Posted on 08/25/2009 4:45:39 PM PDT by AZ .44 MAG
I take it you were not following the thread
"One major problem for researchers interested in more systematic analyses of the development Bill Clinton's governing style is that his gubernatorial papers are not easily available to scholars. They remain in the custody of President Clinton at an undisclosed location."
- The Clinton presidency: campaigning, governing, and the psychology of leadership By Stanley Allen Renshon, 1995
It would be hard to find a better example of why the public needs to see a POTUS candidate’s records.
Then the opinion of the Supreme Court on the point in your opinion is not important, I take it.
In other words, you do not dispute the point.
What opinion of the USSC do you speak of?
Are you also trying to say that as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton governed in a vacuum? He was invisible?
Why are you working so hard to defend Obamas lack of known background?
Do you realize how suspicious it looks?
The one where they said that if one parent is not a U. S. citizen then whether the child is a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Artile II, Section 1, Clause II is “in doubt.” What are you taling about? Have you not reseachred the law on point?
“We had McCain’s BC and medical records.”
********************
John McCain has never publicly displayed his BC. According to WaPo reporter Michael Dobbs, a McCain staffer showed him McCain’s BC, which states he was born in the naval base hospital at Coco Solo, Canal Zone. McCain’s mom, still alive and quite sharp, says the same. (The internet BC which purports to show birth in Colon, Panama is almost certainly a fake.) But he has never publicly displayed his BC.
Where did I say that the statues, 1790/95 or later did anything of the sort. The 1790 statute was likely unconstitutional, although with the words "shall be considered as natural born citizens" is not quite the same as "shall be natural born citizens". Perhaps the intent was not to redefine the term, but rather to say that they shall be treated the same as NBCs, without the eligibility to the office of President, since that would be violative of the Constitution. In any event the 1795 act left out "natural born". So Congress, using it's power to define a uniform rule of naturalization (the title of both the 1790 and 1795 acts were "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" ("an" is not a typo, that's what the act said, and what the Constitution says.) All I said was that even today a child of two US citizen parents, born outside the US is a *citizen*. Like the authors of the 1795 act, I deliberately left out "natural born".
The owner is the state of Hawaii, not BHO Jr, or whatever his name is.
The law whose criteria Stanley Ann did not meet, only applies to children born outside the US, to one US citizen and one alien parent. It does not apply to a child born in the US, nor to the bastard child of an unmarried woman Citizen born outside the US. (That latter requirement is one year of residence, which she did meet).
However the law deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship. That is what it was understood to be in 1787, at least for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility to the office of President.
In some they do. Much of what we think of as Mohammedan "culture", using the word very loosely, is really Arab and Persian culture. Things are different, in many but not all ways, in Indonesia, and sub-saharan Africa. There the Muzzie culture from the north was overlaid on existing tribal cultures. Some of those were pretty matriarchal.
There are other places outside the US besides Africa. Some are within an easy drive of Seattle.
Do we have his transcript? Newspaper accounts? Or even a copy, independently supplies, of the program from the graduation?
Given that he has trouble putting 3 words together without use of the teleprompter, it seems somewhat incredulous that he'd have been able to graduate MCL from an "old school" law school, which put a big premium on extemporaneous speaking and thinking on one's feet.
Hopefully something more than: “The one that I say proves me right...”
I may have already seen it and had a different read on on it than you do.
If you knew about it and had done the basic research you would not have to aak. It is always amusing to see those who so arrogantly make assertions from lack of knowledge and act like it is they and not the Supreme Court that decides these matters. We’re all impressed that you will decide if clued in whtther the Supreme Court is right or not.
The point was only that there are those, including on this forum, who have sought to confuse by acting as if a statute could somehow define what the Article II phrase means and the 10th Circuit held that that is not the case. I am not saying that you said it; I was just pointing it out as relevant to the discussion.
Fine, I’ll change my answer.
Of course I agree with the USSC. Their decisions on this matter clearly support my point of view.
Now you go look up that decision they made where they confirm what I said and this will be settled.
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.