To my post #81 I received the following comments:
Germanicus: “One American born parent is good enough for me.”
“’Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; …” (Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a)
Winston: “And that’s not an argument that immigrants should be eligible to be President. I wouldn’t be in favor of that change. I am in favor of having the President be born a citizen. But I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to vote for someone like Ted Cruz, as long as he has the right head on his shoulders.”
“birthers”
“Because it’s all BS”
.”…not the SLIGHTEST chance…”
“…it’s not what it has EVER meant.”
“…is mislead people.”
“…pushing this Constitutional BS are completely aware that it IS BS.”
“They just want to con people.”
“…making conservatives look like idiots.”
Rogers: “Beyond any reasonable doubt, the meaning of natural born citizen was the same as natural born subject, only changing the final descriptor.”
- - -
Let me try to summarize what it appears you believe, based on what you’ve posted:
Citizen = Subject, therefore natural born subject = natural born citizen, therefore we are subjects of the government (“…only changing the final descriptor.”).
and/or
Calling people names, ad hominem attacks and capital letters are the way to win arguments.
- - -
“Why do YOU believe Hillary Clinton would be a better President and more loyal American than Ted Cruz?!!!!!!”
I don’t and never said I did. Nice try, though. However, if the definition of natural born citizen is born in the country to two citizen parents, Hillary is eligible and Cruz is not. Whether Hillary ever becomes president is up to low information voters – I can only cancel out the vote of one of them.
Others have posted citations and analyses implying that NBC is a citizen born in the counrty to two citizen parents. You and others have posted citations and analyses implying that NBC is everything else. Obviously, this is an unsettled question or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I’ll go back to my original (Post 81) question: 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?
Mr. Rogers, I hope you did (do) well on your test (from a post a couple days ago) and are accepted by the college of your choice. Good luck.
“Others have posted citations and analyses implying that NBC is a citizen born in the counrty to two citizen parents. You and others have posted citations and analyses implying that NBC is everything else. Obviously, this is an unsettled question or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Incorrect. This IS a settled question. All 50 states, including very conservative ones, consider it settled. All 535 members of Congress consider it settled. Every court considers it settled. No District Attorney anywhere in the US has objected. The US Supreme Court has rejected without comment every birther case. Sarah Palin and Mark Levin consider it settled law.
There is no legal argument about needing two citizen parents. None. At this point, every birther lawsuit should be fined for being frivolous. There simply is no legal basis for claiming a requirement to have two citizen parents to run for President.
Ted Cruz DOES fall in a gray area. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case to determine if someone like Ted Cruz is eligible. If he does try to run, it may well spark a case that has worthwhile arguments on both sides.
“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?”
If Ted Cruz was elected President of the USA, no foreign power would claim his obedience. That is silly. Nor does Obama owe allegiance to either Kenya or the UK. He certainly has shown no loyalty to the UK, or even any fondness to the UK. He treats the UK with contempt.
“Mr. Rogers, I hope you did (do) well on your test (from a post a couple days ago) and are accepted by the college of your choice. Good luck.”
I’m sure I did fine. I’m 55, have my BS in Biology and an MBA, retired from the military after 25 years, and am taking classes because I’m tired of being retired. I had a 99% average going into the final, so I’m not sweating the results. The test last night was for legal ethics. It was a good class - well taught and thought provoking.
Reason certainly hasn't worked. Facts certainly haven't worked.
We are long past the time, in my opinion, when birthers are deserving of ridicule.
Aside from which, someone like myself or Nero Germanicus or Mr Rogers presents the facts, presents a calm, reasoned argument, and what do we get in return?
We get invalid arguments, twisting of the Constitution, twisting of the law, twisting of historical quotes. We get called all kinds of names. "Obama supporters." "Liberals." "Trolls." We get accused of being "paid." All for standing up for the Constitution and the truth.
On a conservative site.
Early on in this discussion (two whole years ago) DiogenesLamp said that if I could be taken out and shot, he would cheer.
And I believed him.
I try to generally refrain from the more extreme forms of ridicule. That said, in my opinion, the more dishonest and hard core birthers deserve every ounce of ridicule that I or anybody else could pour on them.
By the way, when I said:
All of that was pretty factual.
There is little of birther Constitutional claims that is even an accurate representation of our history and law. And the little bit that is, is overwhelmed by more authoritative evidence.
I’ll go back to my original (Post 81) question: 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?
The Founders and Framers simply did not consider that those born on US soil of immigrant parents were "subject to a foreign power" in any way that mattered. If they had, then they would have said the President had to be born on US soil of citizen parents.
But that's not what they said. They said the President had to be a natural born citizen. And that term certainly included those born on US soil to non-citizen parents, as long as those parents weren't ambassadors, foreign royalty, or members of invading armies.
There is good evidence (see earlier post) that they also believed the term could and should include children born abroad to US citizen parents.
How can you NOT get that "natural born citizen" didn't require BOTH birth on US soil and birth to citizen parents, when the first Congress and first President, which included 40% of the signers of the Constitution, passed a law that expressly said:
"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
And there doesn't seem to be any record that anybody in that Congress ever objected to that.
No, the historical and legal record is very clear. When I say that this claim is BS, it's because it's really and truly BS.