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.

 

Let's Say The Birthers Get What They Want

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
The Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is.



Which means we must look to the common usage of the phrase instead. It is not as if a lack of a legal definition forces us all to helplessly shrug our shoulders and declare; "How can we know what "natural born citizen" really means?"
edit on 31-3-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


How about using one of the primary documents AT THE TIME OF THE FORMING OF THE CONSTITUTION that was used:


www.constitution.org...


Book 1 Chapter XIX

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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 the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, 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.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
And if I may, to add to the information furnished by tkwasny:
www.wikipedia.org - 1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General of the United States: In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ...[22][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[23][italics in original]

This issue has been stewing and brewing for more than 150 years, and should have long ago been decided by the high court.

The constitutional scholars originally recognized this issue and I believe they thought fixed it by including terminology which we now would call 'grandfathering': usgovinfo.about.com... - The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

I for one do not believe or would not agree to the constitution being amended to enable 'any citizen', whether Arnold or whoever, to become POTUS or VP and stay with NBC.

The point here is two fold and my vote would be: Have SCOTUS define "NBC" to mean born in the US to preclude this issue in the future and to mention in their decision that as this current issue is a "F'n mess" in doing so ask Congress to resolve the issue (a one time grandfather or whatever is necessary) of President Obama's eligability and continue on with business as usual.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Let's say Obama is ousted from office and you were right in the first place.

What happens next?

Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?

And do you really think it would change anything if this actually happened?



i think you're missing the deeper point.... of this all...

if Obama is related by blood to many other presidents and European royalty.. and is groomed and set up since birth to fill the specific needed position that was called for... you somehow think that if the birth certificate thing is real.. then they WOOPS invested ALL this time and energy into someone JUST HOPING that it wouldn't all go down hill.. like.. they couldn't have picked someone else in the bloodline who has African American blood in him... to fill the position who has an authentic birth certificate and has TONS of sources of witnesses who knew him as a toddler etc..... lol..

dude nothing is by accident.

Bush Senior was quoted back in 1988 at a luncheon.. that he sees Arnold Schwarzenegger being president after 2012..(2016 etc)... how's that supposed to happen... only way that can happen is if the birther thing comes true.. and they DO NOT oust him because of public outcry.. people think he's as American as they get.. just let him stay even if the legal stuff doesn't fit... so the LAW CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THIS ALL...

and anyone from outside can become president.. ie: Schwarzenegger...

i mean hell.. they propped up ol' Hollywood Actor Ronald Reagan into Governor of California because of his popularity.. then propped him up to be pres... all by the power of the Director of the CIA... (Bush Senior) ... and Bush Senior was pretty much acting president for all those Reagan years..

what's to say they wouldn't do the same with Schwarzenegger... he's already done the Hollywood thing then Governor.. etc...

IF TRUE..I think the whole potentially fake birth certificate is on PURPOSE and the birther movement is fabricated to push for changing of presidential candidate law.

but you know.. i could be wrong.. and um.. they could be THAT STUPID and miss that little doosey..."

actually nah.. big money pays for the best and brightest...
and the best and brightest are not that stupid.

really kind of clever if you think about it... and makes perfect sense for a NWO North American Union kind of future... not to mention Arnold's father's past....

EDIT: and another thing.. all you extremist patriot NRA Infowar heads are NOT gonna like this BUT... if someone has the MERIT.. and ABILITY and EXPERIENCE to provide specifically called for leadership in a crisis time.. to put forth certain modalities of governorship that will benefit humanity as a whole in the LONG run... then I really don't care what country of birth they come from... as long as they can do the best job called for given the proper data as far as the best outcome for humanity's experience in the LONG run...

they're a child of the Earth.. and the leadership role of the Earth has been for at least the past 100 years... set at head of the USA.. or whatever incarnation it (and Mexico and Canada) may take in the future....
edit on 3/31/2012 by prevenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Let's say Obama is ousted from office and you were right in the first place.

What happens next?

Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?

And do you really think it would change anything if this actually happened?



Next?.. I'd imagine since he'd be ineligible to hold the job.. he should be fired / impeached, possibly arrested, charged, tried and maybe deported.

Tried for murder re: various assassinations he illegally ordered works too.

Each law / rule / order he signed becomes null & void.

The next gangster capitalist traitor / "dear party leader" in line would take over.. and ....after all that drama, I'd let out a fat yawn...my day would remain unchanged.. I could care less who runs the DC crip & blood criminal circus . although I would gleefully welcome seeing that guy, and his elite pals, on trial for war crimes / crimes against humanity.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 


Why don't more of these conservatives speak out against the fact that people in the Union states are bankrolling those on welfare in the South?

Conservatives lie when they say that they want less government. What they really want is more power to tell others what to do with their lives in a religious manner.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I have spoken out against welfare in all its form on here for the past 2 years it should be ended.

The above post was in error killing relgion to replace it with Government as the new religion where it is the way and the life everlasting.,

"I am a Liberal, and I am a devout Liberal. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Government. I believe that that government gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Government set by stealing from the evil rich and feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church of government' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Government in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals." Liberal prayer 2011

Conservatives hahaaaa liberals fit that more than anyone.

ontopic

Less than a year and birthers will get what they want Obama out of office.
edit on 1-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Let's say you are wasting time entertaining such nonsense!

Removed from office? Do you mean impeached? What are the charges? Did he force the states to put his name on the ballot even though the states knew he was not eligible for the office? Did he force millions to vote for him even though they knew his was not eligible for the office? Should not Chief Justice Roberts be removed for administering the oath of office to Obama even though he knew he was not eligible for the office? Oh, they did not know!

Currit tempus contra desides et sui juris contemptores. Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights

IF (never happen) he is out for any reason IMO the VP serves?


edit on 1-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join