Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
“You’re apparentlysaying that because no court has—in our time—held a distinction between natural born and native that they’ve somehow become equivalent, as if time itself works to supersede Minor (or any other judicial decision, it would appear).”
See post 77 where I quoted some real courts calling native-born children of foreigners natural-born citizens, and 55 for a real court naming the controlling precedent.
And no, I’ve never said the two terms are equivalent. My position is that native-born citizens are a proper subset of natural-born citizens.
(Sigh...) Still haven’t had time to read the thread. Maybe tomorrow!!
The question he’s considering is the “eligibility to the office of the presidency of a child born of American parents at sea or in a foreign territory”. He concluded that they are natural born citizens, not that the native born are not, certainly not post 14’th Amendment.
Irrelevant. Here's what he wrote:
Let me repeat the important part for you: Now, if it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person except a native-born citizen," but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth."
You wanted a post-WKA reference to two-citizen-parents. You have it. Now are you going to admit you were wrong? I seriously doubt it.
WildSnail wrote: “I’ve told you before that I worried that my now six-year-old son (i.e. pre-Obama) would not be eligible for the presidency since his mother was just a permanent resident. You blew off that comment, and those of several others here, claiming we made it all up post-2008 to support our idea.”Your recollection of a worry? And why didn’t you just look it up in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the one the U.S. Supreme Court most frequently cites, as West Publishing wants us all to know? Was it so important to you that your son not be eligible that you played constitutional scholar and searched for justification to disqualify him?
Why on God's green earth would I look it up in Black's? Why would I search for justification to disqualify him? Here, let me type real slow so you can understand it: M.y. .p.e.r.m.a.n.e.n.t. .r.e.s.i.d.e.n.t. .w.i.f.e. .w.a.s. .p.r.e.g.n.a.n.t. .a.n.d. .i.t. .o.c.c.u.r.r.e.d. .t.o. .m.e. .t.h.a.t. .m.y. .s.o.n. .w.o.u.l.d. .b.e. .u.n.q.u.a.l.i.f.i.e.d. .f.o.r. .p.r.e.s.i.d.e.n.t. .b.e.c.a.u.s.e. .I. .w.a.s. .a.w.a.r.e. .o.f. .t.h.e. .t.w.o.-.c.i.t.i.z.e.n.-.p.a.r.e.n.t.s. .r.e.q.u.i.r.e.m.e.n.t. l.o.n.g. .b.e.f.o.r.e. .I. .e.v.e.r. .h.e.a.r.d. .o.f. .B.H.O!
Do you get it now? Do you understand you are calling me a liar? Without any proof whatsoever, but just because to want to believe that nobody believed the two-citizen-requirement prior to 2008? Please go the f!@# away you imbecilic perfidious poltroon.
If you do get around to perusing the thread, you can save yourself considerable time by skipping blade’s comments. Why, you ask? Well, look at it this way. With time short, would you spend a large chunk of it at factcheck, obamaconspiracy or fogblow, getting up to speed on all the latest moonbat shill for Obama? If not, then why read their exact words and ‘arguments’ just because they’re here and not there? You would be trusting an Obot liberal to provide you w something worth reading. That is a stretch on a good day. Life is short; less moonbattery makes what there is of it far more enjoyable. :)
ROTFLOL!! I never read any of the 0bomatron’s words, if I do, it’s by mistake. I used to, a couple of years ago, but now? As you say, life is short. The stalwarts on FR who debate with them and continually prove them wrong and expose them do a fantastic job. I’m just an observer, so I don’t have any need to slog through the muck...
BTW we just finished That Hideous Strength. Such excellent descriptions of - well, so many things - that are exactly relevant now. I highly recommend the entire trilogy to read in your “spare” time.
Thanks for the recommendation. It’s definitely on my list.
Agree w you about the Obamatron! In fact, I’ve noticed fewer and fewer are reading the Obot posts. Once you realize there is nothing objective there, but only rote shilling for The Won, the posts cease to hold even the hope of being interesting and engaging.
Agree as well about those who do battle w the trolls...but I’ve noticed even some of them are tuning them out. You can’t reason w an Obot. Reason is not the wavelength they operate on. All they care about is justifying Obama. That gets old and boring very quickly.
I didn't just start saying he was not qualified in December 2008.
In 1970 I had a teacher tell our class, not out of a handbook, but from her knowledge, that NBC required two citizen parents.
You don't like the fact that many other people are relating similar events, so you insinuate they are all liars. You can't handle the truth. The truth is, about 30 percent or more of the public know he's not qualified.
The troll behavior of Obombatrons is the worst of any other segment of trolldom. They repeat like machines the same proven-wrong junk over and over again. Have they no shame?
I remember being told about two citizen parents almost 40 years ago. I remember where the the teacher was standing in the classroom, and the expression on her face. Even as a kid, politics fascinated me, along with beautiful teachers.
As a child of 4, I had a poster of all Presidents on my bedroom wall, and I still remember it.
I remember telling my daughter , summer of 2008, that he wasn't qualified. It was so fricking unreal, the thought of electing someone with dual citizenships at birth. But Jackass McCain wouldn't allow anyone to put a glove on Obama. McCain succeeded.
“1926 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.”
Fair enough; I have to give you that one. They’re not specifically addressing the eligibility of the native-born there, but they do use the Vattelist version of the term.
So now it’s between 1926 - 2008 that I can’t find anyone implying that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon his parents citizenship. Can anyone fill in at either end?
WildSnail asked: “Why on God’s green earth would I look it up in Black’s? Why would I search for justification to disqualify him?”
To find the answer, of course.
WildSnail asked: “Why would I search for justification to disqualify him?”
That’s my question yes. With the legal authorities in our time in agreement that your native-born son is potentially eligible, why would you look for fringe theories arguing he’s not? Why not just accept the overwhelming evidence that he is? It makes no sense.
WildSnail asked: “Do you get it now? Do you understand you are calling me a liar?”
There’s a big difference between calling you a liar and asking for the evidence that what you say is true. I’m not looking for stories of the recollections of people posting behind pseudonyms. And spare me the e-tantrums; people constantly make up stories that I’m some paid propagandist.
Please tell us what the Federal Judge is sayin bout that obscure Vattel’s Law of Nations...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2821482/posts?page=144#144
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.