Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Founders in their wisdom and exactness of language as to intent added that little word ‘neither’ before adding the language/words you quote. As such in my thinking the first stated wording as to requiring a ‘natural born citizen’ was not abrogated in any way as being a specific requirement but was reinforced intentionally by providing that in addition to such the person must also have ‘..attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States’.
I will answer your question if you will answer mine first. Namely, are you a conservative? If so, why? Have you ‘always’ been a conservative [i.e.: from your youngest days], or did you convert? If you converted, why did you convert? Either way, what in your opinion are the three most pertinent bedrock beliefs of conservatives? What are the three gravest harms/damages, in your opinion, Obama has wrought on the US so far?
Obviously you don’t have to answer. But if you opt out, don’t expect any further replies from me. I’ve come to the place where I like to know who I’m talking to. So respond or not as you prefer.
If you are saying that they are separate and independent requirements — that one must be a natural born citizen and additionally must meet the age and residency requirements — then I think you are correct.
“Obviously you don’t have to answer.”
__
Obviously not. And you must have pitiful little confidence in your opinions if you are only willing to discuss them with people who first agree to take your silly qualifying exam.
A real conservative can’t talk enough about it. He/she is delighted w the chance to expound on the merits of conservatism, and why he/she embraces it. Your nasty response is identical to what one would expect from a liberal.
What is it, anyway, w you pro-soilers and nastiness? Reminds me of the stuff I’ve read on DU, whenever they discuss conservatives. Granted nastiness is the default of _some_ conservatives, it is not the default of most. Otoh, I’ve seen more nastiness from liberals in my life than I could describe in a very large book. It is their second nature, at least when they encounter a conservative.
“A real conservative can’t talk enough about it.”
__
How odd! Then your refusal to answer my question is an indication that you are not a real conservative? Why are you not “delighted w the chance to expound on the merits” of your argument?
Let me guess: You are afraid to expose your ideas to someone who you fear might have an opposing view.
It is not in any way irrelevant to bring up Wright, or Ayers. They are qualified to run, per the Constitution, yet they hate America. The Constitution has nothing in it that prevents someone who hates America from running.
Yes the Constitution requires a person to be a NBC, AND at least 35, AND to have been a resident for 14 years. Thus my example:
Someone born of citizen parents in the USA, which you admit is a NBC. Moved abroad at 6 months, they remain a US citizen. Bought up in a foreign country as a citizen of that country - Iran or Italy, take your choice.
At 45, after 44.5 years of living as a foreign citizen overseas, having retained US citizenship at 21, he moves back. 14 years later, he could run for President.
If you prefer, have him move back at 21, retaining his NBC status, and running at 35 - having spent over half his life living as a citizen of Iran.
Can he run for President? Is his loyalty divided? In what sense would Obama’s loyalty be divided any more?
The Founders were trying to prevent a foreign monarch from coming over. Thus, for President only, a person cannot be a NATURALIZED citizen, but must be one by birth. However, the legal term they used DID allow them to be born in the USA to non-citizen parents. That is the undisputed meaning of NBS and thus NBC, which is the Americanized version, used at the time interchangeably.
I don’t care if you don’t like it.
But lets turn this around. What REASON do you have for believing NBC requires 2 citizen parents?
Every time you post, you sound more like a liberal than the last time. Why not come right out and admit it? I don’t mind discussing issues w liberals. I will not, however, discuss anything w a liberal pretending to be a conservative. That’s just too dishonest.
At this point, Mr Rogers, I have answered all your questions—including the one w which you concluded your last post. Why are you asking me to waste my time by repeating myself? If you didn’t listen the first time, that’s not my problem.
Mr Rogers asked, “Can he run for President? Is his loyalty divided? In what sense would Obama’s loyalty be divided any more?”
If you don’t want to answer my question, why don’t you answer his? I think you’re just looking for excuses to duck the issue.
They are separate and independent ‘requirements’ but joined by/with/in the declaration of eligibility. As I noted the key is the use and placement of the word ‘neither’ that many people ignore intentionally or unintentionally.
” He/she is delighted w the chance to expound on the merits of conservatism, and why he/she embraces it.”
I’ve done so for 12,000 posts. But the topic of THIS thread isn’t what conservative ideas sound great. It is taking an originalist approach to interpreting the US Constitution, which is generally a conservative view.
Why do you think we should substitute YOUR ideas for the legal words used by the Founders?
“a liberal pretending to be a conservative. That’s just too dishonest.”
__
LOL, you’re really desperate, aren’t you? Where have I pretended anything? I simply declined to sit for your ridiculous loyalty test.
And I notice you’ve ducked Mr Rogers’s question again.
Talk about dishonest! You have no shame, have you?
You have answered none of them, except that you apparently believe we need to add in a loyalty test based on genetics.
Your view appears to be, ‘If I just get nastier and nastier, sooner or later I can force this person to do what I demand he/she should do’.
Pardon me, but that is just stupid.
“Pardon me, but that is just stupid.”
__
Of course. How stupid to think that someone in the middle of a discussion would answer a clearly posed question without first requiring the person who asked it to submit to a grilling about his political history.
What on earth could I have been thinking? Why would I imagine that the person was just doing a silly dance to avoid answering the question?
Indeed I have answered all questions. Advise you go back and read my prior posts. I will not repeat/retype the info ad infinitum. (I really thought you were reading my posts the first time. If I had suspected you were merely skimming or reading w’out comprehension, I’d have stopped responding sooner.)
Truly, you write fantasy.
You have a nice day too, Mr Rogers.
The quotes you gave prove my point: Judge Lind ruled that even if the original authorization for the orders were given by Joseph Stalin, the orders would be “lawful”. If Joseph Stalin had taken an oath of office to be POTUS and ordered combat in Iran (for instance), all the orders down the chain of command would be lawful, according to what Lind ruled. Wouldn’t matter one bit if the decision to engage in combat was made by a foreign enemy combatant.
Right? That’s what she said?
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.