Culture of conspiracy: The Birthers (mainstream decides to cover)

Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster "murder." George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn't eligible to be president of the United States.

Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama's birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.

Their confinement to the fringe hasn't cooled the passion of believers; the obscure New York preacher James Manning turned up at a National Press Club session in December to declare the president "the most notorious criminal in the history not just of America, but of this entire planet."

Yes, God forbid you should ever think for yourself.

So then will you accept what I say is Constitutional to be so?> So I presume that prior to Brown v. Board, you'd have argued the side held in Plessy v. Ferguson?

I would have accepted it as a valid decision. I may not have agreed with it. But we're not arguing Supreme Court decisions here, and whether they are correct or not. We're arguing your position as to what constitutes a natural born citizen, and whether it is correct or not. If the Supreme Court ever came down on your side I might disagree with them but I'd accept their decision as binding.

Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...

It says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say only persons born or naturalized.

There is simply no means under our Constitution for anyone born OUTSIDE the United States to be a citizen of the United States except by way of some form of naturalization.

Sure there is. If Congress passes a law saying that someone born overseas of two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. As they have done.

Congress cannot amend the Constitution by way of simple legislation.

In this case they have not done so.

So then will you accept what I say is Constitutional to be so?

Not necessarily, no.

What I would like however is your own argument. Not some "The Supreme Court says so" or "The Supreme Court doesn't say so" cop-out.

I would have accepted it as a valid decision. I may not have agreed with it. But we're not arguing Supreme Court decisions here, and whether they are correct or not. We're arguing your position as to what constitutes a natural born citizen, and whether it is correct or not. If the Supreme Court ever came down on your side I might disagree with them but I'd accept their decision as binding.

What do you mean we're not arguing Supreme Court decisions here? That's precisely what you tried to make the argument into was one about Supreme Court decisions.

I'll defer to the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution over yours.

It says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say only persons born or naturalized.

Yes, it does, as Congress has no constitutional authority regarding citizenship except for Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, however that only has to do with establishing a uniform rule of naturalization.

As for the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress is only given the power to enforce it, and the Fourteenth Amendment establishes no other form of citizenship other than by being born IN the United States or to be naturalized as a citizen.

Sure there is. If Congress passes a law saying that someone born overseas of two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. As they have done.

Then please cite the relevant portion of the Constitution which empowers Congress to enact such a law.

In this case they have not done so.

Unless you can show me where Congress is empowered by the Constitution to enact such a law, then have indeed attempted to amend the Constitution by way of simple legislation.

So show me.

It says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say only persons born or naturalized.

a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4).

Tell us Michael, was Obama a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90682

U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility Military member seeking documentation silenced

Title 18, United States Code, Section 242:Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,shall be fined, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say only persons born or naturalized.

a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4).

Tell us Michael, was Obama a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution?

No. But what was being discussed was the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines who is and who is not a citizen of the United States.

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.