|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 9:48:31 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Meeks, thanks for pointing that out. From State Department:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Assuming, for sake of argument, Barack Obama was born outside the US, Ann Dunham would have been less than 90 days short of the above criteria, unless it could be shown she actually had residence outside the US. A visit to Kenya would not suffice. Obama, Sr. was a full-time student in Hawaii, graduating in 1962. The situation would have met the curent criteria.
So, to strip the President of the United States of the position over a technicality that he himself did not perpetrate is preposterous. And, Congress could easily pass a law granting citizenship to those born between 1952 and 1986 that meet the current criteria.
I believe that your reaction, that I have made bold, is precisely WHY we have not seen the Certificate of Live Birth. He was counting on his supporters to see his ineligibility as a 'technicality'. He was counting on them to ignore the rule of law. He was also counting on a Democrat congress to 'fix' any problem he had regarding his birth.
This is what separates liberals from Conservatives. Conservatives believe that the Constitution and our Laws actually MEAN something.
Technicalities are at the heart of law. But, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a Democrat House and Senate can and will change the law to fit Obama's situation.
It still says something about Obama that I do not see his supporters acknowledging.
He is a Constitutional Lawyer and yet, if he was actually born in Kenya and his mother had not acquired the number of years after 14, he had to know that 'technically', as you out it, he did NOT qualify to serve as President.
That did not stop him from taking millions of dollars and rasing the hopes of millions of people on a false premise... that he WAS eligible to serve.
So, to me, if he was NOT born in Hawaii, it boils down to this question. What did he know? And, When did he know it?
Again, if he was born in Kenya, knew it and still ran, he is one of the most deceptive and dispicable persons that we have ever had run for president and that includes Richard Nixon.
The Constitution is the foundation of all of our laws. And, the U.S. Code is and was in place LONG before he chose to run. There never could be ANY excuse for flaunting both out of blind ambitian. And, that would remain true even if Congress, in a move to solve a Constitutional crises changed the law to match his situation.
First, I don't believe for one minute you would be standing on hyour head over this if McCain were the one in question.
Second, the Congress is well within its legal rights under the Constitution to to change the law on citizenship (as it has in the past). Obama has been treated as a citizen for 47 years and grante all those rights by the State of hawaii, the State Department, the State of Illinois, the United States Senate, the President of the United States, etc. His candidacy was accepted by all 50 states and the major opposing party.
The legal concept of acquiesence would seem to dictate that his citizenship and election be accepted as valid, even if there is evidence that he was born outside the US. It is certainly worth a legal challenge for academic purposes, but that's about it. The will of the people is clear and the intent of the Constitution is for the people.
Another issue is states rights. The states have been granted the control over certifying birth records and elections. It would be difficult to justify the Federal government interfering with those rights.
And, again, there is the issue of standing. No one with standing is coming forward to get involved in this process.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 1:14:46 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1085
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
I guess this (in your mind) boils down to "if you don't like the rules of the game, change them." That may be ok if you're playing sandlot baseball, but not when the stakes are the Presidency of The United States Of America. The Constitution is clear on the matter. It shouldn't be changed to accomodate a false messiah, just because he had possibly hoodwinked most of the population into voting for him. That would be a criminal act.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Meeks, thanks for pointing that out. From State Department:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Assuming, for sake of argument, Barack Obama was born outside the US, Ann Dunham would have been less than 90 days short of the above criteria, unless it could be shown she actually had residence outside the US. A visit to Kenya would not suffice. Obama, Sr. was a full-time student in Hawaii, graduating in 1962. The situation would have met the curent criteria.
So, to strip the President of the United States of the position over a technicality that he himself did not perpetrate is preposterous. And, Congress could easily pass a law granting citizenship to those born between 1952 and 1986 that meet the current criteria.
I believe that your reaction, that I have made bold, is precisely WHY we have not seen the Certificate of Live Birth. He was counting on his supporters to see his ineligibility as a 'technicality'. He was counting on them to ignore the rule of law. He was also counting on a Democrat congress to 'fix' any problem he had regarding his birth.
This is what separates liberals from Conservatives. Conservatives believe that the Constitution and our Laws actually MEAN something.
Technicalities are at the heart of law. But, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a Democrat House and Senate can and will change the law to fit Obama's situation.
It still says something about Obama that I do not see his supporters acknowledging.
He is a Constitutional Lawyer and yet, if he was actually born in Kenya and his mother had not acquired the number of years after 14, he had to know that 'technically', as you out it, he did NOT qualify to serve as President.
That did not stop him from taking millions of dollars and rasing the hopes of millions of people on a false premise... that he WAS eligible to serve.
So, to me, if he was NOT born in Hawaii, it boils down to this question. What did he know? And, When did he know it?
Again, if he was born in Kenya, knew it and still ran, he is one of the most deceptive and dispicable persons that we have ever had run for president and that includes Richard Nixon.
The Constitution is the foundation of all of our laws. And, the U.S. Code is and was in place LONG before he chose to run. There never could be ANY excuse for flaunting both out of blind ambitian. And, that would remain true even if Congress, in a move to solve a Constitutional crises changed the law to match his situation.
First, I don't believe for one minute you would be standing on hyour head over this if McCain were the one in question.
Second, the Congress is well within its legal rights under the Constitution to to change the law on citizenship (as it has in the past). Obama has been treated as a citizen for 47 years and grante all those rights by the State of hawaii, the State Department, the State of Illinois, the United States Senate, the President of the United States, etc. His candidacy was accepted by all 50 states and the major opposing party.
The legal concept of acquiesence would seem to dictate that his citizenship and election be accepted as valid, even if there is evidence that he was born outside the US. It is certainly worth a legal challenge for academic purposes, but that's about it. The will of the people is clear and the intent of the Constitution is for the people.
Another issue is states rights. The states have been granted the control over certifying birth records and elections. It would be difficult to justify the Federal government interfering with those rights.
And, again, there is the issue of standing. No one with standing is coming forward to get involved in this process.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 1:26:44 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I guess this (in your mind) boils down to "if you don't like the rules of the game, change them." That may be ok if you're playing sandlot baseball, but not when the stakes are the Presidency of The United States Of America. The Constitution is clear on the matter. It shouldn't be changed to accomodate a false messiah, just because he had possibly hoodwinked most of the population into voting for him. That would be a criminal act.
That's a partisan argument, not a legal one. The Constitution wasn't THAT clear on citizenship because laws and legal cases have been required.
And, what about the presumption of innocence? the will of the people?
So, if by some remote chance the Supreme Court rules the elected President has to leave office. That would leave us with President Biden.
Now, you propose to tell 52% of the voters that their votes are invalidated. Good luck with that.
And, finally, I didn't vote for the guy, so my argument isn't a partisan one.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 3:09:36 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 558
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Meeks, thanks for pointing that out. From State Department:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Assuming, for sake of argument, Barack Obama was born outside the US, Ann Dunham would have been less than 90 days short of the above criteria, unless it could be shown she actually had residence outside the US. A visit to Kenya would not suffice. Obama, Sr. was a full-time student in Hawaii, graduating in 1962. The situation would have met the curent criteria.
So, to strip the President of the United States of the position over a technicality that he himself did not perpetrate is preposterous. And, Congress could easily pass a law granting citizenship to those born between 1952 and 1986 that meet the current criteria.
I believe that your reaction, that I have made bold, is precisely WHY we have not seen the Certificate of Live Birth. He was counting on his supporters to see his ineligibility as a 'technicality'. He was counting on them to ignore the rule of law. He was also counting on a Democrat congress to 'fix' any problem he had regarding his birth.
This is what separates liberals from Conservatives. Conservatives believe that the Constitution and our Laws actually MEAN something.
Technicalities are at the heart of law. But, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a Democrat House and Senate can and will change the law to fit Obama's situation.
It still says something about Obama that I do not see his supporters acknowledging.
He is a Constitutional Lawyer and yet, if he was actually born in Kenya and his mother had not acquired the number of years after 14, he had to know that 'technically', as you out it, he did NOT qualify to serve as President.
That did not stop him from taking millions of dollars and rasing the hopes of millions of people on a false premise... that he WAS eligible to serve.
So, to me, if he was NOT born in Hawaii, it boils down to this question. What did he know? And, When did he know it?
Again, if he was born in Kenya, knew it and still ran, he is one of the most deceptive and dispicable persons that we have ever had run for president and that includes Richard Nixon.
The Constitution is the foundation of all of our laws. And, the U.S. Code is and was in place LONG before he chose to run. There never could be ANY excuse for flaunting both out of blind ambitian. And, that would remain true even if Congress, in a move to solve a Constitutional crises changed the law to match his situation.
First, I don't believe for one minute you would be standing on hyour head over this if McCain were the one in question.
Second, the Congress is well within its legal rights under the Constitution to to change the law on citizenship (as it has in the past). Obama has been treated as a citizen for 47 years and grante all those rights by the State of hawaii, the State Department, the State of Illinois, the United States Senate, the President of the United States, etc. His candidacy was accepted by all 50 states and the major opposing party.
The legal concept of acquiesence would seem to dictate that his citizenship and election be accepted as valid, even if there is evidence that he was born outside the US. It is certainly worth a legal challenge for academic purposes, but that's about it. The will of the people is clear and the intent of the Constitution is for the people.
Another issue is states rights. The states have been granted the control over certifying birth records and elections. It would be difficult to justify the Federal government interfering with those rights.
And, again, there is the issue of standing. No one with standing is coming forward to get involved in this process.
I know the "judge" dismissed Berg's suit because he did not have "standing" but what constitutes standing if a citizen of the US cannot be said to have such in this case!!! C'mon.....we're talking about the person that is supposed to be our leader!! How can we not have standing??
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 3:12:42 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3467
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, what about the presumption of innocence? the will of the people?
As in the gays of california trying to overturn the people's vote again?
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/7/2008 3:14:04 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 558
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I guess this (in your mind) boils down to "if you don't like the rules of the game, change them." That may be ok if you're playing sandlot baseball, but not when the stakes are the Presidency of The United States Of America. The Constitution is clear on the matter. It shouldn't be changed to accomodate a false messiah, just because he had possibly hoodwinked most of the population into voting for him. That would be a criminal act.
That's a partisan argument, not a legal one. The Constitution wasn't THAT clear on citizenship because laws and legal cases have been required.
And, what about the presumption of innocence? the will of the people?
Sorry but the "will of the people" is irrelevant to any discussion of this nature. We are talking "law" which is not now and never should be dependent on the "will of the people".
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 10:42:01 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I know the "judge" dismissed Berg's suit because he did not have "standing" but what constitutes standing if a citizen of the US cannot be said to have such in this case!!! C'mon.....we're talking about the person that is supposed to be our leader!! How can we not have standing??
"Standing" means more than being one of millions that maya or may not be personally affected. The best argument might be more the Class action approach. That's used to keep the courts from being bogged down by thousands of suits on the same issue. In civil cases, one has to first demonstrate some type of negligence or fraud. THEN one has to demonstrate loss. Example, if a doctor misreads a lab test and delays treatment, that is negligence. If the treatment is later instituted successfully and the victim suffers no demonstrable loss (wages, expenses, etc.), then there is no award.
To argue that you would have a demonstrable loss had another Democrat won is beyond weak and not worth tying up the court. Conservatives aren't supposed to support unnecessary litigation.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 10:44:21 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
Sorry but the "will of the people" is irrelevant to any discussion of this nature. We are talking "law" which is not now and never should be dependent on the "will of the people".
Sorry, but republican forms of government are supposed to be about the will of the people. That's why, even if something comes of this before 2012, Congress will deal with it quickly and easily.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 12:58:15 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1085
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
The Constitution says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6482/United-States-Constitution
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Presumption of innocence - of course - this isn't (yet) a dictatorship. There would need to be a trial, I suppose. And if 52% of the people have their votes "invalidated" they'll have to live with it. The Constitution still prevails, regardless of hurt feelings. You can't thumb your nose at the Constitution because some people don't like the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
I guess this (in your mind) boils down to "if you don't like the rules of the game, change them." That may be ok if you're playing sandlot baseball, but not when the stakes are the Presidency of The United States Of America. The Constitution is clear on the matter. It shouldn't be changed to accomodate a false messiah, just because he had possibly hoodwinked most of the population into voting for him. That would be a criminal act.
That's a partisan argument, not a legal one. The Constitution wasn't THAT clear on citizenship because laws and legal cases have been required.
And, what about the presumption of innocence? the will of the people?
So, if by some remote chance the Supreme Court rules the elected President has to leave office. That would leave us with President Biden.
Now, you propose to tell 52% of the voters that their votes are invalidated. Good luck with that.
And, finally, I didn't vote for the guy, so my argument isn't a partisan one.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 3:29:42 PM
|
|
|
John_O
Posts: 8015
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
And, that would remain true even if Congress, in a move to solve a Constitutional crises changed the law to match his situation.
just a minor correction. If the truth comes to light and obama is disqualified it would not be a Constitutional crisis. It would be the Constitution working as it is supposed to work.
clinton not being convicted was a crisis, obama being allowed to serve as a non-citizen would be a crisis. See what I mean?
_____________________________
Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 7:10:49 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
I've let cow451 demonstrate the kind of CRISIS that I was talking about.
Today, people like our fellow poster could not care less about the Constitution. Although they are Christians and post things like "We must obey our leaders" they part company with that demand when it feels good to them. For them, it's all about 'ME' and 'US', not the foundational law that keeps us on coarse. As long as they feel good, they don't care if we are cut adrift from the Constitution.
The 'crisis' would come from the fact that a majority now would scrap the Constitutional requirement and replace them with, "Can't we all just get along?" 
quote:
ORIGINAL: John_O
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
And, that would remain true even if Congress, in a move to solve a Constitutional crises changed the law to match his situation.
just a minor correction. If the truth comes to light and obama is disqualified it would not be a Constitutional crisis. It would be the Constitution working as it is supposed to work.
clinton not being convicted was a crisis, obama being allowed to serve as a non-citizen would be a crisis. See what I mean?
quote:
The legal concept of acquiesence would seem to dictate that his citizenship and election be accepted as valid, even if there is evidence that he was born outside the US. It is certainly worth a legal challenge for academic purposes, but that's about it. The will of the people is clear and the intent of the Constitution is for the people.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 7:16:54 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
The problem is that you have NO appreciation or UNDERSTANDING of basic details. To try to negate the Constitution's requirements for president by quoting Amendment XIV is like talking apples and oranges to someone that does understand details.
In fact, XIV has NOTHING to do with redefining 'natural born' as specified for presidents. Nor, does it have anything to do with Presidential eligibility requirements. I've seen SPIN before; but, that spin is worthy of the most dizzying carnival ride!
The amendment
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
The Constitution says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6482/United-States-Constitution
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Oh? Well it wasn't quite clear enough. Amendment XIV says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, this still boils down to somebody popping some evidence. The much-bally-hooed audio tape has yet to be released nor a transcript.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/10/2008 8:54:35 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 558
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
Sorry but the "will of the people" is irrelevant to any discussion of this nature. We are talking "law" which is not now and never should be dependent on the "will of the people".
Sorry, but republican forms of government are supposed to be about the will of the people. That's why, even if something comes of this before 2012, Congress will deal with it quickly and easily.
That would be the democratic form of government....you know where one person equals one vote; not the republican form whereby people are elected to represent various segments of the country (in this case the States) but are not representing the majority of the people since the law is supposed to override that particular concern
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 10:17:34 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
The Constitution says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6482/United-States-Constitution
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Oh? Well it wasn't quite clear enough. Amendment XIV says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, this still boils down to somebody popping some evidence. The much-bally-hooed audio tape has yet to be released nor a transcript.
I'm not at all sure that these are talking about the same thing. The Constitution appears to be talking about the qualifications to hold an office while the 14th Amendment appears to be talking about what makes a person a citizen
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." was to prevent foreign takeover through the election process. If one interprets this passage literally, no one born after the adoption of the Constitution could be President. Obviously, that couldn't be what they meant. So what did they mean. Could the framers possibly have predicted (as group) that blacks, asians and other non-European immigrants would have children that would be American and that non-whites and -gasp- women would be allowed to vote?
They could not possibly have predicted the diversity that would happen in coming centuries. I just think you want it to be crystal clear, when it is not.
But again, where is the evidence that Obama was not born in the US?
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 10:38:53 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." was to prevent foreign takeover through the election process. If one interprets this passage literally, no one born after the adoption of the Constitution could be President. Obviously, that couldn't be what they meant. So what did they mean. Could the framers possibly have predicted (as group) that blacks, asians and other non-European immigrants would have children that would be American and that non-whites and -gasp- women would be allowed to vote?
They could not possibly have predicted the diversity that would happen in coming centuries. I just think you want it to be crystal clear, when it is not.
But again, where is the evidence that Obama was not born in the US?
Come on! You HAVE to know better than that! It's simple Boolean logic!
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
Deceptive tactics are king in the camp of the leftists! But, some are just plain outrageous!!
Your creative parsing of the Constitution doesn't make ANY sense at all and you even said as much. As for your racism, that's your problem. You can go there alone. That's a dispicable red herring in a discussion about the Constitution and the eligibility for president.
First, the framers recognized that they had two groups of people living in this land at the time the Constitution would be signed, those who had been born in the states that formed the new counrty and those who had been born elsewhere; but, where living in the states at the time of the signing. The fact that natural born citizens would be eligible CAN BE TAKEN LITERALLY if you parse the sentence as normal boolean logic and not some convoluted structural nonsense.
At least don't try to insult our intelligence due to the problem of looking your own racism lenses.
The problem ISN'T that Obama is BLACK. The problem is that Obama distains the Constitution because it LIMITS government and he wants UNLIMITED government. And, the other problem is that people like yourself are willing to discard the Constitution for a single individual!
Show us the original birth certificate that lists the hospital and doctor and all this goes away.
HOW CAN THAT BE SO DIFFICULT????
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 10:43:18 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." was to prevent foreign takeover through the election process. If one interprets this passage literally, no one born after the adoption of the Constitution could be President. Obviously, that couldn't be what they meant. So what did they mean. Could the framers possibly have predicted (as group) that blacks, asians and other non-European immigrants would have children that would be American and that non-whites and -gasp- women would be allowed to vote?
They could not possibly have predicted the diversity that would happen in coming centuries. I just think you want it to be crystal clear, when it is not.
But again, where is the evidence that Obama was not born in the US?
Come on! You HAVE to know better than that! It's simple Boolean logic!
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
Deceptive tactics are king in the camp of the leftists! But, some are just plain outrageous!!
Your creative parsing of the Constitution doesn't make ANY sense at all and you even said as much. As for your racism, that's your problem. You can go there alone. That's a dispicable red herring in a discussion about the Constitution and the eligibility for president.
First, the framers recognized that they had two groups of people living in this land at the time the Constitution would be signed, those who had been born in the states that formed the new counrty and those who had been born elsewhere; but, where living in the states at the time of the signing. The fact that natural born citizens would be eligible CAN BE TAKEN LITERALLY if you parse the sentence as normal boolean logic and not some convoluted structural nonsense.
At least don't try to insult our intelligence due to the problem of looking your own racism lenses.
The problem ISN'T that Obama is BLACK. The problem is that Obama distains the Constitution because it LIMITS government and he wants UNLIMITED government. And, the other problem is that people like yourself are willing to discard the Constitution for a single individual!
Show us the original birth certificate that lists the hospital and doctor and all this goes away.
HOW CAN THAT BE SO DIFFICULT????
Racism????????????????????????????? I simply pointed out that the Constitution did not start out as being for all people that we now consider Americans. Take a chill. This is all an academic discussion. If that's too much for you to handle, then you need to step away from the keyboard.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 11:05:51 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
It's it's 'academic' then use correct logic. Why bring color into it at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." was to prevent foreign takeover through the election process. If one interprets this passage literally, no one born after the adoption of the Constitution could be President. Obviously, that couldn't be what they meant. So what did they mean. Could the framers possibly have predicted (as group) that blacks, asians and other non-European immigrants would have children that would be American and that non-whites and -gasp- women would be allowed to vote?
They could not possibly have predicted the diversity that would happen in coming centuries. I just think you want it to be crystal clear, when it is not.
But again, where is the evidence that Obama was not born in the US?
Come on! You HAVE to know better than that! It's simple Boolean logic!
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
Deceptive tactics are king in the camp of the leftists! But, some are just plain outrageous!!
Your creative parsing of the Constitution doesn't make ANY sense at all and you even said as much. As for your racism, that's your problem. You can go there alone. That's a dispicable red herring in a discussion about the Constitution and the eligibility for president.
First, the framers recognized that they had two groups of people living in this land at the time the Constitution would be signed, those who had been born in the states that formed the new counrty and those who had been born elsewhere; but, where living in the states at the time of the signing. The fact that natural born citizens would be eligible CAN BE TAKEN LITERALLY if you parse the sentence as normal boolean logic and not some convoluted structural nonsense.
At least don't try to insult our intelligence due to the problem of looking your own racism lenses.
The problem ISN'T that Obama is BLACK. The problem is that Obama distains the Constitution because it LIMITS government and he wants UNLIMITED government. And, the other problem is that people like yourself are willing to discard the Constitution for a single individual!
Show us the original birth certificate that lists the hospital and doctor and all this goes away.
HOW CAN THAT BE SO DIFFICULT????
Racism????????????????????????????? I simply pointed out that the Constitution did not start out as being for all people that we now consider Americans. Take a chill. This is all an academic discussion. If that's too much for you to handle, then you need to step away from the keyboard.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 2:16:42 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1085
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
The Fourteenth Amendment defines who qualifies as a citizen of the US, not who is eleigible to hold the office of President. Nice try, but sorry, two different things altogether.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
The Constitution says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6482/United-States-Constitution
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Oh? Well it wasn't quite clear enough. Amendment XIV says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, this still boils down to somebody popping some evidence. The much-bally-hooed audio tape has yet to be released nor a transcript.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Birth Cert Verified - 11/11/2008 2:32:31 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
The Fourteenth Amendment defines who qualifies as a citizen of the US, not who is eleigible to hold the office of President. Nice try, but sorry, two different things altogether.
Just trying to point out that would be part of the "defense", if you will. "Natural Born Citizen" being a term that many consider ill-defined. In 2004, a GOP congressman introduced a bill that sought to better define the term. Not saying I agree with the argument, just trying to move along the discussion.
Of course, I'm still waiting on some actual evidence that the issue even applies to the Great One.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
I stated facts about which Americans were and were not protected by the original Constitution. I don't see how that is racist. Please use your "correct logic" to explain how you came to such a conclusion.