Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
The reason they put that clause in the Constitution is because they were concerned with people holding the highest office in the country having
competing allegiances with other countries because of birth place.
Forgive me, once again, but surely this matters not? If the objective behind the conspiracy movement is to reveal ‘puppet masters’ behind those in
power, then their allegiance should not matter at all as it is already decided.
If one does not believe such things, then the clause only hopes to insight racist or nationalist beliefs into one’s homeland. Are there not better
ways of testing someone’s allegiance? Your birthplace means nothing, I can name countless people who were born outside of the nation they served,
and countless others who destroyed the nation they were born in.
At the end of the day this topic merely takes us away from important issues and into realms of minor facts. Let us look at the outcome; perhaps it is
proven that he was born in Kenya. Does this change anything? Is his allegiance not to the flag and to the constitution? If he was sworn in, why not
take his word for it? Or do you believe in taking a man’s birthplace over a man’s word? I am still confused as to the matter, and as to why it is
We could even widen the parameters of our debate and ask what is the United States? If Obama claims to be born in Hawaii then this is surely not the
United States mainland, but a conquered colony? Hawaii’s invasion was, not to bring up another issue, illegitimate at the time, and thus all
residents of such a place should not be entitled to US Citizenship. And why does this include California? Was California not a Mexican state before
the United States came into the field? If this is true, which I believe it to be so, then why do you include it?
Are you just including any conquered land? If so, then why not Iraq? Can an Iraqi be an American president? Is there a difference between colonies,
dependencies, and coalition governments? They are all under the same jurisdiction, the meaning does not change only what you call it. Also, before you
claim that the Iraqis and Americans are not the same in race or culture, then what of the Native North Americans? Many natives do not wish to be
American and wish for sovereignty, and others could not care any less about leaders outside of their own chiefdom. Many others hate the idea of a
republic and everything it stands for, so why are they entitled to become a president and someone such as a Kenyan is not? Both are foreign in race
and culture, yet exist on the same world and are both human.
Furthermore, why do we not include places such as Canada or the Commonwealth in our altercation? They are all western, and all share the same treaties
and agendas (such as NATO). If you do not, then does this mean you can not trust a Canadian to be on the same 'team'? What of England? Why can a
British subject not be a president? Both nations share much, do they not? Does this mean you still have not gotten over your debates with your
Of course, you can just ignore a philosopher such as myself, I am not agile enough to dabble in such fields of American political bureaucracy. I seek
the root of the issue, and the root here is a constitutional agenda rather than any strict sense of moral or honorific terms. As I have said, one’s
birthplace matters not in reality, and is just another issue for your people to become divided on.
[edit on 14-4-2010 by Darcia]