SEC=UGA Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I say we blame all our problems on the Jews brown/black/yellow people. There's some good history in rallying the people to such a cause. Don't trust whitey.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Don't trust whitey.... Rev. Wright is dat you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Don't trust twiley.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 :penguins: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 uh, the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen from birth and they also said that he was a natural born subject of the US, so I therefore urge you to explain how someone who is born a US citizen and is also a natural born US subject is somehow not a natural born US citizen. (Given that this is the whole thrust of your argument, it really shouldn't take that much time to expain it to me.) What the High Court's majority opinion actually said was this: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." How you managed to construe anything else out of that is ridiculous. No one is a "subject" of the United States. Could you please deal in facts? US v Wong Kim Ark resulted in a 732 page opinion. They never said he was a natural born citizen. Period. If not, how about you quote what you claim from the opinion. You cannot because it is not there. Discussion is not the Court's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The founders relied heavily on a work called, The Law of Nations," published in 1758, by Emmerich de Vattel. It is likely that is where John Jay got the "natural born" language he wrote about to George Washington. According to Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 how about you quote what you claim from the opinion. You cannot because it is not there. Discussion is not the Court's opinion. So, just so I am clear here: when you use the discussion to try to prove your point, it is ok; but when somebody else uses the exact same portion of the discussion to prove their point, the discussion is no longer valid? no one is a "subject" of the United States. ok, but then that begs the question of why the court even talked about subjects at all the answer is that they were showing that being a natural born citizen of the united states works the same as being a natural born subject of a country that has subjects Again though, assuming that your keen legal scholarship is correct, how come nobody made this argument when Obama was still running for president? (Such as, say, Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What the hell is this, open mic night at the Got No Law Degree Saloon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What the hell is this, open mic night at the Got No Law Degree Saloon? Instant classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Birther: A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto. "Did you know that Barack Obama's parents concealed the location of his birth because they knew he would grow up to be President? What? Of course it makes sense, I'm a birther!" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=birther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 What the hell is this, open mic night at the Got No Law Degree Saloon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) So, just so I am clear here: when you use the discussion to try to prove your point, it is ok; but when somebody else uses the exact same portion of the discussion to prove their point, the discussion is no longer valid? ok, but then that begs the question of why the court even talked about subjects at all the answer is that they were showing that being a natural born citizen of the united states works the same as being a natural born subject of a country that has subjects Again though, assuming that your keen legal scholarship is correct, how come nobody made this argument when Obama was still running for president? (Such as, say, Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin?) My only point when I quoted a part of the Supreme Court discussion - and I chose that part at random - was to show that they did discuss the "natural born" issue, but then ultimately ruled against it for Wong Kim Ark. Perhaps that was not clear. You, on the other hand, took it and ran with it as if I was hiding something. I was not. I am not sure, but I think what you added was a part that discussed British law at the time, hence use of the word "subject." If you read the 700+ pages, you will find that they were discussing the laws of citizenship in many countries. Some of those inhabitants are subjects, not citizens. It's actually a very interesting read, or a cure for insomnia. There were many that did make the argument before the election. It was not reported, which is why you did not know about it. It was obscured by the Birther issue. Obama was brilliant in framing the issue around the birth certificate, thereby obscuring the actual problem. As we have discovered in this thread - it's complicated. There are many darlings of the GOP that are probably likewise ineligible, McCain himself. I cannot answer for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps she did not want to suffer the political consequences of bringing down the first serious black presidential candidate. I would have voted for her, had I had the chance. Edited November 26, 2009 by Lady.hawke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 You're reading 700 page documents to try prove that Obama is ineligible to hold an office he was already elected to? No wonder you don't have much time to post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 You're reading 700 page documents to try prove that Obama is ineligible to hold an office he was already elected to? No wonder you don't have much time to post here. I take research seriously as it is my job. But, I read it well before the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I take research seriously as it is my job. But, I read it well before the election. no you didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 He was born in Hawaii so it really does not matter what citizenry his parent are; although, his mother is a natural born American citizen. It's really not complicated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 So, how 'bout that Afghanistan, huh? That was what this thread was about originally, isn't it? For someone who doesn't have much time, Lady Hawke seems to have tons of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I take research seriously as it is my job. But, I read it well before the election. Wow, I mean wow. Ted Kaczynski has nothing on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 So, how 'bout that Afghanistan, huh? That was what this thread was about originally, isn't it? For someone who doesn't have much time, Lady Hawke seems to have tons of time. We will know next Tuesday but from what I've read, sounds like more troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 For someone who doesn't have much time, Lady Hawke seems to have tons of time. She read a 700 page document related to this issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 You've got to give ladyhawke credit. She has turned two threads on completely different subjects into a thread about Obama not being a US citizen! Threads tend to just evolve and she puts it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 no you didn't. Yes, I did. I read it as soon as I realized that it was relevant to the question of a legitimate President. I must admit, in Supreme Court pages, it is likely half-pages in terms of regular books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 He was born in Hawaii so it really does not matter what citizenry his parent are; although, his mother is a natural born American citizen. It's really not complicated at all. If you read this thread at all, you would know that is moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 You've got to give ladyhawke credit. She has turned two threads on completely different subjects into a thread about Obama not being a US citizen! Threads tend to just evolve and she puts it. Thank you. Mostly I just reply and people ask questions that I am compelled to answer. I am not trying to hijack threads. I am amused that I am blamed for the hijacking of this thread and not wiegie, my co-hijacker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Usually I completely agree with you. It's not just that we have not seen his "high school report card,." as you flippantly said. We have seen no record of anything to document his entire life. This is quite different than everything we knew about Bush - we really know nothing about Obama. Questioning that is not moronic. I do not believe he is a Constitutional President and therefore the heinous remaking of laws by his administration is likely unlawful. I do not expect any court to realize that - which is really scary. Having said that, just what would you have those of us that are against his brand of change do? I for one, have been totally focused on doing everything I can to prevent his polices from being enacted. My representatives , Boxer, Feinstein and Matsui, are lockstepping Progressive Socialists that do not respond to any voter input. Since you claim that McCain is not a natural born citizen, if he had become president, would you be outraged that his "remaking of laws would have been likely unlawful" 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.