wildcat2334 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I don't even have the words.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 I never did that. I simply pointed out many things we do not know about him - simple things that we know about almost all previous Presidents. Why all the secrecy and sealed records? It should concern everyone. How about you do some research and fill in some of the blanks? Regarding his citizenship, I said on an earlier thread that I would stipulate that he is a citizen (Although his stubborn refusal to produce a long form birth certificate makes me wonder, it does not matter to my point) but is still ineligible to be President of the United States, POTUS. Before I could respond to a sincere question, the thread was locked, as they all quickly seem to be nowadays. I do not have the time to hang out here and readily respond to comments, some capitalists actually have to work. That ends now. I am delighted to finally have the time to address the issue. The "birther" designation has always been a media/campaign smoke screen, a way to deflect attention from the actual and serious issue. The Constitution requires that the POTUS be a "natural born citizen." Senators are only required to simply be "citizens." Clearly the founders demanded a hgher standard for the POTUS. So, what is that standard? The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "citizen," but have declined to declare them of "natural born" status. They have never had to rule about that in terms of the POTUS. Many times, when new issues have come before them, the SCOTUS had to refer the the writings of the Founders. Clearly, the Founders considered the purity (in terms of citizenship) of the POTUS to be a national security issue. They wanted him to be "of blood" and "of soil," and therefore have no allegiance to any other country. They were so strong in that opinion, and realizing that none of them could meet that standard, they grandfathered themselves in as eligible, per The Constitution. Except for the Founders, that meant the POTUS must be born on U.S. soil of two citizen parents. That is the higher standard. Obama admits his father was British (before Kenya gained independence) and therefore Obama also had British citizenship at his birth. He is ineligible to be the POTUS. McCain was also ineligible on this issue, having been born in a Panamanian hospital and not on a military base, which is likely why the GOP did not bring up this issue, not to mention their new darling, Bobby Jindal is also ineligible. You might ask about who is responsible for putting Constitutionally eligible candidates on ballots - I know I did when I first became aware of this issue. It's the various Secretaries of States. Several states allowed Roger Calero, the Socialist Party candidate, to be on their ballot. He was born in Nicaragua, of two Nicaraguan citizens. By any standard, he was not eligible to be the POTUS. Lastly, before you start arguing about the unfairness of whom The Constitution prohibits being the POTUS, you might consider potentially who the natural born requirement prevents from being the POTUS. If Obama is eligible, so would be the spawn of Osama bin Laden born of an American woman in New York City. I believe the Constitution should and does prevent that from happening and there should be no exceptions. Even for the charismatic teleprompter reader now occupying the White House. Should you care to actually educate yourself on this issue - I have barely touched on the research - this site is intensive and will take hours to absorb: Natural Born Citizen http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp You and Snopes (not that I consider Snopes to be a legitimate source of information) do not understand that there is a difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." There are three categories of U.S. Citizenship. There are those that get their citizenship by law, as those who are naturalized or born abroad of citizen parents. There are those that are born on U.S. soil of at least one alien parent, per the 14th Amendment. And there are those that are "natural born." Only the latter are eligible to be the POTUS. Period. Rather than quoting Snopes, how about you find a Supreme Court case that declares someone with Obama's parentage as "natural born." That would be the only opinion that has any legal weight. All citizens of the United States have equal rights of that citizenship, and all can be anything they wish to be - except President. The President must be natural born, per The Constitution. If you are not willing to except and understand that - what other parts of our founding document are you willing to discard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 There are those that are born on U.S. soil of at least one alien parent, per the 14th Amendment. And there are those that are "natural born." My 3 year-old and my 2 year-old think you are full of sh|t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 He has a birth certificate from Hawaii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 He has a birth certificate from Hawaii Please pay attention... LadyHawke is now claiming that that isn't good enough either since his father was not an American citizen. :kookooforcocoapuffs: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Please pay attention... LadyHawke is now claiming that that isn't good enough either since his father was not an American citizen. :kookooforcocoapuffs: You should explain to her that since Obama was born in Hawaii it does not matter where his father was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 You should explain to her that since Obama was born in Hawaii it does not matter where his father was born. Yeah, Wiegie. How come you haven't explained that to her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Oh. My. God. Everyone REALLY should read the UNVERIFIED BLOG that lady hawke references. I was laughing for a good ten minutes reading it. lady hawke dismisses snopes as a legitimate source, but then uses a PERSONAL blog by birthers as "proof". This comedy just gets better and better . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 What the hell are you guys talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 You and Snopes (not that I consider Snopes to be a legitimate source of information) do not understand that there is a difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." There are three categories of U.S. Citizenship. There are those that get their citizenship by law, as those who are naturalized or born abroad of citizen parents. There are those that are born on U.S. soil of at least one alien parent, per the 14th Amendment. And there are those that are "natural born." Only the latter are eligible to be the POTUS. Period. Rather than quoting Snopes, how about you find a Supreme Court case that declares someone with Obama's parentage as "natural born." That would be the only opinion that has any legal weight. All citizens of the United States have equal rights of that citizenship, and all can be anything they wish to be - except President. The President must be natural born, per The Constitution. If you are not willing to except and understand that - what other parts of our founding document are you willing to discard? You DO realize that if there was even a SHRED of credibility behind this farce that the Republicans would be sending every high priced lawyer to file lawsuits challenging the eligibilty . . . right? The very lack of activity on this highly debated subject DURING THE ELECTION proves how silly and simplistic people can be that actually believe this drivel. Please go back to searching for bigfoot, Area 51 and the Loch Ness monster. Those have more credibility . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 What the hell are you guys talking about? It involves Jonathan Stewart's eligibility to run for president . . you wouldnt be interested . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 You DO realize that if there was even a SHRED of credibility behind this farce that the Republicans would be sending every high priced lawyer to file lawsuits challenging the eligibilty . . . right? oh, no no no, the GOP is part of the conspiracy too since they want to make sure that Bobby Jindall has a chance to become an unconstitutional president too (seriously, that is the nutjobs' argument) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 It involves Jonathan Stewart's eligibility to run for president . . you wouldnt be interested . . A petition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 The moon landing was faked, give me a few minutes to find a blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 You're getting trolled so hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 What the hell are you guys talking about? Lady.Hawke is pwning everyone here. Especially wiegie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Lady.Hawke is pwning everyone here. Especially wiegie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Except for the Founders, that meant the POTUS must be born on U.S. soil of two citizen parents. That is the higher standard. Sounds like something a white man/Nazi typed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Lady.Hawke is pwning everyone here. Especially wiegie. She'll only come out at night, at lean and hungry time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Yes this time of night yields the only moments I have to devote to this subject. Some nights more than others. I did notice a lot of personal attacks, but not one fact to dispute my defense of the Constitution. And it is not my defense. Many Constitutional scholars have written about Obama's lack of eligibility as I have described. You all have not been informed because the media focused on the "birther" issue, thereby disguising the actual Constitutional question. And, like it or not, it is a legitimate question. And it is not going away, so at least all of you that are shocked will remember where you heard it first. Wiegie, like it or not, whatever you think I am full of notwithstanding, as a scholar, you should know better than to react as you did without a modicum of research. President Chester Arthur lied about the fact that his father was a British citizen when he was born in the U.S, as he was running for POTUS. Apparently, Arthur knew it was a problem. As you believe I am so "full" how about you opine on the difference between the Constitutional requirement that Senators must merely be "citizens" but the President must be a "natural born citizen." What is the difference? There obviously is one. Until you or anyone can give a reasoned answer, perhaps you should refrain from the personal attacks. Those attacks speak volumes about the writers and say nothing about me. Most people realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Most people realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 As you believe I am so "full" how about you opine on the difference between the Constitutional requirement that Senators must merely be "citizens" but the President must be a "natural born citizen." What is the difference? There obviously is one. yes, there is a difference a natural born citizen is a person who was a citizen from birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen (who is someone who was not a citizen when they were born but became one at some point in their life) there is no nonsensical middle category like you are suggesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 I found something that is going to make ALL of our heads explode WE HAVEN'T HAD A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID PRESIDENT IN MORE THAN A CENTURY AND WE WILL NEVER HAVE ONE AGAIN Lady.Hawke, please accept my apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Can a test tube baby created on American soil run for President? That is the real question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.