IT'S A MATTER OF RECORD

[dartman51]

If you think this just started in 2008, you would be wrong.

H3aCfR8rmrw

Some people are just too blind to see. :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

If you think this just started in 2008, you would be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw

Some people are just too blind to see. :ThmbUp:
And you are one of them. The video points out several attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to change the definition of "Natural Born Citizen." Of course these attempts could just as easily have been to enhance the chances of Arnold Schwarzeneger. In fact Orrin Hatch introduced an amendment in 2003 for just that purpose.
Personally I think a thirty five year residency in the country is sufficient.
Take the case of a person who is born in England. His parents emigrate to the United States when he is two years old or four or even ten. They become citizens as does the child. He has lived his entire adolescence and adult hood in this country. Yet if he wants to run for President at age 60, he cannot do so.

The proposed amendments had nothing to do with Obama, because Obama was a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii under the jurisdiction of the United States. That is all that is required. His father does not have to be an American citizen. His mother does not have to be an American citizen. (Clearly she was.) The framers of the Constitution were familiar with English common law and English common law states that a person is a citizen of the country under whose jurisdiction he was born. Several Court cases have confirmed this.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872):
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971):

You can look these cases up, although I am certain you won't.

Continue to post this nonsense only if you want to be embarrassed by the facts.

[Tom]

Who says he was born in Hawaii?

Got any proof of that?
Birth certificate?













:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Is that true that Obama met with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices behind closed doors before the inauguration?

I can't find anything substantiating this claim, except some vague references in a WND article.

You'd think this would have been major news if it had indeed happened. Unprecedented really...I love a good conspiracy theory, but it appears this one is bullshit.

[toetoe]

[/QUOTE] The framers of the Constitution were familiar with English common law and English common law states that a person is a citizen of the country under whose jurisdiction he was born. [/QUOTE]



Point taken on rebuttal. I'm pleasantly surprised that you risk ostracism by actually agreeing with the framers of the Constitution. :ThmbUp:


I'm also glad you mentioned jurisdiction. You are not among those that believe that if a lady scuttles across our border to lay her eggs here, said eggs are somehow "under U.S. jurisdiction" and therefore citizens upon hatching, are you ? That has been the "cornerstone" ( :lol: ) of the southpaw argument for anchor citizenship, a tortured logical process that starts with the desired goal and then backfills. You know how it goes: Mama has arrived and given birth, and if Tio Sam sends Mama back, he'll be tearing apart a family ( :( ). Of course, no one mentions the simple solution any responsible mother would settle upon --- to take Baby with her.

This logic is also seen in such feeble cant as:

"No human being is illegal." ( :sleeping: )

"It's their land anyhow." (Double- :sleeping: )

[mostpost]

The framers of the Constitution were familiar with English common law and English common law states that a person is a citizen of the country under whose jurisdiction he was born. [/QUOTE]



Point taken on rebuttal. I'm pleasantly surprised that you risk ostracism by actually agreeing with the framers of the Constitution. :ThmbUp:
I agree that the Constitution says "Natural born citizen." I understand that when the Constitution was written the authors were familiar with English common law. It is therefore logical for me to assume that they were using the definition of natural born found in English common law. This does not mean that on every issue I believe that they were setting down an absolute instruction on how we are to behave. It is a very different world today than it was in 1787. Some issues can be decided based on the framers exact words. Some need to interpreted in the light of changing times.
Even the question of citizenship has changed. Would you suggest that the votes of blacks be counted as 3/5 those of whites?

BTW, your suggestion that liberals do not support the Constitution is repugnant, but nearly as repugnant as your next paragraph
I'm also glad you mentioned jurisdiction. You are not among those that believe that if a lady scuttles across our border to lay her eggs here, said eggs are somehow "under U.S. jurisdiction" and therefore citizens upon hatching, are you ? That has been the "cornerstone" ( :lol: ) of the southpaw argument for anchor citizenship, a tortured logical process that starts with the desired goal and then backfills. You know how it goes: Mama has arrived and given birth, and if Tio Sam sends Mama back, he'll be tearing apart a family ( :( ). Of course, no one mentions the simple solution any responsible mother would settle upon --- to take Baby with her.
Leaving aside your distasteful imagery of a Mexican mother as some kind of reptile or insect who scuttles around; case law, scholarship and legal tradition clearly state that a person born under the jurisdiction of a state (country) enjoys citizenship of that country. He is a natural born citizen of that country, regardless of other factors.

Only a fool would think that there is some great Hispanic plot to come to this country and just have babies. Immigration is driven by economic need. People come for jobs. When they are here, they do what even white folks do. They have babies. I'm sure you would like to forbid that too. :rolleyes:



This logic is also seen in such feeble cant as:

"No human being is illegal." ( :sleeping: )

"It's their land anyhow." (Double- :sleeping: )[/QUOTE]
I have never heard those two arguments. Shouldn't the second apply to American Indians rather than illegals?

[TJDave]

It's over.

Obama isn't qualified to be president and will resign tomorrow.

Yeah, sure...

I'll be waiting. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Naw, the garbage never takes itself out.

[dartman51]

Is that true that Obama met with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices behind closed doors before the inauguration?

I can't find anything substantiating this claim, except some vague references in a WND article.

You'd think this would have been major news if it had indeed happened. Unprecedented really...I love a good conspiracy theory, but it appears this one is bullshit.

It wasn't that hard to find.

WSJ JAN 14, 2009
Obama and Biden will meet with Roberts and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and are expected to take a tour of the court. The event is private and closed to the press.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/14/obama-and-biden-to-meet-with-supreme-court-justices/

[dartman51]

And you are one of them. The video points out several attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to change the definition of "Natural Born Citizen." Of course these attempts could just as easily have been to enhance the chances of Arnold Schwarzeneger. In fact Orrin Hatch introduced an amendment in 2003 for just that purpose.
Personally I think a thirty five year residency in the country is sufficient.
Take the case of a person who is born in England. His parents emigrate to the United States when he is two years old or four or even ten. They become citizens as does the child. He has lived his entire adolescence and adult hood in this country. Yet if he wants to run for President at age 60, he cannot do so.

The proposed amendments had nothing to do with Obama, because Obama was a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii under the jurisdiction of the United States. That is all that is required. His father does not have to be an American citizen. His mother does not have to be an American citizen. (Clearly she was.) The framers of the Constitution were familiar with English common law and English common law states that a person is a citizen of the country under whose jurisdiction he was born. Several Court cases have confirmed this.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872):
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971):

You can look these cases up, although I am certain you won't.

Continue to post this nonsense only if you want to be embarrassed by the facts.


You are the one with the eyes closed. I didn't say one thing about your savior, Obama. I posted this to merely point out that this whole thing about "natural born citizen", did NOT start in the 2008 election cycle with the Repubs. You in your haste to protect Obama, start running off at the mouth(keyboard). I've got the facts, and the facts are, that you are to be pitied. I feel sorry for ANYONE who's whole life existence, is to sit at their keyboard, waiting to pounce on anything derogatory about their master. You need to chill, kick back, and pour yourself another glass of kool-aid. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

It wasn't that hard to find.

WSJ JAN 14, 2009
Obama and Biden will meet with Roberts and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and are expected to take a tour of the court. The event is private and closed to the press.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/14/obama-and-biden-to-meet-with-supreme-court-justices/I guess I was googling with the improper search terms.

Also, it's no surprise that the truth bears little resemblance to what was claimed in the video.

[toetoe]

Operating Instructions for the Mostpink Rhetoric Kit



!) Draw upon your own white Anglo prejudices to bludgeon the opposition; that is, when someone mentions a lady interloper, call her a Mexican national and attribute it to the opposition, even if he never said it. Use this one liberally. Common sense and rhetorical honesty need not apply. :ThmbUp:

2) Plead ignorance when faced with charges of willful misinterpretation of Amendment 14 by your southpaw brethren. When the opposition claims that lefties consider the Constitution [that document sine qua we are Cuba] stodgy and irrelevant, just call them reinterpreters. When evidence of brown racists in California planning their sueno mojado called Reconquista --- the takeover of six U.S. states [by any means necessary, anyone ? :D ] because, after all, "it's ours anyway," [ :lol: ] --- simply dissemble and say you've never heard of it.

3) Ascribe beliefs to the opposition never proven to be held by said opposition. Racial paranoia is a tried and true warhorse; milk this one to the maximum.

4) Play the injured, haughty mensch who is above it all. It's not too tough. Simply make up outrageous stuff about those who dare to disagree with you; then just react normally --- the outrage will gush forth. Remember: a falsehood repeated [over and over and over] will never be defeated.