered there, foreign born babies were regularly registered in Hawaii in 1961.
Only the Long form can prove it.
“Book 1, para 214, last sentence”:
“Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Alright, when I said, “Vattel appears to say that the only people who qualify as subjects or citizens at all are those born to citizen parents,” what I meant is that the only people who can qualify as BORN citizens are the children of two citizens. And this confirms it. He calls children of the soil naturalized, which in our language means by virtue of some mechanism after birth.
We all know the 14th amendment names two types of citizens: 1) children born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof, and 2) naturalized citizens. If Vattel ever had any authority on the subject, it has been lost. We no longer use his language. Soil babies are not naturalized.
“you seem to miss the distinction”
It doesn’t exist. At least not since the passage of the 14th amendment.
Exactly how illiterate are you?
Or do you just hate America?
Actually, yes, Arnold can run for president. There are no legal procedures in place at the state or federal level to require that a presidential candidate prove his/her eligibility. Some states require the candidate to swear/affirm that he/she is eligible for the presidency, but that’s the extent of the requirements. We’re dependent upon the Congress to raise objections during the certification of the electoral votes. Otherwise, Arnold can’t be stopped.
“It appears you want to be spoon fed here and I’ve done more than my part on this.”
I do enjoy reading secondary commentaries. It’d be nice if we had a primary source outlining exactly what natural born meant in 1789 and 1866, respectively. But we don’t. So for now, favorite Birther quotes are fine. I wouldn’t consider providing them spoon feeding. It’s not you educating me so much as you buttressing your own opinion.
I get this feeling that you consider me a lost child, unaware of the mountain of documentary evidence and theory on the subject. I might advise you that the vast, vast majority of legal experts and political pundits alike fall on my side of the issue. So lay off the “Stop bothering me and read everything I’ve read so you can start agreeing with me” stuff.
o’rly.
“Exactly how illiterate are you?
Or do you just hate America?”
I’ve at least read the 14th amendment, like every other schoolboy/girl. It says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States “
Get that? Born OR naturalized. Meaning people born in the U.S. aren’t naturalized citizens. They’re born citizens. Yet Vattel says children born on a nation’s soil not of citizen parents are naturalized. How to explain this discrepancy? Easy. Vattel used the word naturalized differently than we.
Wrong.
Arnold may be a citizen, but he isn’t Natural Born.
If Obama were born in Hawaii, they he would be Natural Born. He has not proved he was born there, only that he as a COLB from there. The two are not equal. If Obama were not born on the Island, then he is of British Nationality, and has US papers obtained by virtue of a fraud perpetrated upon the people and state of Hawaii.
Only a Natural Born Citizen can run for POTUS.
Arnold is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is a Naturalized Citizen. For the same reason, Obama may be a Naturalized Citizen.
The only way you are going to even begin to sort it all out is by seeing all of his Birth Records held by the State of Hawaii.
“Actually, yes, Arnold can run for president.”
Fine, he can run. I think the Communist Party candidate was openly not a natural born citizen this past year as well. But the MSM and the voters won’t let him off the hook. And unlike with Obama, it’s not a matter of secret BCs. Everyone knows he wasn’t born a citizen. He’s so high-profile, I have a feeling the law would come down on him swiftly if he tried.
I think that you are confusing several things.
1. Note that I said “without a legal judgement”. We do not have established law on the meaning of “natural born” in this case. All the stuff cited on every side is tangential, vague, supeceded, or all of the above. Its your opinion vs every other opinion, all worth precisely nothing.
In that case, what is our legal authority ? None, it is merely the de-facto acceptance by the people. We are left with that. The rule of law is not perverted, it is just a vacuum.
2. “The root concept of legitimacy is the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, not consensus”
That is incorrect. We are speaking of political legitimacy here. You see the problem when you must ask whose concept of right and wrong applies. Mine, yours, your cousins, Al Sharptons ?
If there is existing law we can, most of us most of the time, agree that the law is the law, our agreement is automatic if we value the law itself. But if there is no law ? Then the legitimate ruler has always been he who can command the most supporters, or at least obtain the aquiescence of most. In this case, concerning the meaning of “natural born”, we have a consensus permitting Obama his qualification.
In the face of that, its very unlikely that any court is going to take this case. And even if one did, to define the law, they would still not find against this consensus.
3. The public has the basic facts, sufficient to this case - mother American, born in the USA. You can attempt to re-educate the public if you like with additional facts, but you are unlikely to get far.
4. You hold that this situation is unconstitutional. That is your opinion, but that opinion is not relevant to anyone else until the proper authorities declare that it is unconstitutional. They have declined to even take the case.
5. The South’s practices were legal.
“That statement reflects the absolute perversion of the rule of law and morality that will bring about the internal destruction of this great country. The root concept of legitimacy is the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, not consensus. Killing babies in the womb is not made legitimate by consensus opinion.”
You confuse Natural Law with man-made law.
“Maybe they did, by distinguishing between citizen and natural born citizen.”
I agree, and I figure that’s what happened. Only they did so for their own time, not for all time. As you indicate, things change. Even if they don’t deserve criticism for failing to anticipate 14th amendment babies, they could have erased all doubt rather easily. They could have defined out loud what natural born meant to them. Or they could have chucked the phrase and simply told us only the children of two citizen parents can be presient.
Maybe you just don’t realize that’s an exclusive clause. But why use your admitted illiteracy as an excuse for rewriting the Constitution in favor of foreign dictatorship?
Wouldn’t it be more logical to overcome your illiteracy, and educate yourself? You seem determined rather to revel in it.
Rabies is a terrible disease, you have my sympathy and good wishes.
Thanks for the comment and link. However, I stand by my position.
I understand there is a notational difference a regular citizen and a “natural born citizen.” The latter has been clearly defined to be the offspring of two US citizens who was born within the territory of the United States, while the former was merely born in the US with only one or neither parent as a US citizen.
People who object to Obama on this issue demand a distinction that has never been explicitly decided by the US Supreme Court. Practical interpretation has no functional difference between the two types of citizenship whereas the birthers demand a rigid separation. Why? Well, to be honest, due to ideological reasons: because it potentially applies to someone they don’t like. I’d warrant 99.9% of birthers initially thought if someone was born in the US, he or she is automatically an American citizen since that has been the conventional cultural understanding. It is ONLY this issue that has caused them to latch on there being a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
Let’s be honest. Every single birther, especially those who participate on this forum, will believe exactly the OPPOSITE if Obama was actually a conservative and Republican while those screaming at the top of their lungs at an ineligible president will be the liberals and Democrats.
Thus, it’s eminently unfair to lambast those who can’t see the difference between citizen and natural born citizen.
The distinction was never an issue in the past and even if the USSC eventually decides Obama is ineligible and should be removed; the consequences would be disastrous: what could be more retroactive than one’s birth status and do we really want to see him gone on a USSC fiat technicality?
No, Obama has to be allowed to continue what he and his fellow liberals want to accomplish. It is only until after the precipice is reached when the American public will wake up and stop allowing itself to be duped by those wishing to destroy their nation and enslave them and their children to a lifetime of misery. IOW, just as any fool, America needs to hit rock bottom before smarting up.
No, I view you as one who hasn’t even read the basic stuff on the threads let alone having ventured off the beaten path. Meanwhile you’re ignoring what is inconvenient.
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.