Reason certainly hasn't worked. Facts certainly haven't worked.
We are long past the time, in my opinion, when birthers are deserving of ridicule.
Aside from which, someone like myself or Nero Germanicus or Mr Rogers presents the facts, presents a calm, reasoned argument, and what do we get in return?
We get invalid arguments, twisting of the Constitution, twisting of the law, twisting of historical quotes. We get called all kinds of names. "Obama supporters." "Liberals." "Trolls." We get accused of being "paid." All for standing up for the Constitution and the truth.
On a conservative site.
Early on in this discussion (two whole years ago) DiogenesLamp said that if I could be taken out and shot, he would cheer.
And I believed him.
I try to generally refrain from the more extreme forms of ridicule. That said, in my opinion, the more dishonest and hard core birthers deserve every ounce of ridicule that I or anybody else could pour on them.
By the way, when I said:
All of that was pretty factual.
There is little of birther Constitutional claims that is even an accurate representation of our history and law. And the little bit that is, is overwhelmed by more authoritative evidence.
I’ll go back to my original (Post 81) question: Why would any American support a position that would allow the President of the United States of America to legally be subject to a foreign power?
The Founders and Framers simply did not consider that those born on US soil of immigrant parents were "subject to a foreign power" in any way that mattered. If they had, then they would have said the President had to be born on US soil of citizen parents.
But that's not what they said. They said the President had to be a natural born citizen. And that term certainly included those born on US soil to non-citizen parents, as long as those parents weren't ambassadors, foreign royalty, or members of invading armies.
There is good evidence (see earlier post) that they also believed the term could and should include children born abroad to US citizen parents.
How can you NOT get that "natural born citizen" didn't require BOTH birth on US soil and birth to citizen parents, when the first Congress and first President, which included 40% of the signers of the Constitution, passed a law that expressly said:
"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
And there doesn't seem to be any record that anybody in that Congress ever objected to that.
No, the historical and legal record is very clear. When I say that this claim is BS, it's because it's really and truly BS.
And here is Jeff doing his thing. Quoting a portion of something while leaving out the part that utterly changes the meaning.
"... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Apparently the 1790 Congress was very resistant to the idea of tolerating a non-resident (foreign) father.
Once again, Jeff is lying by omission.
“We get invalid arguments, twisting of the Constitution, twisting of the law, twisting of historical quotes.”
We, the so-called “birthers”, get the same thing from you.
Jeff - you posted in bold quotes: “...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
This is a great example of your attempt to project your beliefs, your strategy and your tactics on me (us). This, in all it’s bold detail, displays your side’s “...invalid argument, twisting of the Constitution, twisting of the law, twisting of historical quotes.” - that of which you accuse me (us).
You post the quote above in bold which comes from the Naturalization Act of 1790. All the while, you KNOW (or should know) that the NA of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 - which DID NOT include the term “natural born”.
Heck, you can even find this nugget on that “grossly conservative” website, Wikipedia.[wiping sarcasm off my fingers]
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen.”
Congress corrected themselves. Your turn.