It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by Kitilani
actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.
When you change a bill with another bill you rewrite it the way you want it to be with the changes included in the proposed bill.
Originally posted by Senteri
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by Kitilani
actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.
When you change a bill with another bill you rewrite it the way you want it to be with the changes included in the proposed bill.
Holy crap did you just owned. Dude, not one of those bills says anything about both parents. None of them attempt to change anything about it. They do not even address it.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
NOTHING IN THE BILLS ABOUT REQUIRING TWO PARENTS TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS.
You yourself quoted the summaries. They are constitutional amendments (God, I hope you agree with that!). They are ATTEMPTING TO AMMEND the constitution. What are they ammending? The natural-born status.
They did not pass, they have NOT ammended the constitution. Therefore, the natural-born status remains as is. Why would they be trying to pass bills on the natural born definition if indeed they agreed with it as is? There were EIGHT of these in the FOUR years prior to OBAMA being elected. EIGHT!!!! Do you think they thought Obama met the constitutional requirement for eligibility? I don't.edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
NOTHING IN THE BILLS ABOUT REQUIRING TWO PARENTS TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS.
You yourself quoted the summaries. They are constitutional amendments (God, I hope you agree with that!).
They are ATTEMPTING TO AMMEND the constitution. What are they ammending? The natural-born status.
They did not pass, they have NOT ammended the constitution.
Therefore, the natural-born status remains as is.
Why would they be trying to pass bills on the natural born definition if indeed they agreed with it as is? There were EIGHT of these in the FOUR years prior to OBAMA being elected. EIGHT!!!! Do you think they thought Obama met the constitutional requirement for eligibility? I don't.edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Please explain how your confusion leads to my being owned? You are as confused as Kitilani (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). See my reply to Kitilani:
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Ok, I'll play with your intentionally obtuse questions... From Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance written by Barak Obama, pages 5, 34, 59, 65, 68, 69, 71, 88, 92, 101, 104, 114, 118, 220, 315, 324, 325, 328, 334, 335, 342, 348, 359, 363, 378, 379, 422.
Is that enough for you or you want more?
If you need sources from other people and are too lazy to even look for yourself then you are obviously not after the truth.
Don't you know that when you rely on others to do your work for you, then you allow yourself to be lead astray?
That is, of course, if you're not intentionally trying to derail the thread, which I highly suspect you are and is also why I won't respond to your questions any more.
Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Senteri
Birthers get mad and defensive, resort to calling people shills, trolls, etc. whenever they are asked to just back up the things they say. That is a true sign that they have the truth and know it.
It really should not matter the subject or political line you take. Facts are facts and if any of this is based on facts, those facts have sources. It works fine in threads about any other topic.
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: "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." The enigmatic phrase "natural born citizen" poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a "natural born citizen" was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a "natural born subject" in English law-a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of "citizens" and not "subjects," introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.
What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen. John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or whether it merely confirmed preexisting law under which McCain was an American citizen at birth. That leaves John McCain in a twilight zone-neither clearly naturalized nor natural born.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Senteri
Birthers get mad and defensive, resort to calling people shills, trolls, etc. whenever they are asked to just back up the things they say. That is a true sign that they have the truth and know it.
It really should not matter the subject or political line you take. Facts are facts and if any of this is based on facts, those facts have sources. It works fine in threads about any other topic.
And anti-birthers use generalizations, such as racist, etc., to make themselves feel superior. I don't remember calling anyone a shill or troll. Please don't make generalizations that include me without merit.
Ok, to answer your previous question about the 2 parent clause. Do you remember the resolution that John McCain was deemed a "natural born citizen"? It's one of the resolutions you so graciously provided the summary of so I'm assuming you remember. This is a summary of it in the Michigan Law Review:
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: "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." The enigmatic phrase "natural born citizen" poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a "natural born citizen" was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a "natural born subject" in English law-a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of "citizens" and not "subjects," introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.
What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen. John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or whether it merely confirmed preexisting law under which McCain was an American citizen at birth. That leaves John McCain in a twilight zone-neither clearly naturalized nor natural born.
ParentS... plural... with a S... meaning MORE THAN ONE PARENT.edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Senteri
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Ok, I'll play with your intentionally obtuse questions... From Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance written by Barak Obama, pages 5, 34, 59, 65, 68, 69, 71, 88, 92, 101, 104, 114, 118, 220, 315, 324, 325, 328, 334, 335, 342, 348, 359, 363, 378, 379, 422.
Read that. Not once does he claim he ever legally used the name Barry Soetoro.
Originally posted by vjr1113
we draw our lines and then choose to hate. congrats.
Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.
if someone was born just inches outside of the border, would you consider him non-american even though both his parents are american?
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
This is one of the very few documents that no one, on either side has disputed:
Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
why would you believe this document and not the official white house release?
you choose to.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.
And THAT is why all the constitutional amendment failed ATTEMPTS by democratic congresspeople. Judge Scalia is a U.S. Supreme Court justice.... that's what he does, gives opinions. Just an opinion
Originally posted by Senteri
See how your claim that Obama went by that name as a youth in Hawaii turns out to be one time someone else used that name for him in Indonesia? Do you see that?
Originally posted by Senteri
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.
And THAT is why all the constitutional amendment failed ATTEMPTS by democratic congresspeople. Judge Scalia is a U.S. Supreme Court justice.... that's what he does, gives opinions. Just an opinion
That is why?
You have no clue what you are talking about at all.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
why would you believe this document and not the official white house release?
you choose to.
Please provide a link to the official white house release that the Indonesian school document is a fake.