Good question. There are two camps, one that believes the constitution is an evolving document, and the other who believes the constitution should be enforced as written. As a nation, we have a long history of trampling on the Constitution, for instance, the 14th amendment. It was essentially ratified at gunpoint, and when challenged, the high court refused to hear that case as well. The end justifies the means.
Liberals Now Calling For Obama Birth Cert
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
Good question. There are two camps, one that believes the constitution is an evolving document, and the other who believes the constitution should be enforced as written. As a nation, we have a long history of trampling on the Constitution, for instance, the 14th amendment. It was essentially ratified at gunpoint, and when challenged, the high court refused to hear that case as well. The end justifies the means.
I don't see any of it as a "diversion"... however this is the crux of the situation.
The Framers thought that if someone who was not a NBC were allowed to become prez, he could have a subversive and ulterior motive for seeking the office... which is why Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible.
Which is also why it's likely Odumbo is not eligible... but we turned our back on the Constitution because we bought his wind song and the fact that he is a part Negro. Oh, gee... isn't THAT a good reason to elect the world's most powerful man to office.
(We've become so PC that we look like WEAK, DUBMSHIT PUSSIES to the rest of the world..)
Without the Constitution "as written", we have no way to hold politicos to account. They'll just do whatever the Hell they want and expect the citizenry to "take it"...just like all of the rest of the world's governments.
It's the Constitution which made America GREAT... Toss that aside, and we might as well be Castro's Cuba.
Quote from Scataphagos:
I don't see any of it as a "diversion"... however this is the crux of the situation.
The Framers thought that if someone who was not a NBC were allowed to become prez, he could have a subversive and ulterior motive for seeking the office... which is why Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible.
Which is also why it's likely Odumbo is not eligible... but we turned our back on the Constitution because we bought his wind song and the fact that he is a part Negro. Oh, gee... isn't THAT a good reason to elect the world's most powerful man to office.
(We've become so PC that we look like WEAK, DUBMSHIT PUSSIES to the rest of the world..)
In addtion to subversive and ulterior motive for seeking office, equally as important, no legal or moral claim by any other nation and complete loyalty to the US without having any psychological struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation. This the true intent of the Natural Born clause. There is no way to meet that standard having held multiple citizenships from various nations.
I see the Obama camp keeping the publics attention on the whereabouts of the actual birth certificate as a slight of hand tactic to keep the real issue out of the media. As long as people are fixated on place of birth, his dual citizenship status is below the radar, so to speak.
To clarify my meaning, because Obama was born with dual citizenship, he had a choice; a choice to be an American citizen, a British citizen, or both. Itâs this choice that precludes him from meeting the eligibility requirements as set forth by the founding fathers, as it does not pass the sole allegiance test. Keep in mind the framers did not imply that any person who chooses to forfeit any foreign citizenship when becoming of age would be exempt from Article II, Section One, Clause Five of the Constitution, nor has there been any Amendment stating as such or excusing those people because they canât be responsible for their birth rights.
Quote from bighorn:
You're preaching to the choir. I'm simply trying to explain why the birth certificate is not the smoking gun.
I don't get your logical argument... "not the smoking gun"... as in irrelevant? How so??
I realize that I do research for a living, and for fun, I enjoy it. But, do you guys even bother to even check to see if there are facts that support the other side of an discussion?
This took about 30 seconds.
"Analysis: Contrary to the arguments set forth above, Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.
Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).
It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth. "
Long verison and citation:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm
c
This took about 30 seconds.
"Analysis: Contrary to the arguments set forth above, Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.
Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).
It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth. "
Long verison and citation:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm
c