KKKrazyFest 2010!

[B_talltpaguy]

That's the 14th Amendment which conferred citizenship not Natural Born Citizenship. Once again the man who authored the 14th amendment himself stated that a Natural Born Citizen was not only born in the U.S. but was also born to U.S. Citizen parents and under no other jurisdiction or authority.

Strange, because I see no such stipulation in the 14th. Until you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit, as usual.

Can you point out this clause in the 14th Amendment you speak of that stipulates that certain citizens are lesser citizens compared to others?

Section 1.

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.
Section 2.

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.
Section 3.

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.
Section 4.

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.
Section 5.

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

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Just let me know when the 3/5ths rule starts going into effect again. Considering the direction some of our beloved politicians (and forum hacks) wished our country would regress to, it's only a matter of time before I get a letter in the mail saying that my name has been changed to "Toby".

* Yes, another politically incorrect joke. Let's not blow it out of proportion, you crybabies!

 

[sbat]

@ Trinity

Title 8 USC 1401 in full

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth




The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.



The clause closest to what you keep referring to is in bold italics. The specific thing you keep citing does not actually exist. Further another problem with your argument is that Obama was born outside of US soil. As mentioned before, Hawaii became a US state 3 years BEFORE Obama was born. So otherwise, according to the section of US Code that you yourself cited, Obama is a natural born US citizen (see subsection (a), citizen at birth). Sucks when people actually check sources huh? No mention at all of this jus sanguinis bullshit or this 10. Its all just made up.

 

[sbat]

Your confusion is really that you don't know the difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. You can be a citizen and not be a Natural Born Citizen eligible for the Presidency.

The reference made to the statute Title 8 USC 1401 only pertains to parents passing on jus sanguinis citizenship to a child. Obama's mother was unable to pass on jus sanguinis citizenship to Obama due to her age.

See Title 8 USC 1401. It makes no mention of jus sanguinis or jus soli citizenship that is relevant to Obama. And that mandatory residence for at least 5 years after the age of 14 in Obama's mother's case is pure fabrication, having actually read the law that supposedly dictates this, because Obama was born in a US state.

I know the difference between citizen and natural born citizen. That difference is that a natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen. Anyone born a citizen who has lived 14 years consecutively in the US and is at least 36 at the time of inauguration (or is it election day?) is eligible to be president. That is what Title 8 and Amemdment 14 say in tandem. These laws themselves make no distinctions between types of citizens who are American at birth. A citizen at large is someone who has been naturalized. Having been born in the United States, I am a natural born citizen eligible for future presidency, regardless of the citizenship of my parents at the time of my birth.

The discussion about natural born equating to having citizen parents is exactly that - discussion. None of that discussion made it into law (as you can see from both Amendment 14 and Title 8 USC 1401 being cited in full). In short - you are full of shit and I just called you out. Any further argument you make we will all know to be complete lies. You made a law-based claim to Obama's non-citizenship. I pulled all of the laws you mentioned, and all suggest very firmly his natural born citizen status.

Oh, by the way, I saw the video you put up of yourself on youtube

 

[dreamer20]

The reference made to the statute Title 8 USC 1401 only pertains to parents passing on jus sanguinis citizenship to a child. Obama's mother was unable to pass on jus sanguinis citizenship to Obama due to her age.

One more time. U.S. Citizen does not equal Natural Born Citizen.

Obama's mother was not penalized by that U.S. law as it only was applicable to births outside the United States. Any offspring of hers, and younger women, born within the U.S.A. would be natural born citizens.


snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

 

[TomCat84]

Strange, because I see no such stipulation in the 14th. Until you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit, as usual.

Can you point out this clause in the 14th Amendment you speak of that stipulates that certain citizens are lesser citizens compared to others?

She's actually correct in that there was some debate over what a natural born citizen would constitute. But she's incorrect in that it's established law. It doesn't matter what the author says- it doesnt say that in the actual text. A plain reading of the text, and actual practice- has meant that anyone born within our borders is a citizen.

 

[TomCat84]

See Title 8 USC 1401. It makes no mention of jus sanguinis or jus soli citizenship that is relevant to Obama. And that mandatory residence for at least 5 years after the age of 14 in Obama's mother's case is pure fabrication, having actually read the law that supposedly dictates this, because Obama was born in a US state.

I know the difference between citizen and natural born citizen. That difference is that a natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen. Anyone born a citizen who has lived 14 years consecutively in the US and is at least 36 at the time of inauguration (or is it election day?) is eligible to be president. That is what Title 8 and Amemdment 14 say in tandem. These laws themselves make no distinctions between types of citizens who are American at birth. A citizen at large is someone who has been naturalized. Having been born in the United States, I am a natural born citizen eligible for future presidency, regardless of the citizenship of my parents at the time of my birth.

The discussion about natural born equating to having citizen parents is exactly that - discussion. None of that discussion made it into law (as you can see from both Amendment 14 and Title 8 USC 1401 being cited in full). In short - you are full of shit and I just called you out. Any further argument you make we will all know to be complete lies. You made a law-based claim to Obama's non-citizenship. I pulled all of the laws you mentioned, and all suggest very firmly his natural born citizen status.

Oh, by the way, I saw the video you put up of yourself on youtube

It's 35, dear

 

[Trinity]

Just so both of you know...and don't have to keep posting the constitution and federal statutes...unless you are doing it for yourself. This has been argued in explicit detail here and here long before you decided to join the conversation.

Strange, because I see no such stipulation in the 14th. Until you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit, as usual.

Can you point out this clause in the 14th Amendment you speak of that stipulates that certain citizens are lesser citizens compared to others?

You are confused. No one said it was in the 14th amendment. What I clearly stated was:

Once again the man who authored the 14th amendment himself stated that a Natural Born Citizen was not only born in the U.S. but was also born to U.S. Citizen parents and under no other jurisdiction or authority.

John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment stated his definition of a Natural Born Citizen on the floor of Congress and it is in the Congressional Record as previously posted:

http://www.lpsg.org/2773732-post399.html

Under the 14th Amendment persons are citizens of the United States and as previously stated earlier man who wrote the 14th Amendent stated the following:

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen

The Congressional Globe

John Bingham, the man who authored the 14th Amendment clearly states that Natural Born Citizen is defined differently from U.S. Citizen.

See Title 8 USC 1401. It makes no mention of jus sanguinis or jus soli citizenship that is relevant to Obama. And that mandatory residence for at least 5 years after the age of 14 in Obama's mother's case is pure fabrication, having actually read the law that supposedly dictates this, because Obama was born in a US state.

It is relevant to Obama because of what John Bingham stated constituted a Natural Born Citizen: jus soli citizenship (being born on U.S. soil) and jus sanguinis citizenship (being born to U.S. Citizen parents) as well as being under no other jurisdiction or authority.

I know the difference between citizen and natural born citizen. That difference is that a natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen. Anyone born a citizen who has lived 14 years consecutively in the US and is at least 36 at the time of inauguration (or is it election day?) is eligible to be president. That is what Title 8 and Amemdment 14 say in tandem. These laws themselves make no distinctions between types of citizens who are American at birth. A citizen at large is someone who has been naturalized. Having been born in the United States, I am a natural born citizen eligible for future presidency, regardless of the citizenship of my parents at the time of my birth.

The argument that a Natural Born Citizen is simply a Born Citizen who was born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents is not supported by the intent of the framers as established in the Natural Born Citizen Clause or Federal case law. There is a bounty of evidence that the framers intended to restrict the Office of the Presidency from potential foreign influence or divided allegiance. They were clear.

Law of Nations, book published 1758,

Many maintain this is the primary source that the Framer's utilized to write the Constitution:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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."

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

Minor v. Happersett (1874)

"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

The discussion about natural born equating to having citizen parents is exactly that - discussion. None of that discussion made it into law (as you can see from both Amendment 14 and Title 8 USC 1401 being cited in full).

Title 8 USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment describe how U.S. Citizenship is acquired not how Natural Born Citizenship is acquired. And I just showed you Federal case law.

In short - you are full of shit and I just called you out. Any further argument you make we will all know to be complete lies. You made a law-based claim to Obama's non-citizenship. I pulled all of the laws you mentioned, and all suggest very firmly his natural born citizen status.

You are confused. This is about whether Obama has demonstrated that he is a Natural Born Citizen eligible to serve as President and he has not.

Based on the intent of the framers the Natural Born Citizen Clause in the U.S. Constitution restricted the office of the President from just any citizen. The restriction was intended to avoid foreign influence to the office and the commander of the armed forces. The restriction limited who was able to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.

The argument that a person born on U.S. soil is a Natural Born Citizen is not supported by the statement of the Author of the 14th Amendment in the congressional record, and numerous other statements of the framers on record, or what was understood by the Supreme Court in federal case law in the Minor case.

This is a very important issue that needs to addressed by the Supreme Court. The incident in Times Square presses the matter. There is verified intel now that enemies are gaining citizenship, living in the U.S...having children in the U.S.

Should the Supreme Court review the matter, it will be reviewed under that realization. The framers were clear that there was to be no divided allegiance in the person who held the office of the President. The Grandfather Clause of the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clearly shows that only a person who's parents were U.S. Citizens was eligible to serve as President. Being born on U.S. soil only makes you a citizen.

 

[Industrialsize]

Birther nonsense masquerading as political discussion^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Birthers are KKKrazy. I read that somewhere.

 

[Trinity]

Obama's mother was not penalized by that U.S. law as it only was applicable to births outside the United States. Any offspring of hers, and younger women, born within the U.S.A. would be natural born citizens.

They would be citizens if they were born on U.S. soil. Mr. Obama has yet to present his original certificate of live birth to verify that his vital record was not generated from an out of state birth.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

She's actually correct in that there was some debate over what a natural born citizen would constitute. But she's incorrect in that it's established law. It doesn't matter what the author says- it doesnt say that in the actual text. A plain reading of the text, and actual practice- has meant that anyone born within our borders is a citizen.

Is a Citizen...Title 8 and the 14th Amendment state what constitutes a citizen - not a Natural Born Citizen. The Supreme Court will have to clear up the debate.

 

[sbat]

Just so both of you know...and don't have to keep posting the constitution and federal statutes...unless you are doing it for yourself. This has been argued in explicit detail here and here long before you decided to join the conversation.

But not posted and put in plain view in their entirety.


You are confused. No one said it was in the 14th amendment. What I clearly stated was:


John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment stated his definition of a Natural Born Citizen on the floor of Congress and it is in the Congressional Record as previously posted:

http://www.lpsg.org/2773732-post399.html

This may have been his definition. But this definition strangely, did not find its way into either the constitution or any federal law. And your argument is a legal one, so his personal beliefs have no bearing on this argument.
It is relevant to Obama because of what John Bingham stated constituted a Natural Born Citizen: jus soli citizenship (being born on U.S. soil) and jus sanguinis citizenship (being born to U.S. Citizen parents) as well as being under no other jurisdiction or authority.



The argument that a Natural Born Citizen is simply a Born Citizen who was born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents is not supported by the intent of the framers as established in the Natural Born Citizen Clause or Federal case law.

This is a patently false claim. It is supported by the very laws that you specifically cited. I can't speak for their intent, all I can speak from is the laws they wrote. There is no distinction between born citizen and "natural born" citizen in either the constitution or the federal statutes in dispute.

There is a bounty of evidence that the framers intended to restrict the Office of the Presidency from potential foreign influence or divided allegiance. They were clear.

A bounty that somehow never got entered into actual US federal law, which is what we're debating, and not the framers "intent."

Law of Nations, book published 1758,

This book is not part of federal law, so any quote is irrelevant to an argument pertaining to US federal law.

Many maintain this is the primary source that the Framer's utilized to write the Constitution:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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."

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

And my mom said that she was on the pill when I was conceived. See? We both made statements that are not contained in US Federal Law



Title 8 USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment describe how U.S. Citizenship is acquired not how Natural Born Citizenship is acquired. And I just showed you Federal case law.

Of course it doesn't. Because there is no federal law or statute that describes said "natural born citizenship" as distinct from being "born a citizen." And anyway, it was only brought up because you cited it as proof of your argument.

You are confused. This is about whether Obama has demonstrated that he is a Natural Born Citizen eligible to serve as President and he has not.

He has done so to the satisfaction of those who manage that particular process. Imagine, if some random says that the founding fathers intended for the president to have a dick bigger than 6' and on the basis of that claim demands to see the president's glory, would you expect the president to acquiesce?

Based on the intent of the framers the Natural Born Citizen Clause in the U.S. Constitution restricted the office of the President from just any citizen. The restriction was intended to avoid foreign influence to the office and the commander of the armed forces. The restriction limited who was able to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.

Based on the actual laws that they wrote, they did not make this distinction.

The argument that a person born on U.S. soil is a Natural Born Citizen is not supported by the statement of the Author of the 14th Amendment in the congressional record, and numerous other statements of the framers on record, or what was understood by the Supreme Court in federal case law in the Minor case.

But it is supported by federal law. Which is the basis of this argument.

This is a very important issue that needs to addressed by the Supreme Court. The incident in Times Square presses the matter. There is verified intel now that enemies are gaining citizenship, living in the U.S...having children in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has refused to take this case because it has no legal grounds on which to take this case.

Should the Supreme Court review the matter, (It will not) it will be reviewed under that realization. The framers were clear that there was to be no divided allegiance in the person who held the office of the President. The Grandfather Clause of the Natural Born Citizenship requirement (can you cite the specific statute which defines this claim, which if uncited, I will assume to be a boldfaced lie?) clearly shows that only a person who's parents were U.S. Citizens was eligible to serve as President. Being born on U.S. soil only makes you a citizen.

Refuted. Every. Point. Again.

Why don't you make this easy, Trinity. Show me the specific US law/statue/clause which defines natural born citizen as distinct from born citizen. Don't cite Dear John letters written by the framers, don't cite philosophical texts which you assume they were inspired by, don't pretend that you have a monopoly on understand their "true intentions." You are making an argument on legal grounds. So just show us the laws that support your argument, and I'll agree with you.

Until now, you have cited the 14 Amendment and Title 8 USC 1401. I posted both in full. Neither make the distinction between natural born as you define and born citizen. Both support the legitimacy of Obama. I'm going to assume whatever actual laws you post subsequent to this will do the same.

 

[sbat]

It's 35, dear

But see, Tomcat, the framers intended for it to be 36.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington about about the importance of numbers that have integer square roots, and the founders were predominantly influenced by Euclid's Geometry, which clearly states the superiority of integers in squared relationships, quoted here:

"Minimum age should be defined by integer squares as these are the most natural for points of entry"

I know the constitution says something else, but really, isn't what the framers meant more important than the laws they actually wrote?

 

[TomCat84]

But see, Tomcat, the framers intended for it to be 36.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington about about the importance of numbers that have integer square roots, and the founders were predominantly influenced by Euclid's Geometry, which clearly states the superiority of integers in squared relationships, quoted here:

"Minimum age should be defined by integer squares as these are the most natural for points of entry"

I know the constitution says something else, but really, isn't what the framers meant more important than the laws they actually wrote?

:liar:

 

[TomCat84]

 

[B_OtterJoq]

But see, Tomcat, the framers intended for it to be 36.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington about about the importance of numbers that have integer square roots, and the founders were predominantly influenced by Euclid's Geometry, which clearly states the superiority of integers in squared relationships, quoted here:

"Minimum age should be defined by integer squares as these are the most natural for points of entry"

I know the constitution says something else, but really, isn't what the framers meant more important than the laws they actually wrote?

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for the chuckle, buddy...I think we need that in here.

 

[slurper_la]

you know.... I purchased lottery tickets last week with the clear intent of winning. but I did not win; when I went back to the 7-11 and asked for my money back on the losing tickets the clerks laughed at me.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

She's actually correct in that there was some debate over what a natural born citizen would constitute. But she's incorrect in that it's established law. It doesn't matter what the author says- it doesnt say that in the actual text. A plain reading of the text, and actual practice- has meant that anyone born within our borders is a citizen.

Exactly... Congressional debate does not equal established law. If something that Congress had debated was worthy of becoming law, then it would actually, you know, be written into the law... Or in other words, Trinity is foolishly trying 'win' a debate that she lost the moment she tried to make it.

How do we know that Trinity has lost the debate? OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

You are confused. No one said it was in the 14th amendment.

Who's President again? Oh that's right, it's OBAMA.

Sorry, you still lose the 'debate'. Let me know when Obama has been removed from office for not being a 'natural born citizen', and we'll admit that you 'won' the debate... lolololololol

 

[TomCat84]

Exactly... Congressional debate does not equal established law. If something that Congress had debated was worthy of becoming law, then it would actually, you know, be written into the law... Or in other words, Trinity is foolishly trying 'win' a debate that she lost the moment she tried to make it.

How do we know that Trinity has lost the debate? OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.

Congressional debate/intent is one of the things used by the courts to determine what a law means, but pretty much only where a law is relatively ambiguous. This seems pretty straight-forward.