Calling all Birthers

[vol_scouter]

Once again, saying that people who disagree with the left 'fear' something is silly and insulting. I do not 'fear' people who would not meet those requirements.

 

Until Obama ran for president, most people would have not believed that one could give up their US citizenship and never present evidence that they regained their citizenship could be elected president. I had read long before Obama was in any office that the founding fathers wrote 'natural born citizen' purposefully and that meant that the person should have parents who are both citizens. The requirements for the most important office in the country needs have such things clearly defined. I would much prefer that an amendment be made that codifies your position than continue to have disputes about qualifications. My proposal is most reasonable but one way or the other, the requirements need to be better defined.

[acco40]

Once again, saying that people who disagree with the left 'fear' something is silly and insulting.

 

So why are you afraid of people who meet the standards that I outlined?

 

Is it silly and insulting saying that people who disagree with the right fear something?

[vol_scouter]

acc40,

 

Of course it is! I wrote that to show how silly the left is for assigning the idea of 'fear' when people present cogent and reasonable opposing views.

[The Blancmange]

 

I wrote that to show how silly the left is for assigning the idea of 'fear' when people present cogent and reasonable opposing views.

Views like this?:

http://christwire.org/2010/05/is-obama-a-sleeper-agent-for-al-qaeda/

 

(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

[packsaddle]

....waking up...what are we arguing over now, the word 'fear'? Is that right, we're arguing about the way we argue? What?

[vol_scouter]

Blancmange,

 

Please look up reasonable and cogent. When you have done so, you will be able to discern that such comments are neither reasonable or cogent. Also, such references can be countered by innumerable examples of similar things on the left. That does not further rational discourse.

 

Pack,

 

I believe that we are discussing the merits of a constitutional amendment that clearly defines the requirements to be president.

[CalicoPenn]

Well while we're at it, let's add constitutional amendments that clearly define the following:

 

Commerce

 

General Welfare

 

Arms

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

Militia

 

Establishment of Religion

 

Speech

 

Speedy Trial

 

Excessive Bail

 

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

 

Excessive Fines

 

None of these are clearly spelled out - and are often the cause of interpretational arguments.

 

But is it really neccessary to hard define these in the Constitution? Imagine if the Founding Fathers had hard defined Arms as the type of gun they carried with them. Imagine if instead of Arms, the Founding Fathers had written "Flintrock Muzzleloader" instead?

 

We're perfectly capable of defining these items as we need to, as we've been doing for well over 200 years now. Amending the consitution should be rare. It's bad enough that we had to amend the constitution to state that all people born in the US or naturalized are citizens and have all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens, then had to further amend the constitution to tell the dopes out there that just didn't get it that yes, this means blacks get to vote too, and that yes, women get to vote too, and that yes, the people in the District of Columbia get a voice in electing the President too, and that yes, people who we consider adults at 18 get to vote too, and that no, states can't institute a poll tax to prevent people from voting.

 

Lastly, BS-87 posts:

 

"The only reason courts aren't hearing the case is because they're denying every case that comes to them on the grounds that the people who are bringing the cases don't have standing."

 

Attorneys I've spoken with generally hold that this is a courts polite way of saying either "I'm not going to sully my reputation with a nutjob case like this - now get out of my face before I have you dropped into the sea" or "This case has no merit, I don't want to get within a mile of this case, it has bad news written all over it, and I'm not that stupid". Maybe some of our attorneys can tell us how they interpret a "no standing" ruling.

[BadenP]

You can just hear the brain cells disappearing in all the birthers who continue to argue over yet another lost cause for their side, lol. The Republic theme for the 2012 election could easily be "Although we are usually wrong we will still argue until even we do not understand what the heck we are talking about!" A perfect slogan for the Trump as well.

[vol_scouter]

CalicoPenn,

 

I have also talked with my attorney friends who say that in order to show standing, one has to be damaged. In the case of Obama being president, there is no clear casual damage. I have heard two explanations for the skittishness to hear this case. One is that it has little merit and it has considerable controversy. Some others have said that they believe that the founding fathers meant for 'natural born citizen' to mean that the persons parents were citizens. Then the issue would become a crisis with the courts being seen as effectively removing a sitting president. Such actions could easily result in riots and chaos. That is why I would like to see the standards better defined. Since Obama would not be affected, it should not be such an issue. However, a similar situation in the future could have very negative results.

[BS-87]

Then let's look at the issues.

 

Obama's a hypocrite on the debt ceiling.

 

Obama's for indebting our unborn generations.

 

Obama's for refusing to fix entitlement programs, leading to their eventual implosion when the children of today are retiring.

 

Obama's for entangling our nation in foreign conflicts with oil as the motive.

 

Obama's for expanding welfare programs, perpetuating and making incentives for the welfare state, and making it harder for people on welfare programs to escape their current and dire situation.

 

Obama's for raising taxes on EVERYBODY by increasing taxes on the rich and corporations, as these job, service, and product makers can easily pass on their increase in taxes through their prices in services and products.

 

Obama's for subverting America's national sovereignty and passing its decision making onto world organizations.

 

I could continue but I'm getting bored listing every reason to disagree with the man.

[Scoutfish]

BS-87

 

 

 

Completely devoted has nothing to do with where you were born at or what country .

 

Look at the founding fathers. I dare anybody to say that any of us would be more devoted to America than them.

 

But go and see where some of these people were born at and to what country their citizenship would be listed as by your standards.

 

But also, by the standards you list, two people could immigrate here, get their citizenship, have a baby the next week and he is qualified for president.

 

Meanwhile, one parent could be a native citizen who married a person who was born here and lived here all their life, and years later, their son who lived his entire life in America , wouldn't be qualified .

 

For example: If my dad was a citizen, and maybe my mom wasn't. I would be disqualified...even though I have spent my entire life in America?

 

And as far as Devotions...that has no stipulatriuons in itself. That is up to and solely up to the individual without influence from the outside.

 

Look at the many, many people who fit your qualifications who go to congress and spend their entire political career doing nothing but stuffing their own pockets and those of the lobbyests who helped put them their. Those guys were absolutely and completely devoted!

 

 

[BS-87]

Scoutfish-

 

To repeat what I've said before.

 

"You're right in that it's fallacious to assume that American parents will produce an American patriot. It's fallacious to assume that foreign parents will produce an un-American son.

 

Therefore, we must use inductive reasoning in this instance to assume that in more cases that the American parents will produce more American sons, and we must set a benchmark or law to establish that (as our Founding Fathers did by clarifying "natural born" in the Constitution)"

[Scoutfish]

Clarifying that they be "Natural Born" or clarifying what "natural Born" actually means?

 

They also clarified that the right to bear aerms was meant for "well regulated" militias ( basically the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, Police, etc..), but did not clarify for not every single citizen.

 

Work that one first, abolish about 90% of violent crime by pushing it, then worry about who can be president.

 

But then, think about a US citizen who is a US Serviceman, who with his wife are stationed overseas. They have a child.

 

Are you saying that this child could not be a worthy candidate? Somebody who actually has seen the world beyond just our borders, who has lived the life under the roof of a VERY dedicated patriot devoted to America?

 

 

[BS-87]

They'd be eligible because an embassy or military base are US holdings/ US soil.

 

Your examples to discredit the rule by providing exceptions are becoming desperate.

[Scoutfish]

 

 

14th Amendment

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

 

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

 

 

 

 

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void

 

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

 

 

I read: "All persons born or naturalized in.."

 

Not all natural born, nor Native born, or Obama born...".