[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.[/quote]
If having something worthwhile to say was a requirement for posting in here, most of the regulars would be banned.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.[/quote]
If having something worthwhile to say was a requirement for posting in here, most of the regulars would be banned.[/quote]
Well you are not a regular, so you should probably add something of substance…what is your feeling on this subject?
/no LOL cat, horse or bird pics plz
<<< Is curious how long you’ll keep this up.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.[/quote]
If having something worthwhile to say was a requirement for posting in here, most of the regulars would be banned.[/quote]
Well you are not a regular, so you should probably add something of substance…what is your feeling on this subject?
/no LOL cat, horse or bird pics plz[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
<<< Is curious how long you’ll keep this up.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.[/quote]
If having something worthwhile to say was a requirement for posting in here, most of the regulars would be banned.[/quote]
Well you are not a regular, so you should probably add something of substance…what is your feeling on this subject?
/no LOL cat, horse or bird pics plz[/quote]
[/quote]
Same Oooleena
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
<<< Is curious how long you’ll keep this up.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
If you’re gonna poke your snout into PWI at least have something worthwhile to add.[/quote]
If having something worthwhile to say was a requirement for posting in here, most of the regulars would be banned.[/quote]
Well you are not a regular, so you should probably add something of substance…what is your feeling on this subject?
/no LOL cat, horse or bird pics plz[/quote]
[/quote]
Same Oooleena[/quote]
I post when and how I feel moved to. This thread topic moves me to post house pets. If you’re really so interested in my opinions, just trot on over to the “Warmongers” thread.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Are people actually this stupid?
It’s things shyt like this that makes me want to turncoat and lean Democrat. Only briefly however.
BTW, McCain was born in Panama and Repubs ran him against Obama.
I’d say the precedent of ‘pushing the limits’ has already been set.
Obama is the f*ing President, he has had his background tabbed thoroughly I’m sure by many Government agencies.
Of all the stupid birther shyt I’ve heard, the only thing that ever held any weight was the Connecticut social security number…even if that is fishy…he is still on the books, born in the USA.
Get over the birther shyt, seriously, the only thing unboring about it, is how laughably mbarassing its existence is for the Conservative community and the most of them are too foolish to notice how stupid it makes them look.[/quote]
You know I think that is why I vote Democrat, I personally think the Democrats suck but the Republicans just suck more
[/quote]
Yall must have missed the entire point of the thread huh?[/quote]
I think you should tell us all then point of every thread posted here , I nominate you to do so
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well you are not a regular, so you should probably add something of substance…what is your feeling on this subject?
/no LOL cat, horse or bird pics plz[/quote]
Good internet fight!
Got a quick question, did you put your opinion on this thread before calling someone else out on not putting theirs?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Are people actually this stupid?
It’s things shyt like this that makes me want to turncoat and lean Democrat. Only briefly however.
BTW, McCain was born in Panama and Repubs ran him against Obama.
I’d say the precedent of ‘pushing the limits’ has already been set.
Obama is the f*ing President, he has had his background tabbed thoroughly I’m sure by many Government agencies.
Of all the stupid birther shyt I’ve heard, the only thing that ever held any weight was the Connecticut social security number…even if that is fishy…he is still on the books, born in the USA.
Get over the birther shyt, seriously, the only thing unboring about it, is how laughably mbarassing its existence is for the Conservative community and the most of them are too foolish to notice how stupid it makes them look.[/quote]
You know I think that is why I vote Democrat, I personally think the Democrats suck but the Republicans just suck more
[/quote]
Yall must have missed the entire point of the thread huh?[/quote]
I think you should tell us all then point of every thread posted here , I nominate you to do so
[/quote]
McCain was in no way ineligible to become president. He wasn’t “pushing” the limits at all.
The argument of the thread also has absolutely nothing to do with where Obama was born. “he is still on the books, born in the USA.” is completely irrelevant to the topic. The article linked in the original post even specifically states that it has nothing to do with where he was born.
It is blatantly obvious Rohnyn did even read the beginning of the article at has no idea what the thread is about. And you agreeing with him makes it look like you don’t know either.
For the record, I think its a bogus argument. It’s pretty evident that today we include natural born as anyone born here, but at least if you are going to rant about something, stick to things that actually happened instead of making up a fictitious argument to get pissy about.
Came across some relevant information on this:
'…no definition of “natural born citizen” was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated. There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That - coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries - has only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means.
The first United States Congress actually passed a law that began to define “natural born.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage: “The children of citizens of the United States,” the Act states, “shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” Five years later, however, Congress repealed the Act.
Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties. On July 25, 1787, Founding Father John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Jay discussed the dual loyalty concern, writing: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Jay, however, also did not define “natural born.”
In trying to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural born,” some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day. The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787. De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
So by de Vattels standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president.
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principle framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory if what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president.
Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a “natural born citizen.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), for example, the Court ruled that citizenship is aquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage. But much of that case’s decision - which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights - was overturned in 1868.
Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the “natural born” issue:
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[plural] who were its citizens[plural], 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.
According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president.
[T]he legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the “natural born” qualifications of Obama’s 2008 presidential opponent, Senator John McCain. The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” For some reason, the Senate did not address Obama’s “natural born” status.
- The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists by Aaron Klein
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I, personally, think you should bring this up often and loudly close to the election.
Also, see if you can get more of the presidential candidates to agree with you. Don’t vote for them if they don’t agree with you on this. [/quote]
for the lulz
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Are people actually this stupid?
It’s things shyt like this that makes me want to turncoat and lean Democrat. Only briefly however.
BTW, McCain was born in Panama and Repubs ran him against Obama.
I’d say the precedent of ‘pushing the limits’ has already been set.
Obama is the f*ing President, he has had his background tabbed thoroughly I’m sure by many Government agencies.
Of all the stupid birther shyt I’ve heard, the only thing that ever held any weight was the Connecticut social security number…even if that is fishy…he is still on the books, born in the USA.
Get over the birther shyt, seriously, the only thing unboring about it, is how laughably mbarassing its existence is for the Conservative community and the most of them are too foolish to notice how stupid it makes them look.[/quote]
You know I think that is why I vote Democrat, I personally think the Democrats suck but the Republicans just suck more
[/quote]
Yall must have missed the entire point of the thread huh?[/quote]
Uh huh.
Wow, there’s a lot of hate out there for the other guys candidate. Remember when George Bush was accused of trading blood for oil? And he and his VP were getting rich off the Iraq war? I laughed at those idiots about as loud as I’m laughing at the people on the far right who keep trying (and failing) to make an issue of Obama’s citizenship.
It seems that there is such a great divide in political thinking that those on either far end just seem to know in their heart that the other guys candidate must be a really bad person.
It’s funny yet sad as well. And I do wonder where this type of thinking will get us in say 20 years time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, there’s a lot of hate out there for the other guys candidate.
[/quote]
Out where? What’s that got to do with this thread?
Uh huh…
I wouldn’t laugh. They reflect really badly on American conservatives. Make them look like idiots.
That’s political expediency I suppose. Yes, okay Obama is not a bad person. Good stuff.
Sure, the U.S. as we know it will still be around in 20 years time. Funny guy.
As requested:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I missed the 52" chest thread. Probably quality. Anyone have a link?
[/quote]
Here you go:
Can you provide an example of what you are talking about? Why did you accuse me of trolling? I’m not sure if you mixed me up with another poster or if you are lying in an attempt to discredit me. Which is it?
Why are you referring to my thread about the racist murders of two white kids as “shit?” What are you talking about?
What do you mean my thread about tournates was “something else?” What are you talking about?
[quote]SexMachine wroteZEB wrote:
Wow, there’s a lot of hate out there for the other guys candidate.
Out where? What’s that got to do with this thread?[/quote]
EVERYTHING. This thread is based on shear nonsense mixed with a good dose of hate.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wroteZEB wrote:
Wow, there’s a lot of hate out there for the other guys candidate.
Out where? What’s that got to do with this thread?[/quote]
EVERYTHING. This thread is based on shear nonsense mixed with a good dose of hate.
[/quote]
There are no birthers posting in this thread. There is no one who sees this as anything other than an interesting Constitutional question that will have no bearing on Obama’s second term whatsoever. And I just don’t see the ‘hate.’
But, I’ll let you off the hook by not asking you to explain any of that. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a politically expedient course for you to follow.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This thread is based on shear nonsense mixed with a good dose of hate.
I knew you had a couple brain cells left
The thread Obama Not Eligible for US Presidency?
Please explain this video and his selective service card Forged Obama Selective Service Documents - YouTube
How is it possible that the stamp used at “his” post office the days directly before and after his stamping all have a 4 digit year stamp and his only has a 2 digit year stamp? Simple question, with a simple answer.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
You’re usually sharper than this Thunder…long night or something?
“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…”
So, all the early presidents were valid because they, or their parents, while not born here, were living here at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.[/quote]
A fair point, you’re right, and I stand corrected on the point I was trying to make by that. But what made them “citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”? Their mere existence. There’d be no rational reason why the “natural born” aspect to the clause wouldn’t be governed by those same grounds.
More broadly, these kinds of idiotic rabbit trails by “libb-uhh-turr-ee-uns” aren’t helping any argument for limited government.[/quote]
There is the mirror-image of foolishness among those touting Marco Rubio for Vice-President.
He is a naturalized citizen. He cannot be President, but does that exclude him from consideration for VEEP?
Constitutional questions aside, who would want to argue, for example, that if the President dies, we could just skip over Rubio and swear in the Speaker of the House, whoever that may be?
EDIT: I have made a grave mistake. My confusion: his parents were naturalized in 1975, 4 years after he was born in Miami. I had remembered the dates absolutely wrong.