Can you prove that it didn't happen?
Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
See, now even you are confusing "native citizen" with "natural-born citizen."
Here's the crux of my question:
Birthers claim that in the Minor case, Justice Waite defined NBC a certain way. Uncle Chip said that Waite's definition made NBC a synonym for "native." And yet birthers also claim there's a difference between NBC and just "native citizen," based on wording in WKA. If NBC means the same as "native," I don't see how "native citizen" can mean something else again. I'm hoping one of you can clear this up.
I think you’re being deliberately confusing. Clear it up yourself.
Ummm, you were the one who brought up rules for what constitutes premeditation of fraud. "People trying to commit fraud don’t publish books about the fradulent activity twelve years in advance of the so-called 'fraud.'" This only makes sense if he knew twelve years in advance he was going to run for president. Now you've shot your argument in the foot by admitting that Obama didn't decide to run until December 2006. The question is how do you run for president when you know you aren't eligible?? Shift attention to someone else instead of you. Hence, the John McCain resolution. Thank you once again for proving me right. You make it too easy for me.
There's nothing out of context. This is the lazy excuse faithers come up with when they can't refute an argument, hoping they can bluff their way out of defeat. In context, the definition for natural born citizen falls OUTSIDE of the Constitution and requires persons to be born IN the country of citizen parents. The court recognized that any other definition had to be justified, but not this one. What part of that context do you disagree with and why?? Make a real argument. If you can.
I think your inability to resolve the contradiction clears things up just fine. Thanks.
Please cite anywhere in the decision where they said they were expanding the common law definition of natural born citizen. This is total delusion.
The 14th Amendement is redundant with respect to free persons, as it did not change the criteria necessary for free persons to be natural born citizens.
Right. Free persons still have to be born of citizen parents in the country in order to be natural born citizens. The 14th amendment created citizenship at birth for persons not born to citizen parents, so there's no redundancy unless someone is too dim to realize their citizenship isn't contingent on the 14th amendment.
That's why the court in Kim Wong Ark relied as much on common law precedent as it did on the 14th Amendment.
No, they used common law to justify citizenship for the children of those persons with permanent allegiance because natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA. It's why they emphasized that WKA was born to parents who had a permanent domicile and were permanent residents in the United States. It's in the decision in a couple of places, particularly at the conclusion where they give their judgment. Incidentally, Obama was NOT born to a permanent resident father and arguably not a permanent resident mother.
Are you trying to win another argument for me?? That's what I said. "The focus on Obama’s inability to prove his place of birth kept most people from realizing that his parents’ citizenships mattered too." I'm really worried about you today. You keep falling on the sword. It's weird.
Your confusion is self-inflicted. Just quit self-inflicting yourself.
Can you prove that it didn't happen?
No, the question is "How do you run for President when you published a book clearly stating a fact that would make you ineligible."
Answer: You don't.
I'm trying not to laugh too hard, but this is pure fiction. You're connecting dots they never connected and what you quoted fails to support this. I would agree WKA was determined to a citizen per the Constitution, but only by virtue of the 14th amendment. Nothing in that decision says WKA is a natural born citizen. And your ridiculous game of connecting mismatching dots doesn't create such a statement.
Nonsense. Criminals do stupid things all the time. Just in the news as of yesterday, we had a purse snatcher who managed to get his picture taken by the family he was stealing from. I told you faithers how Obama used misdirection to get away with it.
The purse snatcher got caught. If your asserted requirements for NBC status were correct, Obama would be caught red-handed (and no state would put him on the ballot, no elector would have voted for him, and Congress would have refused to certify the result if they had). Ergo, your asserted requirements are inconsistent with the law under which the government actually operates.
True. The first third of the decision is just there for decoration. And the fact that they found NBC to be precisely analogous with NBS, and the term only changed due to the change is system of government, and that WKA qualified as a NBS...all that is just silly musing. They didn’t mean anything by it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I explained that native-born was considered the same as natural-born according to Vattel's definition. It was not just solely based on jus soli (cool pun too). Read it.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Vattels says natives OR natural-born citizens. He's using these terms interchangeably. Remove the natural-born citizen clause.
"The natives are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Do you understand?? To be a native of a country, you still have to have be born jus sanguinis as well as jus soli. Both factors apply.
Today, as in the 21st century, Americans have been dumbed down into thinking to be native simply means to have jus soli birth, but that's not the legal definition used by the Supreme Court. Let's read Waite's paraphrase of Vattel.
"... all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..."
Do you understand yet?? Let's read it WIHTOUT the NBC clause ...
" ... all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives ... as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
So, according to both Vattel (common law) and the SCOTUS (U.S. law), to be a native, you have to be born in a country of parents who are citizens. The inverse reads that if born in a country of parents who are not citizens, you are an alien or foreigner. The only 'confusing' aspect of this is why people don't understand that you have to have citizen parents to be a native or natural born citizen. It's pretty simple.
http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980/
Do birthers just blindly believe anything that supports their theory, regardless of evidence?
Please don’t call a fellow FReeper a liar behind his back. Next time include the person!
Maybe you should also stop playing your games with posting false information about where the parents of our past Presidents were born. Go troll somewhere else.
James you are completely ignorant about when 0bama decided to run for president. It was at least 30 years ago!
http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980/
Why do you waste so much of your life defending that POS fraud? Get a life Jimmy boy!
I defend the law of the land and the Constitution, not Obama.
If a Grand Jury is convened and produces evidence that Obama committed a crime and that evidence becomes the basis for impeachment, so be it.
If Obama is impeached, tried by the Senate, convicted and removed from office, I could care less.
But that’s the appropriate way to accomplish that feat.
Most likely in the "MISSING" or "destroyed"(???) Passport application pages for SAD conveniently hidden like Hillary's billing papers (Whitewater???)!!!
Are you trying to win another argument for me?? That’s what I said. “The focus on Obama’s inability to prove his place of birth kept most people from realizing that his parents’ citizenships mattered too.” I’m really worried about you today. You keep falling on the sword. It’s weird.
The fact is that it was all the plaintiffs in the Obama eligibility lawsuits who focused on birth in Hawaii, not Obama or “the Democrats.” Obama reacted to those lawsuits by posting the scanned image of his COLB on the Fight the Smears website.
I do enjoy your running commentary on what’s happening in the debate while you are also a part of it! Its very entertaining to see you attempting to be a legend in your own mind and declaring your own fantasies of victory!
For all but the really, really stupid who are living in the state of Denial, Obama has proven where and when he was born and he has had that information backed up by the Governor of that state, the Director of Health of that State, the Attorney General of that state and the Registrar of Vital Statistics for that State.
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.