chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 3, 2011 9:41:30 GMT -5
I was talking to burns about the misread thing... sorry, i should learn to use quotes or address someone specifically oh. oops!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2011 9:41:47 GMT -5
... This is not the case according to the Constitution. It has the be the father having US citizenship. Kind of "sexist" today but that is how it is written nonetheless. .... Article. II.
Section. 1.
....
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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Plain as day, right there it states only if Dad is a citizen ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 9:42:08 GMT -5
Hawaii's health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 9:52:13 GMT -5
Yes, it says "natural born". It does not say "native born". It means "natural born" just like the speed signs on the road that say 25 miles an hour mean 25 miles an hour and not something else.
The governor of Hawaii did what it seems most people want to do here, which is re-write the dictionary to suit thier current politicol leanings. I wonder if those same people will feel the same way about the same subject on any other occasion.
I beleive in the case of John McCain they didn't. I won't bother to ask why not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 9:55:03 GMT -5
Sweetie...the constitution SAYS natural born... and the Hawaii official says he was born IN Hawaii...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2011 10:18:22 GMT -5
Yes, it says "natural born". It does not say "native born". It means "natural born" just like the speed signs on the road that say 25 miles an hour mean 25 miles an hour and not something else. I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, "Do you know the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?" "Yes, officer, but I wasn't going to be out that long..." Steven Wright
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
I'm not surpeised. After all, I'll wager the sign didn't define what 55 MPH meant either. Just like the Constitution doesn't define "eligible", "office", "attained", or a host of other words and terms. Gosh, how could such a lack of clarity get by the Framers?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 11:29:57 GMT -5
It does say natural born though... doesn't it henry... not 'native born' ... lol...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 12:19:38 GMT -5
I found another reference that might be of interest to anyone who requires further information on just wat "natural born" means in a legal sense. It goes to a speech that was made in 1800 by Charles Pinckney, who was a member of the Constitutional Rules Committee during the deliberations that led to its writing, and later served as a US Senator. During the drafting, many members of the convention wanted the president to be selected by the Senate. Pinckney tells us why that idea was rejected. He also tells us why the requirement for eligibility to be president , , , , and vice president, , , , was made stronger than that of any other elected individual. On March 25, 1800, Charles Pinckney made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders "knew well," he said, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.... That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a natural born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. . . . . . I cut and pasted that to my word processor and lost the link, but I'm sure it can be found by googling Charles Pinckney. There is another one: A Democrat, Breckingridge Long has been quoted today on several websites. He goes back to a presidential candidate, Charles Evans Hughes, who was born in the US of British parents. Of Mr. Hughes this was written at the tiome of his candidacy: He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.
If war had broken out between this government and England this government would have had a right to interne the father, the mother and the son as subjects of an enemy power. The link to that one is: www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/10/lifelong-democrat-breckinridge-long-natural-born-citizen-means-born-on-the-soil-to-a-father-who-is-a-citizen/
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Apr 3, 2011 12:54:18 GMT -5
Even if that appears, cries of "it was photoshopped" and "it was faked" (cause somehow Obama's mom knew Obama would be president someday) would come up.
Obama being a natural born citizen was accepted by the Supreme Court, the HoR, and Obama himself. What FactCheck does or doesn't do has no legal relevence. I'm not saying this because I don't believe that FactCheck is being truthful, but since they can't do the impossible and make it 100% air-tight.
The only thing you birthers have is that it was a big conspiracy that all the people who check those things to see if you're eligible, the people in HoR (including a fair number of Republicans), a bunch of judges (including the Supreme Court), various organizations/people in Hawaii, etc. are all in on it. Even the Reynolds Wrap factory isn't that tin foily.
Wrong. First of all, they're speed limit signs. And in that case, the speed limit sign you mentioned means you can drive up to and including 25 miles, NOT you can only drive 25 miles an hour and can't go any slower or faster. You can go 20 miles an hour, you can speed up to 24 miles an hour and slow down to 21 miles an hour, etc.
I guess the Framers never foresaw a bunch of sour-grapes crybabies who can only endlessly and absurdly nit-pick because they didn't get their own way.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 3, 2011 12:57:31 GMT -5
mkitty, <<karma>> for all of that.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 13:15:11 GMT -5
What the Framers wanted to guard against is happening as we speak. We have a president who refuses to protect our borders from foreign incursion. And who fosters discontent by pitting one segment of the population against another. While maintaning a secrecy about himself and his policies that is causing childen to question the very textbooks they use in their classes.
We have elected representatives in several states who are acrively undermining our laws and traditions. One is an anchor baby in San Francisco, Gerardo Sandoval, who blatantly says we should not have a military at all. (The police can protect us.) We have another, Luis Guiterrez(sp?), who says, "We don't have to do anything to take over the United States, THEY are not having babies any more".
And we have many others like them.
The future of the United States is bleak on many fronts. The political undermining of it's elected offices is just another indication of how far we, as a nation, have fallen.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 14:10:59 GMT -5
"......... Wrong. First of all, they're speed limit signs. And in that case, the speed limit sign you mentioned means you can drive up to and including 25 miles, NOT you can only drive 25 miles an hour and can't go any slower or faster. You can go 20 miles an hour, you can speed up to 24 miles an hour and slow down to 21 miles an hour, etc......" Thank you for the perfect example of why things don't require a definition. They are implicit within themselves. And that is understandably why the term "natural born citizen" was chosen. It must been as firmly implanted in the Founders minds as "25 miles an hour" is implanted in people's minds today. So firmly implanted that it needed no words of explanation.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 3, 2011 14:16:20 GMT -5
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels quotes
Goebbels words @ 70 years ago have been quoted by some Liberal Politicians recently in reference to many of the Republican claims about Obama...and include about the "Birther" claims and Herr Goebbels may have been absolutely correct IMHO.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2011 15:15:45 GMT -5
Actually, since there are none of Charles Pinckney's words quoted there except (maybe) "knew well", googling him is pointless. The person quoted was a current day professor: John Yinger Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, Associate Director for Metropolitan Studies Program and Director, Education Finance and Accountability Program, Center for Policy Research
He is far from a "Founding Father". EDIT: Whoops, that was only the first paragraph. The second paragraph is by St. George Tucker. www.newmediajournal.us/staff/nsalvato/2009/print/04062009.htm
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 15:39:12 GMT -5
Thank you again, bills. I'd say Mr. Tucker should know from whence he spoke, having served in the war that freed the Colonies from the Mother country, following which he lived through the writing of the document we are discussing, and then having been part of its implementation. Yinger said this about him: Yinger cites Tucker's “Treatise on the Constitution” (1803) as lending further evidence to the link between the natural-born citizen clause and foreign influence. Wikipedia adds this: Tucker was a judge of the Virginia General District Court in Richmond, Virginia, from 1788 to 1803, with overlapping service as a professor of law and police at the College of William and Mary from 1800 to 1804. Upon the death of Judge Edmund Pendleton, in 1803, Tucker was appointed to the state Court of Appeals. He resigned this position in 1811, returning to private practice in Williamsburg, until 1813.
On January 18, 1813, Tucker was nominated by President James Madison to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Virginia vacated by John Tyler, Sr. Tucker was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 19, 1813, and received commission the same day. On February 4, 1819, he was reassigned by operation of law to the newly subdivided United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, serving until his resignation on June 30, 1825.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2011 16:28:33 GMT -5
Okay, what is his definition of "natural born Citizen"?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 17:31:08 GMT -5
"........ Okay, what is his definition of "natural born Citizen"? ......." Tell ya what, bills. If I was to give you a answer, you'd sure as shootin' find a link that disputed it, so this time I think I'll pass and jus let you worry over what my answer might ah was. Okay? An I know yer gonna worry it, too.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 3, 2011 17:35:04 GMT -5
What is a natural-born citizen in US? Originally published April 1, 2011 at 5:39 p.m., updated April 2, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Editor, the Advocate: Who is qualified to be president of the United States? The U.S. Constitution itself gives proof of that. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a natural-born citizen is eligible for office of the president. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under authority granted by the people) has the power to punish offenses against the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations says that a natural-born citizen is one whom is born in the country of parents, both of whom are citizens of that country. So even if Obama was born on the steps of the White House, because his father is a British subject, this in itself makes Obama ineligible to hold the office of U.S. president. www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/apr/01/vp_ltr_boehl_040311_134616/?viewpoints
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2011 17:36:17 GMT -5
"........ Okay, what is his definition of "natural born Citizen"? ......." Tell ya what, bills. If I was to give you a answer, you'd sure as shootin' find a link that disputed it, so this time I think I'll pass and jus let you worry over what my answer might ah was. Okay? An I know yer gonna worry it, too. yeah
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 3, 2011 17:44:15 GMT -5
Well, if you're sand bagging somethin that'd lend to the discusshun yer not playin fahr. Y'know that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 17:46:28 GMT -5
Article I Section 8 of the constitution says only this in regards to the Law of Nations: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; Its fairly obvoius the context... are you suggesting that we meant that we should bow to international law in all manner and definition? lol... Its really fun to see how far peole will go to try to justify though... ... The idea that a person born of a US mother, on US soil, is not a natural born citizen, is pretty out there... but i guess if you can't win, you just keep redeffining the perameters... ok, so he wasn't born in Africa... he still isn't a citizen... cause i said so... lol... So basically i guess my kids should not be able to be president either? Since their father was not a citizen when they were born, to me, here in this country...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 3, 2011 17:47:38 GMT -5
Curious that a comma is placed after "Citizen of the United States".
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 3, 2011 17:52:01 GMT -5
Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a natural-born citizen is eligible for office of the president.
The Law of Nations says that a natural-born citizen is one whom is born in the country of parents, both of whom are citizens of that country
So was Obama's parents both of whom citizens of the United States?
Anwer No!..
What say you anti-Birthers ....is this article's claim correct or not??
And if NOT, then why??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 17:56:09 GMT -5
Yes... a person who is born a citizen. A person who is born on our soil, and/or to a United States citizen is a citizen at his/her birth... naturally... ... He/she is not naturalized... he/she is a natural BORN citizen. Obama was born ON US soil, TO a US citizen... he is a natural born citizen.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 3, 2011 17:57:00 GMT -5
I noted that, as well, Virgil. That ties the phrase "Citizen of the United States" to the first clause "No Person except a natural born Citizen" as a modifier. It makes it easy to see how confusion reigns. The rules for commas have changed a bit over the years. It would be interesting to look into what those rules were at the time of this writing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 17:57:17 GMT -5
First of all, i'd like to see a Law of Nations citation that says such. 2nd... are you suggesting that international law should ALWAYS be used to define/superceed American law? Or just when you like it better...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 3, 2011 17:59:28 GMT -5
Ok then how do you refute this factoid: The Law of Nations says that a natural-born citizen is one whom is born in the country of parents, both of whom are citizens of that country. So even if Obama was born on the steps of the White House, because his father is a British subject, this in itself makes Obama ineligible to hold the office of U.S. president.Source: What Is A Natural Born Citizen In The United States www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/apr/01/vp_ltr_boehl_040311_134616/?viewpoints
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 18:00:19 GMT -5
By the way...
Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson's mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, and Bill Richardson's parents were both foreign-born, his father from Nicaragua and his mother from Mexico.
Have you read the 14th ammendment? Just asking...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 0:21:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 18:01:36 GMT -5
First of all... i can't find that anywhere but on anti-Obama threads, so i can't say if its authentic... 2nd of all... Law of Nations was INTERNATIONAL law... not our law... it was only cited in the Constitution in reference to piracy and issues of international waters...
|
|