Blade:”I think you are right, sourcery, that the NBC argument would be seen as unfair and unjust, yet you miss the core issue and the magnitude. People see you for what you are. Vattel-birthers are not principled contrarians. They are cheaters who started telling the rules different when they did not like who was winning.”
I truly fail to see the legitimacy of your argument, Blade. You continue to harp on the question as to why all the birther’s waited until this President to voice their concern over NBC status. What other President in the past 50 years was even suspect? The only reason it has been aroused at this time is simply because now is the time it applies.
The other reason is that the law (especially in this country) requires study, fact-finding, and much research - this doesn’t happen at the click of your heels. Like any detective work, a continual searching for facts leads down many pathways and blind alleys before arriving at the solution.
Why do you continue to accuse those on this thread of bias? Of course we are biased against a President who wants to take this country to places we all abhorr. The bigger question is why aren’t you just as concerned? Is your beef with birthers or those who want to dismantle Obama? Is it the means you dislike or the ends?
“I truly fail to see the legitimacy of your argument, Blade. You continue to harp on the question as to why all the birther’s waited until this President to voice their concern over NBC status.”
Whether or not you see its legitimacy, I note that you concede on the facts of the matter. We never heard of them advance their legal theory until they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. In our time, for all of Barack Obama’s life and more, anyone could simply look up the term in /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and see that Obama qualified. As far as we can tell, that was just fine with all who are now Vattel-birthers, right up until about November of 2008.
In other threads we’ve seen birthers claim that their grade-school civics textbooks said that only those born to two citizen parents are natural-born. When challenged for a citation, they had none, so they turned around the challenge and asked for civics books that said being born in the United States is sufficient. Challenge met. Some civics books did teach the meaning of natural-born citizen and of those we found 100% of them said that the native-born qualify.
We’ve heard birther claim that politicians don’t care about the Constitution and just ignore the requirement. Nonsense. The Clinton and Nixon administrations published orders of succession that excluded their Secretaries of State, because Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger are not natural-born citizens.
If you don’t think that’s a legitimate point, well, that’s you. The rule that the native-born are natural-born was clear. It was in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, in civics textbooks, legal journals, and court opinions. In our time no one was saying otherwise until the sore losers started telling the rules different when they didn’t like who was winning.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can cite... Oh, I’ve asked that already.
If you do get time to read the thread, please take special note of this post by visually_augmented. It is the single best call-out of an Obot Troll I have ever read. Notice that blade avoids answering it like the plague. It is to questions like these that the combined resources or fogbow, factcheck and obamaconspiracy provide no answer. Only a conservative could answer v_a’s questions, and in this case, they were posed to a liberal.
George Romney’s citizenship was an issue when he was running for president. He was born in Mexico.