Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House.

The birthers are calling for U.S.Sen. Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.

Forget about allegedly Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.

Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.

But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue.

"The other shoe has dropped," conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. "Now you've got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it's obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don't care about Constitution. It's all just empty, lying lip service."

Actually, if you knew history and read the leading landmark case, Wong Kim Ark v. US, you would know that the founders used English common law when using the term, natural born citizen, in the Constitution. Blackstone and English common law was the primary basis American jurisprudence.

I know far more history than just that incorrectly decided landmark case. The founders eschewed English law on Citizenship. It may escape you, but English Law regarding Citizenship was the basis of BOTH WARS we fought with them. The founders based their writings in the constitution on the collective works of Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel, whose publications were collectively (and singularly in the case of Vattel) referred to as the "Laws of Nations."

Here is an example in the South Carolina Ratifying Debate of these men being cited by name.

DEBATES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND IN CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.----WEDNESDAY, January 16, 1788.

Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY
“They were as much the law of the land under that Confederation, as they are under this Constitution; and we shall be unworthy to be ranked among civilized nations if we do not consider treaties in this view. VATTEL, one of the best writers on the LAW OF NATIONS, says, “There would be no more security, no longer any commerce between mankind, did they not believe themselves obliged to preserve their faith, and to keep their word. Nations, and their conductors, ought, then, to keep their promises and their treaties inviolable. This great truth is acknowledged by all nations. Nothing adds so great a glory to a prince, and the nation he governs, as the reputation of an inviolable fidelity to his engagements. By this, and their bravery, the Swiss have rendered themselves respectable throughout Europe. This national greatness of soul is the source of immortal glory; upon it is founded the confidence of nations, and it thus becomes a certain instrument of power and splendor.”

And here is another Example from the Pennsylvania ratifying debate:

THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, November 20, 1787, P. M.

— Mr. WILSON.

“ A good deal has already been said concerning a bill of rights. I have stated, according to the best of my recollection, all that passed in Convention relating to that business. Since that time, I have spoken with a gentleman, who has not only his memory, but full notes that he had taken in that body, and he assures me that, upon this subject, no direct motion was ever made at all; and certainly, before we heard this so violently supported out of doors, some pains ought to have been taken to have tried its fate within; but the truth is, a bill of rights would, as I have mentioned already, have been not only unnecessary, but improper. In some governments, it may come within the gentleman’s idea, when he says it can do no harm; but even in these governments, you find bills of rights do not uniformly obtain; and do those states complain who have them not? Is it a maxim in forming governments, that not only all the powers which are given, but also that all those which are reserved, should be enumerated? I apprehend that the powers given and reserved form the whole rights of the people, as men and as citizens. I consider that there are very few who understand the whole of these rights. All the political writers, from Grotius and Puffendorf down to VATTEL, have treated on this subject; but in no one of those books, nor in the aggregate of them all, can you find a complete enumeration of rights appertaining to the people as men and as citizens.”

Blackstone is mentioned, but only to point out how British Law is inferior to what is being proposed.

"There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside? To this question writers on different governments will give different answers. Sir William Blackstone will tell you, that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the Parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute, without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. There are, at least, no traces of practice conformable to such a principle. The British constitution is just what the British Parliament pleases. When the Parliament transferred legislative authority to Henry VIII., the act transferring could not, in the strict acceptation of the term, be called unconstitutional.

.______________________________________________________________________

Your response is an excellent illustration of why birthers have fallen flat on their face in Congress, every state legislature and court (federal or state)in their feeble quest to change the law. Maybe if birthers respected the rule of law in our society, they may be a little bit more successful.

And YOUR response is an excellent illustration of the degree of ignorance which predominates our society at large. No matter how many obvious facts are thrown in your face, (Slaves and Indians were not citizens under your Blackstone theory, We fought TWO wars to throw off the English requirements of Subjects under your theory,The English THEMSELVES did not use Jus Soli for their Monarch, they used Jus Sanguinus and YOUR theory does NOTHING to prevent the very Foreign influence against which John Jay wrote the letter about, to Washington!), still you persist in claiming this is the far more sensible understanding of Article II based on what some goofball court said about a Chinese man prohibited from being a "natural born citizen" by a treaty the US had with China, a 120 years after the constitution was written! Further nonsense of your theory is the belief that the court's use of the term "citizen" somehow equates to the meaning of the Article II term "natural born citizen" even though it clearly distinguishes the difference by using BOTH TERMS in article II itself!

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a CITIZEN (As in NOT "natural born") of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."

You are a singularly hilarious juxtaposition of Arrogance and Ignorance who constantly demonstrates this with every beclowning statement you make. I suggest that you follow your own advice and learn some more History. Stop listening to lawyers, get your head out of law books, and start reading actual historical documents.

Chief Justice Roberts reversed two words at the inaugural, so the next day he went the White House to do a second swearing in. This was done so there will never be a doubt or question as to Obama being legally President.

Oh, yeah, that convinces ME that he's legitimate. We have video of Roberts\Obama flubbing the words, but do you have video of them saying it correctly? Not withstanding that we've gone through all the motions, (Obama should have been denied access to the ballot if we had had competent state officials, but they are as ignorant as most people on this subject. That, and Nancy Pelosi LIED about his citizenship status. ) pomp and circumstance is not what makes a President legitimate.

Every appeal, over a dozen, to SCOTUS has been unanimously denied. Obama has never even bothered to file a single response to a petition filed by a birther. SCOTUS rules are that if one justice thinks a petition has any merit and the respondent has not filed a response to the petition, the court will formally request a response before determining whether to grant writ. That has never occured. I wonder why?

No you don't. You know why. Not a single case has been heard on it's merits. Prior to even examining the facts of the case, all the judges have declared the plaintiff has no standing. A filthy legal technicality trick that ought to have the nation out hanging lawyers. The truth, it seems to me, is that the courts are terrified of a civil war sized RIOT if they let this go to trial.

The Arizona legislature passed a bill to require proof. Jan Brewer vetoed it with the ridiculous argument that she doesn't feel a single person (the Arizona Secretary of State) should be permitted to decide who gets on the ballot. She is obviously far happier with letting a single person, in the guise of the Hawaiian Department of Health director Fukino, decide, rather than her own secretary of state.

In this case, it is obvious the fix is in. Jan Brewer is afraid of Federal retaliation to her state in the guise of a loss of federal grants and highway funds if she dare offend the great Zero. Oklahoma nearly passed one as well, and there again, the Governor stifled it (she daren't veto it. The crowd in Oklahoma would make her pay for it.) quietly through a whispering campaign in the Senate.

You can prattle on about your stupid courts, but the power in this nation resides in the will of the people, and when the people are properly informed, your courts will obey what the people want.

And the Opinion of the Court in Happesett further states that the foreign-born children of two U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens of the U.S. since Congress passed a law in 1790 declaring that to be the case. This should surprise no one, given that the common law is preempted whenever Congress enacts a specific statute.

You do know that congress removed the words "natural born citizen" in the naturalization act of 1795?

But what does congress know? How about the Supreme court examining citizenship in 1814?

U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Justice Washington:

1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause.

And Justice Marshall:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

For the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and the Republican Speaker of the House, he is the legal POTUS. But for the “constitutional scholar” DL he was ineligible due to a a completely discredited legal theory. LOL Now all 50 state election officials are ignorant! No the election officials were and are still very knowledgeable of the qualifications to be POTUS. They are only ignorant of the crazy theories in birther fanasyland.

The oath of office for the POTUS, you call “pomp and circumstance” is required language required by the US constitution. You are the one showing their constitutional ignorance.
If SCOTUS thought there was any merit the the birthers bogus claims they
would have either reversed the lower courts decision and ordered a evidentiary hearing or trial or they could have ruled on the issue if they thought it was important. The entire SCOTUS and the entire US Congress are obviously of the opinion that Obama is eligible as to be POTUS.

Your last paragraph once again outs for the liberal that you are. Your argument the the courts should listen to public opinion rather than the Constitution and statutory law when making rulings is right out of the liberal playbook. The trolling of this conservative forum to try and keep one of the rising conservative stars off the Republican ticket is also right out the DU playbook. I can assure you that all intelligent conservatives will continue to ignore the ignorant birthers.

More slice and dice spam from the troll.

More slice and dice of the troll INTO spam. There, I fixed it for you. If you feel like you've been sliced and diced into spam, that's because you have. A more apt analogy would be Running a turd through a blender.

"The original 13 colonies were all British, not Swiss, German or French."

Wrong Again! New Netherland
Nieuw-Nederland
Dutch colony

1614–1667

Do you feel stupid! No, you bask in the stench of your Ignorance! You are accustomed to looking like a fool. While we're at it, lets take a look at what we contested with the French during the French and Indian war.

Obviously there was no French influence in the Colonies. Of course you also probably never heard of anyone named Marquis de Lafayette, or Baron von Steuben.

It is obvious you are a historical illiterate when comes to American jurisprudence.

And yet you surpass me in all forms of ignorance.

It is your post that is a non-sequitor. You dismiss everything that does not comport with your bogus theory.

I dismiss everything that is crap, and that is everything which does not comport with the facts. Usually stuff like you write.

I notice in all your spam, you never can quote a court decision subsequent Wong Kim Ark that supports Vattel birther bogus theory.

That is because you are so ignorant and incompetent as to believe the truth begins with a court decision (not even unanimous) in 1898. IT. DOES. NOT. To you, there is NO HISTORY prior to Wong Kim Ark, and that is all the evidence any reasonable person needs to conclude you are a fool.

Congress has even codified the definition of nbc in the United States Code.

And again, just about the time you think someone has reached the pinnacle of their stupidity and ignorance, they fire up another booster rocket to carry them into an even HIGHER lunatic orbit. Only a complete blithering idiot would suggest that Congress can change the meaning of ANY constitutional term by statute. Little children and YOU may not be aware of this, but the CONSTITUTION has a higher authority than does either Congress OR the Supreme Court. It is the CONSTITUTION that GRANTS these powers to those bodies.

The US Constitution, every branch of the Federal Government and all 50 states use the jus soli doctine to define nbc.

More ignorance and stupidity. It is beyond their POWER to define a constitutional term. They can no more change the meaning of the word "arms" into "flowers" than they can redefine as something else, the correct meaning of what is "natural born citizen". That this false notion is ubiquitous is no doubt due to the damage caused by the 1898 Supreme court getting the 14th amendment definition of just plain "citizen", wrong.

None use the Swiss definition espoused by Vattel or any other European writer you mentioned. That is fact birthers such as yourself ignore and instead retreat back to birther fantasy world.

None use the definition of "natural born citizen" at all. Most find it sufficient to address only the concern of whether someone is a "citizen" or not. They have no need to question someone's "natural born citizen" status unless that person is running for President! And then they are too incompetent to even do THAT! They didn't bother to even verify that the man is a CITIZEN, let alone a "natural citizen."

You, and others, are the defenders of idiocy. Your false notions are responsible for that piece of shat Obama being allowed on the ballot, and likewise your beliefs enable all of those illegal Anchor Babies and families sucking up benefits meant for citizens. If you are that stupid of an American, You and your ilk need to be paying all the bills created by your idiot beliefs, and the rest of us should like to watch you pull the wagon without the help of productive people for awhile.

I don't have time to answer your next message. I'll spank you some more later, when I have less important things to do.

Your map is from over a century prior to the American Revolution. Nice try,LOL. At the time of the founding of our country, and for the 100 years prior to that, All of the colonies followed English jurisprudence.
You still are too dense to understand that if all 50 states, the Legislative, Executive and Judical Branch of the Federal Government all have the same definition for nbc, that is the uncontroverted definition. When everyone outside of birther fanasyland, particularly Congress and Scotus unanimously agree that the definiton of nbc is a person who is a citizen at birth,that is the Legal definition of nbc.

You can dismiss the truth if you please, but you are destined to continue to as much a failure as all the previous birther efforts have on this issue.

What do you plan on doing differently in this next election that you and your birther did in 2008?All I see are same discredited theories that have shot down for the past 3 years. You can't even get a single state to use your bogus definition of nbc. Wow seems like you have been a great success. ROTFLOL

You can throw all the insults around you want, but it is obvious that all rational persons that you are not only ignorant of the law but are stuck in a delusional state. You are a perfect illustration of why birthers are known as conspiratorial nutjobs. I guess the entire Congress and every state gov’t. are idiots according to you.

At least it is amusing watching you flail about with your nonsense.

With all due respect, you are confused as to what was the holding of the Opinion of the Court in Happersett and what was obiter dicta. The holding was that the right to vote is not one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship protected by the Constitution, and that a state does not cease to have a republican form of government (a form of government that the United States guarantees pursuant to the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution) merely by limiting the franchise to male citizens. The discussion on the possible limits of citizenship at birth under common law is dicta, since the plaintiff was a woman born within U.S. territory to two U.S. citizens and thus it was unnecesary to determine whether the U.S.-born children of legal immigrants would also be U.S. citizens at birth under common law (which the Court stated that was an issue on which authorities were divided). The Court also points out that Congress has legislated to expand the number of cases in which babies are U.S. citizens at birth, thereby acknowledging that the common law is our source of law only when the legislature has not enacted specific statutes.

The Opinion of the Court in Happersett actually argues *against* the theory that only the common law can tell us who is a natural-born citizen of the U.S., and it doesn’t even help much to the argument that, were the common law the only source of law in the U.S. (i.e., even had Congress never passed any laws), only the U.S.-born children of two U.S. citizens would be natural-born citizens (since the Happersett opinion doesn’t decide whether authorities with the more restrictive view of what tbe common law said were correct).

The words “natural-born citizen” mean “citizen at birth.” In the absence of congressional statutes, who was a U.S. citizen at birth would be determined based on the common law. However, the common law is determinative only when the legislature has not adopted a specific statute on the subject matter. In the 1790 statute, Congress provided that the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth so long as the parents had resided in the U.S. at some point. While it is not clear who would be a U.S. citizen at birth under common law (the Happersett Court noted that some authorities maintained that the position that only the U.S.-born children of two U.S. citizens would be citizens at birth under common law was incorrect, and the Court did not rule on the matter, since it was unnecessary for the disposition of the case), since 1790 the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (with certain limitations) have been citizens at birth, and since at least the adoption of the 14th Amendment all children born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which I believe should exclude children of illegal aliens, but all three branches of government understand to include even them) are U.S. citizens at birth. The 1790 statute is silent on the citizenship of persons born within the U.S., so the common law would apply, and it is certainly arguable that had Marco Rubio been born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents in 1791 that he would not have been deemed a citizenat birth (although it isn’t a clear-cut decusion under the common law). But he was born in 1971, when it had been clear for over a century that a child of two permanent U.S. residents legally residing in the U.S. would be a U.S. citizen at birth if born in the U.S. And “natural-born citizen” means nothing more than a U.S. citizen at birth.

If you don’t believe me that a U.S.-born child of two permanent residents is a citizen at birth, try to bring an application for naturalization for such a person and see what the courts say. Were Marco Rubio to apply for U.S. citizenship, the courts would rule that he has been a U.S. citizen since birth and thus can’t apply for citizenship. O read about someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth because he was born in Puerto Rico, and his parents tried to “naturalize him” when they had live in Florida for a few years, and the courts ruled that he had been a U.S. citizen since birth and thus could not apply for citizenship, since only non-citizens may be naturalized.

Of course no act of Congress can change the words in the Constitution—only a constitutional amendment may do so. But that does not mean that we must interpret constitutional clauses as if the only laws applicable in the U.S. was the common law as understood in 1787. When the Constitution was written, filing false tax returns was not a crime under the laws of any state (there was no income tax), but sodomy was a felony in probably every state; today, the former is a federal felony and the latter is not a crime, if consensual, in any state (at least post-Lawrence). The original intent of the impeachment clause in the U.S. Constitution, which holds the President and other officers of the U.S. subject to impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” was to kick out (and make ineligible for future office) officers who commit serious crimes. The fact that changes in law result in that “high crimes” now inlude tax evasion and no longer include consensual sodomy does not mean that our political branches have changed what the phrase “high crimes” means; legislatures have merely adopted criminal statutes to fit what the people believe should be crimes nowadays and otherwise to reflect changes in our lives (no computer crimes were possible in 1787), and the acts included within the phrase “high crimes” has thus changed.

The phrase “natural-born citizen” meant “citizen at birth” in 1787, and it means the same today; the terms are synonymous (”birthright citizen” is yet another synonym). Who is a citizen at birth, though, has changed at Congress has legislated on the subject matter. Congress did not change the original understanding or definition of “natural-born citizen” when it legislated in 1790 to make the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens natural-born citizens, or when it subsequently legislated to declare under what circumstances persons born within U.S. territory were citizens at birth (with the answer being “always, so long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.). Congress has not changed the meaning of “natural-born citizen”; it has merely changed the laws of the U.S., which is the piwer that Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress.

That he was accepted by all 50 state election officials without any proof other than a statement signed by himself and Nancy Pelosi is undeniable. That this is so is not only proof that all 50 state election officials are incompetent, but that you are as well. Here is MORE PROOF that you are an incompetent IDIOT, spewing lies and nonsense whenever you deign to speak.
Roger Calero, born in Managua Nicaraugua ran for President in 2008.

He was on the ballot in a couple of prominent states. If these State officials were checking qualifications, how did this Non-American born (your stupid belief) Candidate get on the ballot? HMMMM?????? Once again, you've been demonstrated to be a mouthy fool.

The oath of office for the POTUS, you call “pomp and circumstance” is required language required by the US constitution. You are the one showing their constitutional ignorance.

The Oath of office (which was flubbed) is only valid if the person giving it does not violate it while making it. In any case, that was not to what I was referring. I was referring to the Media circus awarding him the nomination, and all of intervening celebrations leading up to inauguration. That he wasn't eligible was completely glossed over by all the celebrating done by his idiot supporters in the media. It is unsurprising that you again failed to comprehend something.

If SCOTUS thought there was any merit the the birthers bogus claims they would have either reversed the lower courts decision and ordered a evidentiary hearing or trial or they could have ruled on the issue if they thought it was important. The entire SCOTUS and the entire US Congress are obviously of the opinion that Obama is eligible as to be POTUS.

The Supreme court has never looked at the issue, and at this point I don't think a one of them knows as much about this subject as people that have actually studied it. As I have pointed out to others, this issue of what is the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" is a tiny cul-de-sac in the overall study of Constitutional law, and I doubt very many people venture into it without some particular reason to examine it. Couple that with the ubiquitous fallacy that Wong Kim Ark decided the issue, and most would have no reason to even look. To make it simple enough for even you to understand, The Justices are simply ignorant on this issue.

Beyond that, I have no doubt that the Supreme court would suffer a collective heart attack if they ever thought they might be required to throw the first "black" President out of office because he wasn't eligible. That they won't touch it has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case.

You are astonishing. At about the point where I think you can get no stupider, you surprise me once again. You are apparently oblivious to the words "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The US Constitution is a COMPACT between the peoples of individual states to form a government based on the "consent of the governed." The Government will follow the will of the people (and that includes the courts) or it will be abolished. What sort of fool are you to believe it would long remain otherwise in a free nation?

The trolling of this conservative forum to try and keep one of the rising conservative stars off the Republican ticket is also right out the DU playbook. I can assure you that all intelligent conservatives will continue to ignore the ignorant birthers.

You would know no such thing because you are not among them. You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever encountered, and yet still so full of mouth. I thought squeeky was a moron, but you have surpassed her! You are just a source of noise and distraction, and I think proving you wrong, though somewhat amusing, is simply not worth the trouble. You will obviously never learn anything, no matter how many times I hand your head to you, you are simply a dullard, incapable of learning. Once again you find yourself in the following position.

The joke is on you. The map simply proves once again that YOU do not know whatYOU are talking about.

You still are too dense to understand that if all 50 states, the Legislative, Executive and Judical Branch of the Federal Government all have the same definition for nbc, that is the uncontroverted definition.

The fallacy is your belief that your above prattling even resembles the truth. NBC is not even an issue for any state except in the case of Presidential election, and I have already shown you with the previous message regarding Rogrer Calero, how they don't even do THAT much due diligence! Even if your ignorance WAS true, it doesn't prove what is the correct meaning of Article II, it proves that sometimes a majority just means all the fools are on the same side.

When everyone outside of birther fanasyland, particularly Congress and Scotus unanimously agree that the definiton of nbc is a person who is a citizen at birth,that is the Legal definition of nbc.

Once again, the subtleties of reality escape you. The fact that people didn't do anything does not mean they are in agreement, it means they are all either ignorant, or for reasons of politics, completely unconcerned with the issue. Never before have I heard from a conservative, the idea that Congress was Competent, or that the Courts will correctly interpret the law.

You can dismiss the truth if you please, but you are destined to continue to as much a failure as all the previous birther efforts have on this issue.

Abolition was a failure till the civil war. Equal rights for Blacks was a failure till the civil rights era. I will fight the long fight, and idiots like you will eventually jump sides because you can only cower when your beliefs are tested by a majority.

What do you plan on doing differently in this next election that you and your birther did in 2008?All I see are same discredited theories that have shot down for the past 3 years.

If you see the theories "shot down" then you are witnessing something none of the rest of us has seen. The "theories" have never been tested. By every hook and crook, the courts FLEE in terror of the mere prospect of giving them a hearing. This is not the position of someone who feels they have a strong case. It is YOUR theory which is frightened and running, not ours.

You can't even get a single state to use your bogus definition of nbc. Wow seems like you have been a great success. ROTFLOL

Nobody has been attempting to get a state to "use" what is correct law. The attempt has been to get states to REQUIRE proof of Birth in a US State. Several laws have been proposed and heard in legislatures. Arizona Passed it. Governor "federal grants" vetoed it. That's the problem with letting evil people control the money. Even OUR side is addicted to the drug. Oklahoma nearly passed it, but again, Governor "federal grants" quietly killed it behind the scenes.

You can throw all the insults around you want, but it is obvious that all rational persons that you are not only ignorant of the law but are stuck in a delusional state.

No amount of insults will adequately describe a person who cannot think past 1898, and then presume to lecture someone who has actually done some research. You may go on believing whatever crap people put in your head and declare "Stare decisis" but those of us who have a functional mind will continue to object to crap when we hear it.

You are a perfect illustration of why birthers are known as conspiratorial nutjobs.

I have never advocated any conspiracy, merely the observation that so many people in government are stupid and incompetent. As the maxim goes, "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." In your case, I think it is both.

I guess the entire Congress and every state gov’t. are idiots according to you.

Actually, that's about right. Sound the trumpets! This childish twit got something RIGHT for a change! Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile! But it begs the question? What kind of conservative does NOT think congress is incompetent, as well as state government officials?

At least it is amusing watching you flail about with your nonsense.

The amusement people derive from me is at your expense, yet you alone are unaware of it. We are laughing AT you, not with you. :)

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.