Replies

Help me understand something here.

The three of you vehemently argue that virtually anyone is a natural born citizen if one of the parents is American, regardless of where they were born. Do I have that correct?

If the definition of natural born citizen is born in the country of two citizen parents, a condition that in no way allows other countries to have ANY claims whatsoever on this type of citizen, why are you not only supporting but actively trying to convince others of a definition that allows virtually anyone with one American parent (regardless of place of birth) to be eligible to be President and in charge of our military, given the fact that the other parent’s country (or the country of birth) has legal claims and or jurisdiction over that person?

Why would you not want the most restrictive (conservative) definition?

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?

Your support of any other definition of natural born Citizen as born in the country to citizen parents, weakens America. It does not strengthen it.

What is your end game here?

What is your end game here?

I can't speak for others, but my "end game" is this.

The Constitution is sacred. Don't claim that it says BS that it doesn't say. And if you do, don't pretend to be a "conservative," because conservatives don't misrepresent the Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

Our laws are sacred too. I'm not very tolerant of people propagandizing that the law says such-and-such when it says no such thing.

If you want to change the Constitution, fine. Our Founding Fathers and Framers gave us a process to do that.

But don't misrepresent what it says, and try to con our fellow conservatives into believing stuff that just isn't true.

How can we possibly expect others to respect the Constitution if people posing as "conservatives" don't? How can we possibly expect truth in our society if we don't uphold the truth?

Aside from which, those people are making conservatives look like idiots. I don't appreciate that.

That's it.

I will add that I am completely mystified as to what birthers think they will accomplish, can accomplish, or are even trying to accomplish.

Because it’s all BS. There’s not the SLIGHTEST chance that any court, or any major legal authority, or even any major conservative Constitutional organization, is EVER going to adopt their “definition” for natural born citizen.

Because that’s not what it means, and it’s not what it has EVER meant.

So there’s no possible way for them to EVER win in the courts. There’s no possible way for them to EVER get any major legal authority or Constitutional organization on their side.

All they can do is mislead people.

And I’m completely convinced that some of the people pushing this Constitutional BS are completely aware that it IS BS. I don’t see how they could fail to be.

They just want to con people. I don’t understand that.

“...why are you not only supporting but actively trying to convince others of a definition that allows virtually anyone with one American parent (regardless of place of birth) to be eligible to be President and in charge of our military, given the fact that the other parent’s country (or the country of birth) has legal claims and or jurisdiction over that person?”

Because that was the original meaning of the term. Beyond any reasonable doubt, the meaning of natural born citizen was the same as natural born subject, only changing the final descriptor. And that definition, without any doubt, included those born in the realm to aliens.

There is SOME question if the statues passed by Parliament had any bearing. But the standard legal reference of the time, Blackstone, included those born overseas to British parents as natural born subjects. So that is reasonably the meaning as understood by the writers, and by the legislators voting to ratify it.

Remember, there is only ONE distinction between a NATURALIZED citizen and one born a citizen - the latter can be President. Since every other office was open to naturalized citizens, and since the original draft would have allowed naturalized citizens to be President, and since naturalized citizens who were alive when the Constitution was ratified were allowed...it really seems to me the intent was to prevent a naturalized citizen from moving to America, being naturalized, and then made President.

This all has NOTHING to do with loyalty. The idea that Hillary Clinton and the Rev Wright are loyal, freedom-loving Americans, and Ted Cruz is an untrustworthy American-wannabe who doesn’t love America as much as Hillary Clinton is INSANE.

The problem with Obama is Obama’s VALUES, not his parentage. The problem with Hillary is that she is a liberal bitch who hates America and wants to drag us into the gutter.

If you think being a citizen born to two citizen parents guarantees ANYTHING, listen to a Rev Wright sermon and get back with me!

Why do YOU believe Hillary Clinton would be a better President and more loyal American than Ted Cruz?!!!!!!

US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.’”

“’Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries,
’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”

“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

When you combine the ruling above with the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause: “ALL (not some, not everyone except presidents and vice-presidents but ALL) persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Then you have the legal, Constitutional and historical/traditional basis for my point of view as a conservative who supports the Constitution, the law of the land and traditional precedent.

My end game is to have the strongest conservative candidate with the best chance to win run against the Democratic nominee in 2016. If that candidate happens to be Ted Cruz, so be it. If it happens to be Rand Paul or someone else, I’m fine with that too.
I know of very few Americans of any political leaning who would judge a candidate by their parents’ place of birth. One American born parent is good enough for me. I judge the candidate, not the family history.

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—James Madison, Founder, Framer, President and “Father of the Constitution”