Birther News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

truckinslave -> Birther News (3/8/2011 5:35:13 AM)

The Birther movement continues to grow (and, imo, for damned good reason).

A 12th state- Iowa- is in the process of enacting laws requiring candidates for POTUS to prove their eligibility for office before having their name printed on their ballot. The states have standing

A professor emeritus of Law at Notre Dame ( Resume here ) has advanced the idea that the eligibility question is valid and, absent action by the Court, should be investigated by the House. While I personally want the States to advance the question to SCOTUS, this is still wonderful news. The movement continues to draw support from more and more respected sources, people able to look at the issue dispassionately, and to move forward.
Citizens whom the media and pundits dismiss as 'birthers' have raised legitimate questions



Moonhead -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 5:38:31 AM)

What will you people have to whine about if the Kenyan proves that he has a hawaian birth certificate?



tazzygirl -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 5:54:06 AM)

While the bill is considered dead for this session, it could be resurrected in the next.


www.wnd.com/?pageId=271501#ixzz1G13M93bD

I have no objection to the requirement. I do have objections to it being made public. No other president had to go through that. Why start now.



Moonhead -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 5:55:37 AM)

Because no other President ever had such a dark complexion would be my guess.
(God only knows what they'd whining about if Hilary had got the nomination...)



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 5:57:09 AM)

There is extremely little reason to believe that "natural born citizen" means, solely "born in the USA". I want a definition from the Court, once and for all, not just a document any reasonable person would have produced moths and millions ago.



thishereboi -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 5:57:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Because no other President ever had such a dark complexion would be my guess.
(God only knows what they'd whining about if Hilary had got the nomination...)


Is that honestly the only reason you can think of? Do you base every thing you do on the color of the other persons skin? Or are you just parroting the same lines you keep hearing from the other idiots out there?



DomYngBlk -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:01:09 AM)

And, there could be any other reason?



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:01:28 AM)

Because, first of all, we really should start sometime, and continue as a matter of routine. Why not now?
Secondly, there are legitimate questions about 0bama0, and a need for the defintion of NBC. Now.




DomYngBlk -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:04:43 AM)

Ahhhhh and the KKK lives!



Moonhead -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:06:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Is that honestly the only reason you can think of? Do you base every thing you do on the color of the other persons skin? Or are you just parroting the same lines you keep hearing from the other idiots out there?

No, it's more that this eligibility fuss only seems to have kicked off with the election of a mulatto. It's about the only form of attack that Starr and Gringrich didn't use on Clinton, after all. I suppose it's possible that there isn't a racial element to all this nonsense, but it's a lot more likely that there is.



tazzygirl -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:07:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Because, first of all, we really should start sometime, and continue as a matter of routine. Why not now?
Secondly, there are legitimate questions about 0bama0, and a need for the defintion of NBC. Now.




If the states want proof... fine.
I agree the SC needs to define what NBC is... they have deliberately chosen not too.
I do NOT agree with making the birth records public.



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:08:13 AM)

Something I should have included in the OP from the post in The Steady Drip

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: "[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

Yet another reason we need a precise definition from SCOTUS. The careful reader of the above will note that the Court seems inadvertently to have used "citizen" and "natural born citizen" interchangeably, something not only nonsensical but clearly prohibited by Marbury v, Madison.

We need a definition.



mnottertail -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:08:44 AM)

Article I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

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.

So, while it might be interesting to know what a natural born Citizen is, by having SCOTUS sift thru INS law and summarize it, rather than screwing around with the current  POTUS, who we all agree has better things to do, and since in any and every dictionary including Blacks Law the connective OR  means that one or the other is necessary and sufficiet, and he is certainly a citizen of the United States (based soley on his mother being an American Citizen, that is the necessary and sufficient condition, regardless if there are others, which there are...)

Wouldn't it serve the public interest equally to bring suit against 'Dutch' Reagan?

 



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:11:50 AM)

That seems to be self-contradictory.
To what star chamber should proof of meeting the definition be presented?
By what thinking is making such information public too high a price for an individual to pay in order to run for POTUS. Doesn't making the proof public amount to a candle flickering on the face of the sun in comparison to the other costs of running?



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:16:23 AM)

You missed this:
quote:

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Epic fail, but novel, I'll give you that.
You are the only person I have ever read claiming the President doesn't have to be an NBC ( or 220 some years old).
Novel indeed.



Sanity -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:22:34 AM)


Dan Rather, who carried on in Walter Cronkites tradition, was caught trying to fake some very personal papers that supposedly discussed George W. Bush's service records, the point being that  President Bush's service records (which have no legal bearing on a mans fitness to serve)  were thought of by leftists as fair game at the time, right?

But this, something thats a constitutional requirement, isnt fair game?

I call bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

That seems to be self-contradictory.
To what star chamber should proof of meeting the definition be presented?
By what thinking is making such information public too high a price for an individual to pay in order to run for POTUS. Doesn't making the proof public amount to a candle flickering on the face of the sun in comparison to the other costs of running?



mnottertail -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:24:49 AM)

I didnt miss anything, the or applies to either clause and the peroration inherits the or.

Nothing novel about it and why Scalia's little hints were grasping at straws for you.

Apparently the epic fail would lie with the four strikes crowd and not with those of us who understand the meaning of or.  



truckinslave -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:30:16 AM)

quote:

Nothing novel about it


Maybe you can find some support for this other-than-novel idea that the President doesn't have to be a natural born citizen?
Some legal decision?
Some legal brief?
Musings by a law professor?
A blog by an idiot?
Something in crayon?
Something,somewhere? Anything, anywhere on the www?

Yeah. Didn't think so.



igor2003 -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:34:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Because no other President ever had such a dark complexion would be my guess.
(God only knows what they'd whining about if Hilary had got the nomination...)


Actually, the only reason Obama is going through this is because he is a Democrat.  The people on the right side of the aisle are simply using any means available to try to discredit him, and this is one of the things they have latched onto to try to achieve their goal.  If Obama was a Republican president you would not be hearing anything at all from these people.  It wasn't too long ago that a lot of right-wingers were actually wanting to change the laws so that Arnold could run for president weren't they?  It seems that the sanctity of being a "natural born citizen" is only important to them when it suits their needs.



mnottertail -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 6:35:24 AM)

Nope, and in fact it has been held as an AND instead of an OR.

But just like you, and your 'manacled, and weeping', I find fault with it, not that it matters one whit, because:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html  

covered and not seeming to need further clarification, it lloks like, cuz the fourth time was not a charm.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875