U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on eligibility with proof!! obama cant run

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Dogdish
The text you quote states "parents" plural, not one or the other. I believe the plural was used purposely,

And was the use of the plural "children" on purpose as well? According to this logic, are we to assume that a CHILD (singular) would not be a NBC? There must be children?

I also don't think there is any point to these threads any more, other than as "proof" of our gullibility...

The only point to me is for entertainment purposes.

Isn't that a shame, though?

It's at least good argument fodder, and the ramifications, if true...

But I think the text refers at "children", not as plural in this case, but as 'all inclusive'. As in any and all children of 'these' Parents.

Originally posted by Dogdish
Isn't that a shame, though?

I don't think so. I'm content with it.

But I think the text refers at "children", not as plural in this case, but as 'all inclusive'. As in any and all children of 'these' Parents.

That's how most interpret it, but the other is certainly a possibility. I personally don't know, but the Supreme Court hasn't seen any evidence that it considers compelling enough to even hear a case. And they are fully aware (as is ALL of America, including ALL Republican politicians and Supreme Court members) that Obama's father was born in Kenya and not a natural-born citizen of the US and yet Obama's still president.

I don't think anyone here is going to find the smoking gun on this issue as it doesn't exist... but birthers will continue to grasp at straws, which is their prerogative.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't think anyone here is going to find the smoking gun on this issue as it doesn't exist... but birthers will continue to grasp at straws, which is their prerogative.

That's all we've got! I hate to 'LOL' at that, but that seems to be the best alternative!

reply to post by tkwasny


Give me your hand and I'll guide you through this.

The OP's argument is:
"“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth."

Because:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

According to the information I posted:
"Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:""

And:
"Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year."

Therefore:
The argument that one is only a "Natural Born Citizen" if both parents are citizens is an invalid argument.

I'm sure your local colleges offer remedial reading comprehension classes. You might look into that.

reply to post by N3k9Ni


What some people don't know is that there are only 2 kinds of US citizens. Those born that way and those naturalized. Those are the only options. A citizen AT BIRTH is a natural-born citizen. The only other way to be a citizen is to be naturalized through a process. There is no third option. Obama was born a US citizen and therefore is a NBC.

I'm always curious about the group that claims Obama was born here, and is a citizen, but his father's citizenship makes Obama NOT natural-born... What kind of citizen is he, if not natural born or naturalized?

I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

.

reply to post by TheAmused


that is a questionany ask and always get ignored, weird that Obama can manipulate the laws so many new questions, what does he know that keeps him in power? Either this is a.blackmail kinda scandal or he is anti Christ or what?

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by tkwasny

 

Give me your hand and I'll guide you through this.

The OP's argument is:
"“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth."

Because:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

According to the information I posted:
"Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:""

And:
"Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year."

Therefore:
The argument that one is only a "Natural Born Citizen" if both parents are citizens is an invalid argument.

I'm sure your local colleges offer remedial reading comprehension classes. You might look into that.

edit on 18-11-2011 by N3k9Ni because: edited for clarity

You just can't be any more wrong than this. Take off your blinders for a minute and pay attention.

The Constitution was constructed from the foundation document called Law Of Nations by Vattel. Try some history classes.

Message body
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.

reply to post by tkwasny


Vattel's personal definition of NBC is irrelevant. If the founding fathers shared this important distinction, it's likely they would have been sure to include it in the Constitution, knowing how they studied Vattel's writings. Instead, they illustrated 2 classes of US citizens. Those being citizens at birth and citizens by way of a naturalization process.

If you think Obama is not a NBC, what kind of citizen is he?

Oh, and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know about Vattel.

Originally posted by lbndhr
weird that Obama can manipulate the laws so many new questions, what does he know that keeps him in power?

Care to show us the "laws" he has manipulated?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I gotta say, I'm pleased to see another birther thread. It's been a while.

And Orly Taitz just lost another silly attempt to attack Obama

www.concordmonitor.com...

Originally posted by The Sword

Click here for more information.

Oh, I see how it is here. Do you realize that you're handicapping this whole discussion by removing posts for some bull# reason?