Notice that Obama moved up his timetable to visit Indonesia right after the November elections. A good time for him to look for another place to live.
>>“Methinks you have a problem with consistency.”
>
>Methinks you have a problem with reading.
> [...]
>WKA addresses the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ [...], pointing out that as long as the parents were present ‘in amity’, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens.
I’m going to come at this from
First: “In Amenity” is not the same thing as “In Animosity” which the vast majority of “guest workers are.” {This is only tangential to the discussion.}
Second: You are saying that the child was born in the US; this is itself debatable in the case of Obama; his own grandmother claims to have been present, in Kenya, for his birth whilst the stories of his birth-in-Hawaii claimed different hospitals. Yes it *COULD* have been that his sister, IIRC who it was giving the interview, simply forgot and threw out the name of the first Hawaii hospital that came to mind. Your siding w/ the courts to throw out all eligibility cases based on these and what other investigations of the facts have turned up is irksome. (The equivalent of hearing the stories of Hercules containing widely differing accounts and wondering which, if any, were the truth... and then being forbidden from presenting any evidence contrary to whatever the current storyteller is uttering.)
>And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founder’s intent when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
>And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
>The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
*sigh* - You are agreeing with me that birth-location alone does NOT NECESSARILY make one a NBC.
>>“And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?”
>
>Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, I’m willing to admit that the courts don’t agree with my interpretation.
Really? You were so willing to dismiss out-of-hand the validity of the eligibility-suits because of what the courts were/are doing; does this mean that you are willing to dismiss out-of-hand your own disagreement with the courts (regarding firearms)?
>And while it pisses me off, I don’t go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it.
IOW, “Yep.” [To the above question.]
I haven’t gotten around to doing it yet, as I want to finish School first, but there are several state & city laws which violate my State Constitution that I plan on challenging.
>If I can, I’ll vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
IOW, “it’s not my fault!”
Notice that Obama moved up his timetable to visit Indonesia right after the November elections. A good time for him to look for another place to live.
I said, as the court did, “in amity”. Amity = “1. friendship; peaceful harmony. 2. mutual understanding and a peaceful relationship, esp. between nations; peace; accord.”
IOW, those here with the consent of the government and IAW its will. Ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments sent there at the will of the other government, and invading armies are, of course, not there “in amity”.
Was Obama Sr here “in amity”? Of course. He was here with the permission and assent of the US government. If you can argue that he was either an Ambassador or Invading Army, then under WKA he would NOT be a NBS or thus a NBC. And of course, if he was born outside the US, then all concede he is ineligible.
As for the 2nd Amendment, I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed.” I don’t care if he is a convicted felon, once he has done his time, he has the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Very few people agree with me, even in Arizona, where ‘constitutional carry’ doesn’t extend to ex-felons. Nor is there any chance that I could get the courts to agree with me. So no, I won’t waste time bringing cases. Maybe you have unlimited funds to spend doing stupid things, but I do not. I’ll give money to Jesse Kelly and hope he beats Gabby Giffords. (https://www.votejessekelly.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1) At 52, I don’t expect to change the world overnight, nor to do it via the courts. For now, I’d be glad to see other states adopt Arizona gun laws.
If you have spare cash, please give first to Jesse Kelly before spending it filing lawsuits you cannot win. We need to win in politics for 20+ years so we can fill the courts with honest judges first.