Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
PS: Birther may be a derogatory term, but it’s good enough for The Birther Report/ObamaReleaseYourRecords. That is one of my favorite sites. I know it is intended to undercut us, but it doesn’t bother me. I used to type a much longer appellation, something about Eligibility, etc. Birther is just a more convenient shorthand.
They are not fallacious. They only appear so because your perspective is so screwed up. Your arguments run the gamut of informal fallacies. I'm not sure you know how to make a non-fallacious argument. You are so immersed in fallacy, that what isn't, looks like one to you.
Good find DiogenesLamp. He is a democrat operative out to obfuscate the true meaning of a natural born Citizen.
A Court system that gives us Wickard, or Kelo, or Roe, or Lawrence, or ObamaCare is not a court system which I would want on MY SIDE. It's full of liars and idiots. Same as the Anchor baby supporters on this thread.
oh OK My apologies- I thought you were in disagreement with them
If he WAS born here, he would be able to give us a BC. The same as you and I can do any time.
But he needed to send a “team of lawyers” to hawaii to “sign waivers” to get this fraudulant one???
What ‘waivers’ did they have to sign? Can we see those?
If the Founders had meant the phrase *natural-born* to include everything else, they would have SAID everything else.
Thinking they intended for every legislative Act to list everything NOT included is ludicrous.
They operated on the legal concept known as the Rule of Exclusion, and this Rule is precisely WHY they enumerated powers.
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
You try to take the particulars of the Founding generation and STRETCH them all the way to today.
You BYPASS the fact all the 'court decisions' are founded on the totally FALSE claim that the Wong Kim Ark court proclaimed him a natural-born citizen when that is NOT the case.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Would you care to explain HOW the Wong Kim Ark court determined he was a *natural-born* citizen when that wasn't even the question they'd been asked?
No apologies required, my friend. It happens; no big deal.
Just for the record, I don’t believe the HI birth narrative for a nanosecond. If BO were really born there, there would have been no reason to go into the National Archives & expunge a wk’s worth of records—the wk recording foreign airline arrivals into HI that just so happened to contain Aug. 4, 1961.
There is only one reason for that wk to be missing; someone’s foreign arrival into HI blew Obama’s birth narrative out of the water. Therefore, before the Cold Case Posse could see who arrived from where, the entire wk disappeared.
Sorry, anti-birthers. This is one you can’t explain. Face it, your Won is not who you think he is. Deal.
If you understand, first, that there are ONLY 2 forms of Citizenship, Natural Born and Naturalized -—
Then the language makes sense.
MUCH more sense under my interpretation, which is the ACCEPTED legal interpretation by the vast majority of legal minds, scholars and historians.
In other words, you are contorting yourself with quotes and rulings and facts which really miss the point.
So they said NATURAL BORN because they did not want a NATURLIZED Citizen to become President, and it is you birthers who want to create something out of thin air that just is not there.
I do not “bite” on your bait, since what you post does not prove your point, or disprove my point.
I do not wish to argue about Obama.
I am stating that BOTH Cruz and Rubio are Natural Born Citizens.
Understand?
I will not respond to any more Obama questions. I never voted for him, I don’t like him.
Being in the middle of a flame war [and about ready to yell "FIRE IN THE HOLE!"], I unjustifiably blew off your correction.
I do now most humbly and sincerely apologize for it.
A quick IP check would show if he’s the same dude.
-----
You fail, again, to substantiate your assertion that 'the 14th Amendment changed things'.
You fail to answer a common-sense question concerning the very case everyone hangs their false definition of *natural born citizenship* ON.
------
Yep. I was right.
Keyboard cowboy.
Got it.
[You really think the Framers were idiots, don’t you?]
No, of course I believe the Framers were very intelligent and learned men.
That's a "straw man" argument, by the way. Thank you. It's refreshing to hear something different from ad-hominem attacks.
I consider defending our Constitution, our history and the truth, from those who would twist them, to be fairly important.
When we throw those things out of the window, that's not a good thing.
Actually it is the basis of the entire case. Either the Framers wished to keep persons w foreign allegiances out of the WH or they threw open the door & invited them in. Keeping them out was a wise & intelligent move. Inviting them in would have been idiotic & suicidal—as Obama gleefully illustrates on a daily basis.
Civil suits have been the method of choice used by challengers to Obama’s eligibility. 202 lawsuits have been filed, 195 have been adjudicated and 7 are pending.
If the civil system is entirely corrupt as you say, why not try average American citizens who sit on Grand Juries and criminal trial juries? And why not also try congressional hearings in the House Of Representatives that could lay the groundwork for the appointment of an Independent Counsel?
Why have all the eggs been placed in one basket that is full of holes?
ROFLMAO!
Busted!
Could that, perhaps, tie into this:
White House Atty. And Anti-Birther Internet 'Trolls' Claim Re Acts Of Criminal Political Activism
If that were true you would have doubt. That you are so absolutely certain is proof of nothing more than that you are a fool.
If I wasn’t committed to original intent, I would probably be claiming it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
As your number one cite for this crap is a British Loyalist trained in British law, it's hard to take you seriously when you assert you're interested in Original intent.
Do you have a F*$%#@* clue who was the United State Representative to the Hauge when we were trying to win support for our Revolution from Europe? It was Charles W.F. Dumas, the guy who sent those "Droit des Gens" books to Franklin back in 1775.
Not only that, but John Adams LIVED with Charles W.F. Dumas during his efforts in the Netherlands to win support for our cause. So did Franklin, and Later John Quincy Adams. Franklin exchanged secret messages with Dumas using "Droit des Gens" as their code key!
Dumas was very instrumental in winning support for us from Europe, and he even became eventually our paid agent in Europe!
None of us need to "research" how Obama is ruining the country. We see the evidence of it all about us. One does not even need to look. I regard it as peculiar that someone would even suggest that "research" might be needed to see Obama as a catastrophe.
Of course, given the quality of your "research" to date, I do not doubt that you would determine that Obama is perfectly harmless, as is an interpretation that gives us "Anchor babies" and "birth tourists."
I figure if your minds is warped a certain way, it's liable to be consistently warped.
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.