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 1, 2011 12:53:31 GMT -5
Whether the US-born parent is male, or female, has no relevance in today's society, as those astute enough to recognize this is not the 18th century have pointed out. Societies change, as do their morés. Despite some who seemingly wish to do so, I doubt this country will be seeking to return to the standards of that time.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 1, 2011 12:54:16 GMT -5
Aw shucks Archie, you ol' dog. What a dirty April's Fool trick to pull on the liberals. And all this time I had 'em on the run looking it up. Oh well, there's always the chance they'll read "some" of it. Maybe the part about those court cases that DO agree with the Constitution. Something tells me they are the ones that count anyway. These recent cases that say nobody has standing just ain't the law of the land. I mean, , , Vattel's language has still not been changed or redacted. It's just that the modern day globalists don't want to know about them words or what they mean. Maybe the "next" generation . . . . . . sigh . . . .
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 1, 2011 12:57:45 GMT -5
Aw shucks Archie, you ol' dog. And all this time I had 'em on the run looking it up. seriously? get over yourself.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Apr 1, 2011 13:29:24 GMT -5
The point of the Birthers claims is not that the POTUS is or isn't, it is that just the mention of , to put any doubt into any voters mind is a victory so why change. It has accomplished the mission , a success, and all those who are against the POTUS, are smiling and chuckling every time they see the subject brought up, you can't see them but many posters here are giggling in glee as all are spending time here discussing the topic and nodding their heads in a affirmative way as they read my post.{sigh} On this I am 100% correct in my statement and opinion I wish I wasn't but the facts are the facts. On this one, they accomplished their purpose.
|
|
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 1, 2011 13:38:28 GMT -5
I disagree, dezi. I firmly believe this type of fear-mongering is, generally, ineffective on the average, thinking individual. While there are those who will buy in, there are more who won't. They're just not as vocal. They don't feel they need to be, as the whole idea seems silly to them. It's not difficult to research these accusations on one's own, if one makes the effort.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 1, 2011 13:48:38 GMT -5
I firmly believe this type of fear-mongering is, generally, ineffective on the average, thinking individual. While there are those who will buy in, there are more who won't. They're just not as vocal. They don't feel they need to be, as the whole idea seems silly to them. Yeah. Some of them get to be federal judges and say nobody has standing to bring up the words or ask what the Constitution means by their use.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 1, 2011 13:58:10 GMT -5
I actually read all 6 pages of this thread. The only thing I learned is that because I was born in Connecticut and my 2 children were born in NJ after the 70's we can't be President of the United States because crazy people don't like what the state's issue as it's birth certificates.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 1, 2011 13:58:44 GMT -5
I actually read all 6 pages of this thread. The only thing I learned is that because I was born in Connecticut and my 2 children were born in NJ after the 70's we can't be President of the United States because crazy people don't like what the state issues as it's birth certificates.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Apr 1, 2011 14:04:56 GMT -5
I disagree, dezi. I firmly believe this type of fear-mongering is, generally, ineffective on the average, thinking individual. While there are those who will buy in, there are more who won't. They're just not as vocal. They don't feel they need to be, as the whole idea seems silly to them. It's not difficult to research these accusations on one's own, if one makes the effort. Agree that many just dismiss the claims, but I still feel it is a victory for that group, birthers , if they get just one to think positively about that possibility, and I am afraid that there are are lot more then one. The only good thing that may be the fact, few of those who do go along with or possibly swing that way, probably were not going to support Obama anyway, but as was the case with the "Swift Boat " group allegations, some place, some where , it may be a very close election and those on the fence who might use this idea as a fact , thus vote a certain way, just MIGHT make a difference. So I stay with my thought, it's not that the idea is really considered plausible by those who continuously suggest it, like here for example. It's just the thought of it and discussion of it is enough and again , as I type, some here, I guarantee you , are grinning and shaking their heads in the affirmative as they read my words.
|
|
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 1, 2011 14:17:56 GMT -5
Exactly, Dezi. Those who want to believe this sort of rot will believe it. It doesn't matter whether they read it here, or on one of the conspiracy sites. If they're looking for a reason to hate, they'll find one that suits them. I do agree that, sometimes, people start threads just for the sake of getting a bruhaha going. They don't really care, one way or the other. It's a game to them. I figure, people can believe whatever they like. I'll do my own research and make up my own mind based on what I find to make the most sense.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 1, 2011 14:30:29 GMT -5
I would buy this arguement. But, then what is Trump's angle? It might appeal to the fringe groups & those that believe everything they hear, but I would think he is alienating many people that might otherwise vote for him.
I don't know enough about Trump's views to know if I would vote for him. But, him continuously bringing up the birther issue as though it were an issue makes me dislike him & as a result he is already losing my interest as candidate.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Apr 1, 2011 15:05:17 GMT -5
I actually read all 6 pages of this thread. The only thing I learned is that because I was born in Connecticut and my 2 children were born in NJ after the 70's we can't be President of the United States because crazy people don't like what the state's issue as it's birth certificates. Serves you right for living in either CT (the land or perpetual I95 construction) or NJ (do I really need to say it?).
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Apr 1, 2011 15:54:52 GMT -5
If you think Dems are getting rich from conservation groups and unions, you're crazy. The big money (30-50X as much for lobbyists) comes from corporations and greedy rich wanting to pollute, ruin the workers, and keep taxes on the rich ruinously low. Gov't CAN work, but certainly not with those trying to prove it can't. Any knowledgeable observer can see where the misinformation is coming from.Such as: The ACORN SCANDAL was a total Faux/pub hoax. Like the Mosque, the Tides Foundation, the birth thing, the Kenya thing, the Muslim thing, the gov't takeover, giveaway to insurers, huge cost, lose your doctor, and death panel things. Highly misled! The Obama Recession, stimulus didn't work, and Marxist things...ad infinitum and ad nauseum....
All these BS distractions from Pub's ruining the nonrich and the country reduces so many to idiocy...keep up the birther thing- Pubs are their own worst enemies...
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 1, 2011 16:03:59 GMT -5
This describes my ideal country! Let's do that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 16:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2011 16:11:35 GMT -5
"I think they starting bending it to fit their needs roughly 15 minutes after it was written lol. " We just covered the Alien and Sedition Acts this week...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Apr 1, 2011 16:30:46 GMT -5
"Exactly, Dezi. Those who want to believe this sort of rot will believe it. It doesn't matter whether they read it here, or on one of the conspiracy sites."
Hey, it's all over Fox News and Rush. Even Pub leaders won't really discredit it. These idiocies dominate cable news- no wonder people don't understand policies- they're seldom debated or explained.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,450
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 1, 2011 16:33:40 GMT -5
"Exactly, Dezi. Those who want to believe this sort of rot will believe it. It doesn't matter whether they read it here, or on one of the conspiracy sites." Hey, it's all over Fox News and Rush. Even Pub leaders won't really discredit it. These idiocies dominate cable news- no wonder people don't understand policies- they're seldom debated or explained. or shot down by leaders of the party. John Boehner was on Meet The Press a few months ago, and was point-blank asked about the birthers. he squirmed and ducked the questions.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 1, 2011 16:43:18 GMT -5
Even Karl Rove thinks Trump is taking this too far: "You know, the troubling thing in the interview tonight was he said as time has gone on here, over the last couple of weeks, he has become more interested and more believing in the issue. You know, when he first brought it up, he said 'of course I accept that he's a citizen. He ought to just release the, release his birth certificate.' Different tone tonight. This is a mistake. It will marginalize him and he's falling into Barack Obama's trap. Barack Obama wants Republicans to fall into this trap because he knows it discredits us with the vast majority of the American people when they do." www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-oreilly-karl-rove-video-2011-3
|
|
|
Post by keywestsun on Apr 1, 2011 16:54:56 GMT -5
So if I get this right, nobody care what the meaning of natural born is or what the founders intended for it to prevent, that was old times and we are modern people and we know better. We can just bend the laws to fit the needs we have today, to heck with the meaning of that old piece of paper.................
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Apr 1, 2011 16:59:08 GMT -5
Exactly, Dezi. Those who want to believe this sort of rot will believe it. It doesn't matter whether they read it here, or on one of the conspiracy sites. If they're looking for a reason to hate, they'll find one that suits them. I do agree that, sometimes, people start threads just for the sake of getting a bruhaha going. They don't really care, one way or the other. It's a game to them. I figure, people can believe whatever they like. I'll do my own research and make up my own mind based on what I find to make the most sense.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Apr 1, 2011 17:01:58 GMT -5
I actually read all 6 pages of this thread. The only thing I learned is that because I was born in Connecticut and my 2 children were born in NJ after the 70's we can't be President of the United States because crazy people don't like what the state's issue as it's birth certificates. Serves you right for living in either CT (the land or perpetual I95 construction) or NJ (do I really need to say it?). i 95, very busy road, but then there is the important things in life that we live for...U-Conn Mens, U- Conn Womans, both in Final Four NCAA Tournment , Hoo Raaa, Go Huskies ;D
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 1, 2011 17:35:56 GMT -5
So if I get this right, nobody care what the meaning of natural born is or what the founders intended for it to prevent, that was old times and we are modern people and we know better. We can just bend the laws to fit the needs we have today, to heck with the meaning of that old piece of paper................. The meaning of natural born is not defined in the constitution, so I don't see that anyone is bending any laws. Back in 1829 William Rawle wrote: "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity". This has been a back & forth argument for 200 years, so to assume that we know the original intent is silly. Perhaps they didn't define natural born citizen for the very reason that the definition should be able to change with the times.
|
|
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 1, 2011 18:10:32 GMT -5
Thanks to both sides for giving me a read on the controversy. Although I'm no fan of President Obama, it seems to me that his natural-born status is at worst 'ambiguous' and that the courts have ruled in his favour.
That said, it's obvious from the debate thus far that not everyone who believes in the stricter definition is just trying to cause trouble. For all we know, a constitutional judge ruled wrongly on the matter ages ago and set a bad precedent. All future rulings (and precedents) then piled onto that landmark case. It has been known to happen.
This is all a bit of a moot issue anyway. Mr. Obama is already well into his third year. Polling suggests that many Democrats won't support him for a second term.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Apr 1, 2011 18:27:38 GMT -5
This is all a bit of a moot issue anyway. Mr. Obama is already well into his third year. Polling suggests that many Democrats won't support him for a second term. Link? Palin/Beck 2012!!
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Apr 1, 2011 18:48:26 GMT -5
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. * Can you read this.....Do you understand what it says?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 1, 2011 20:55:48 GMT -5
Hopefully the lull has calmed some tempers and the debate can continue on a more amicable scale. I asked magichat what question he wanted answered, see 126 above, tempers flew for a while and in #141 he posted this: Better understood now compared to when? Perhaps I had spoken early because he then followed it with this: I have always understood the term Natural Born Citizen, however you take the founders intents to the extreme, then anybody born a territory would not be natural born....in that sense we didn't have a choice in 2008 for a candidate that qualified. Based on your dialogue I respectfully disagree that you understand the term's intended application. The implication of it's use was, , , and most people who read the background on it's selection for placement as a Founding Requisite, believe still is, , , extremely narrow. It was chosen as an affirmative block, to prevent, as opposed to a broader perspective of passively avoiding , , the allure attached to otherwise respected individuals , , who might present any remotely possible contamination within our presidential offices through allegiances to another sovereign power. It was not selected out of hand. To the contrary, the term "Natural Born Citizen" was selected only after long and thoughtful discussions about who should be qualified to sit as president of these, at the time, 13 United States. Today there are almost 4 times as many states, and several thousand times more people for the president to preside over. If it was so important to the Founders, it should be even more important today. I base my disagreement that you understand the meaning of the term simply because of your comment that, ". . .take the Founders intents to the extreme, , , , we didn't have a choice in 2008". . . . . Here I take it you are referring to McCain having been born in the Canal Zone. To say he would not qualify would be to tell all government employees that their children could never be president if they took an overseas assignment and gave birth in a US Mission, Consulalte, Embassy, military station or United States ship at sea. I would tend to agree if the farher were not an American citizen. But that is a far different thing than the circumstances of Obama's birth has presented. It is also an invasion on the soverigniy of every civilized nation that offers citizenshiop to the children of it's own citizens, if those children are born within it's sovereign territories. There should be no question that when the Constitution was written every child born in the American Colonies was a subject of the King, and a citizen of his realm. But could any of them ever rise to be King? Not only no, but their laws of ascendebcy were even more strict, , , and still are. And notably, in the same wording of the Constitution where the term "natrural born citizen" appears, there is an exception provided for people who were born as British subjects to become president. Obama's father was a British subject, but the Constitutional provision expired before he was born, so his claim of right expired with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 16:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2011 21:16:43 GMT -5
What makes you think they didn't?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 1, 2011 21:33:01 GMT -5
What makes you think they didn't? Ma'am are you aware that a percentage of these United States doesn't think Obama was born in this country and also believe that he is really a closeted Muslim?? I do tons of travelling lately and have been astonished to hear people talk about this..and they are not all Red Necks, Joe Six Pack, or Sally Soccer Moms, but rather attorneys, retired military, and small business owners....I think Republicans know that if a story is repeated enough it begins to have a life of it's own as you well know, I am sure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 16:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2011 21:36:00 GMT -5
Yes... i am a believer both in the capacity for human stupidity and the power of mob mentality...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 1, 2011 21:40:10 GMT -5
Yes... i am a believer both in the capacity for human stupidity and the power of mob mentality... Donald Trump is beating the drums on this issue and may use it as one of his campaign themes...ain't this a great country ?? Where else can you have so much fun with Polticians and make so much money..
|
|