Posted on 03/13/2009 11:57:12 AM PDT by AJ in NYC
Rep. Bill Posey, a freshman Republican from Florida, introduced a bill yesterday mirroring proposed state legislation in Missouri and elsewhere that stems from fringe doubts about Obama's eligibility for office.
The full bill text isn't yet available, and Posey's spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but here's a summary:
H.R. 1503. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution; to the Committee on House Administration.
Though Posey's spokesman wasn't available, a Feb. 13 letter from Posey to a constituent on the subject appears on a website pushing the story in which Posey noted that courts and Hawaii officials had rejected the claims, but didn't state his own view on the subject.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Bluster and claim anything you wish, but you are basing your entire noise-fest upon a false syllogism which ONLY you and obamanoid apologists hold to be 'the only truth' regarding 'natural born citizen'.
Pricks like you bluster that your foolishness has not been refuted. [prick = little nettle, nothing more] You don't deserve the repeated posting of material which expose your childish demands for the obamanoid defense mechanism you serve.
Who do you presume yourself to be that you demand someone refute your flawed syllogism? You aren't entering this a fresh. You've been reading the many and varied notions regarding the issue of what the founders meant with 'natural born citizen'. The Supreme court has deigned to ignore the need to clarify that. You're trying your obamanoid best to conflate the realities and make this a cut and dried slam dunk for your president. But your president is a fraud, a liar, and has not been vetted and certainly has not proven he is eligible by Constitutional standard.
Perhaps you are emboldened because the scotus has shown their perfidy toward my Constitution by ignoring the standing of a sovereign citizen to demand the man running for the office of president prove he is Constitutionally eligible. But stuff your feigned indignation at my not 'refuting' your very flawed and agenda-laden syllogism.
Baby, your methodology is typical liberal crap. Are you a liberal? Who can say? I don’t personally care what you think you are, your words betray your perspective.
You, sir, do not meet MY definition of a “Conservative” because you seem to figure out what you want, and then you seem to determine that everything you want is Constitutional and everything you don't want is “Unconstitutional” -—
From what I have seen so far, that is what you are doing.
There is no logical argument against my viewpoint:
Obama MIGHT have a problem, if Obama was NOT born in the USA.
McCain had NO problem, as his Parents could clearly pass Citizenship to McCain.
Jindal has NO problem, as Jindal was clearly born in the United States.
Show me ANYONE in any Court, ANY member of Congress, or the opinion of any Constitutional Scholar or ANY immigration or citizenship attorney who disagrees with me, would you?
You can't.
They've already decided the qualifications to be a citizen. The 14th amendment says all persons born in the US are citizens. Various laws say that if one is born abroad of two US citizen parents, or in most, but not all, cases even only one, you are a citizen. You can also become a citizen by naturalization.
The problem is that the requirement is to be a "Natural Born" citizen, and thus defining that term is the problem. Congress *cannot* do that by themselves. They could have when they passed the 14th amendment, but they did not. Thus we are left to figure out what "natural born" meant when the requirement was written. Only the Courts or a Constitutional amendment can do that. The amendment could either define the term, or could change the "natural born" requirement, to just "citizen". (Good luck with that).
Your quote is off the mark.
You can not exclude anyone from the class of “Natural Born Citizen” with INCLUSIVE language.
Just because some ARE admitted to that group does NOT indicate that others are EXCLUDED from that group.
You poor fool. Did you think playing obamanoid ‘in your face’ bluster would side step your refusal to even read posts like #81? Go play with your fellow obamanoid agitprops.
I think Obama is definitely hiding something here.
I also think that YOU are an intellectual coward, as you can not argue with anyone here, on this thread, as an equal, or with any respect. Instead, you use the Alinsky method and start up with the insults.
I can not stand Obama and I have worked hard to fight everything he stands for.
Again, show some intellectual courage and fight me on the merits of what I have posted. YOU are the one who is acting like an “OBAMANOID”!
MHG - I think you left out a “not” -
“Yes, his parents are now naturalized, but they were not when he was born in the US so he is [NOT] a natural born citizen as per the common sense reasoning of the founders who were most interested in allegiance not geography.”
(Very well said comments.)
Duh - I’m late to the party as usual.
Child, you refuted your own asserttion when you cited an exclusion ... if congress grants citizenship, and you cited that as neither naturalized or natural born! You are purposely conflating citizen with natural born citizen. You have a nice evening now, obamanoid (obama annoyance droid).
The 14th Amendment is an INCLUSIVE Amendment. It was not the role or the desire to EXCLUDE anyone, from Citizenship, with that Amendment.
Congress clearly has the right, under the Constitution and under all Amendments, to establish the rules for Citizenship, within Constitutional guidelines.
The application for a Passport makes clear that there are two basic ways to gain citizenship: Birth or Naturalization.
If you ARE a Citizen, and you were NOT Naturalized, chances are high that you are a Natural Born Citizen. There are only a few exceptions to this rule.
Well done, Congressman Posey.
I have defeated your argument with law.
I have defeated your argument with State Department documents. I have defeated your argument with logic and common sense.
I have defeated your argument with history.
I have presented my own argument, which is very logical and very consistent with the Framers and with current understanding of Citizenship law, by the State Department and Immigration Lawyers.
Natural Born Citizen means that you were a Citizen at the moment of Birth, with no act of Congress or the Courts or an Immigration Official or Oath needed to grant you that Citizenship.
You can find absolutely NOBODY with any authority who can refute my position.
Inclusive language, in opinions or the law do not count.
You can find NO language, ANYWHERE, that says that anyone who is a Citizen, at birth, is not, simultaneously, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!
You can not do it, because nobody with any authority has ever said such a thing.
You can not do it, because you are wrong, with no authority whatsoever to back up your false views.
Congress has the right to determine the Citizenship rules for those born outside of the United States, to either one or two U.S. Citizen parents.
If you are BORN a citizen, under these rules, then you are, also, SIMULTANEOUSLY, a Natural Born Citizen!
Only citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
Besides, Congress passes statutes, not the State Department, or the INS. Although they may assist in writing the language.
You are confonding "natural born" citizenship with citizenship. Natural born may require birth of citizen parents, but not natural born ones. Thus the child of naturalized citizens, is a natural born citizen, under most circumstances.
Somewhere along your paternal line, surly there was a naturalized citizen, probably one of the first immigrants from Scotland (which of course was part of the UK by that time) or a man who was a citizen at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. (Who would have been a natural born subject of the British crown)
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.