Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-02-2010, 08:14 PM
 
26,554 posts, read 14,400,421 times
Reputation: 7412

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker View Post
All Obama has to do is ask for it to shut everyone up.
altho it wouldn't shut up:

those that believe both parents need to be US citizens.

those that believe he became an indonesian citizen.

those that have already said that any "long-form" produced must be a forgery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:19 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,260,769 times
Reputation: 1837
Vattel had absolute no influence on the our founders and the Constitutional Congress during the drafting o the Constitution on citizenship.

funny how over 100 cases dealing with citizenship never mentions 2 parents have to be citizens

Its complete crap.

Because you know why? NO ONE in the US would be a natural born citizen. Since everyone was descended from IMMIGRANTS.


Our founders were not natural born citizens. They were made "citizens' by the the ratification of the Constitution.

Then that would mean that their CHILDREN would not be Natural born by IC's idiotic definition of natural born. So if their children were not natural born, then their children are not "natural born" and down the history we go. NO ONE In the US is a Natural born using the idiotic definition of "2 parents citizens required"


The logic does not follow

Since no one was born to 2 citizen parents at the start of our country, that means NO one is a natural born according to IC (and his wrong interpretation of Vattel).

That is why the 2 parent requirement HAS NEVER aPPEARED IN LAW and IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

If the founding fathers wanted to qualify natural born as "being born from 2 citizen parents", they wOULD HAVE it in the Constitution.

OOps not there.

Article 1, Article 2 and the 14th Amendment clearly states who are citizens. THERE are only 2 classes of citizens :
Natural born/Native born
Naturalized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Good morning, InformedConsent. Hope you slept well and had the time necessary to find a tiny amount of the intellectual courage that fled you so dramatically yesterday when you ran screaming like a school girl from this question:

Do you believe that a person born in Los Angeles, California to two U.S. citizen parents who were both born in Erie, Pennsylvania is a natural born citizen?

But now it's a new day and the thirteenth time is a charm. The question is absolutely and completely on topic, as you will discover once you have answered it. It drills right down to the phony definition of natural born citizen you've been trying to foist off in this thread for the last couple days.

If you choose not to answer it, we will be forced to take it as a tacit admission that your answer is "yes." After all... it meets everybody's definition of natural born citizen.

It meets my definition since the person is born on U.S. soil.

It meets your definition since the person is born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.

So it is really very funny that you are afraid to simply answer it... unless you actually do not believe your definition after all.

So... be a man.

Answer the question...

...or admit that you do not even believe your own definition of natural born citizen.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,886 times
Reputation: 8564
HistorianDude, you are cracking me up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:48 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,804 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
but it is on topic. your contention is that obama is not a NBC because his father was from foriegn country and obama had the opportunity to get dual citizenship.
No, not just 'opportunity.' Obama became a British subject at birth by virtue of his father. Read the British Nationality Act of 1948:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1948...9480056_en.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Oh! Look who's back?

Do you believe that a person born in Los Angeles, California to two U.S. citizen parents who were both born in Erie, Pennsylvania is a natural born citizen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:52 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,293,746 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Good morning, InformedConsent. Hope you slept well and had the time necessary to find a tiny amount of the intellectual courage that fled you so dramatically yesterday when you ran screaming like a school girl from this question:

Do you believe that a person born in Los Angeles, California to two U.S. citizen parents who were both born in Erie, Pennsylvania is a natural born citizen?

But now it's a new day and the thirteenth time is a charm. The question is absolutely and completely on topic, as you will discover once you have answered it. It drills right down to the phony definition of natural born citizen you've been trying to foist off in this thread for the last couple days.

If you choose not to answer it, we will be forced to take it as a tacit admission that your answer is "yes." After all... it meets everybody's definition of natural born citizen.

It meets my definition since the person is born on U.S. soil.

It meets your definition since the person is born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.

So it is really very funny that you are afraid to simply answer it... unless you actually do not believe your definition after all.

So... be a man.

Answer the question...

...or admit that you do not even believe your own definition of natural born citizen.


YouTube - Never played baseball
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:59 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,804 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Hey, IC.... why are you so afraid of answering the question?
I'm staying on topic, and I refuse to let you derail and/or divert this thread with an off-topic hypothetical, irrelevant question.

Quote:
(For those keeping track, that's the 12th time it's been asked)
Yep, it's the 12th time HD is hiding behind a completely irrelevant hypothetical question.

HD's irrelevant ramblings are a clear cut case of 'doth protest too much.' HD is desperately hoping to distract attention away from the facts of Obama's Constitutional ineligibility to be president.

I'm sticking with the facts. It's been clearly demonstrated that Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth, which makes him ineligible under the 'natural born citizen' clause, the intent of which was clearly elucidated by John Jay in his letter to Washington on July 25, 1787.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I'm staying on topic, and I refuse to let you derail and/or divert this thread with an off-topic hypothetical, irrelevant question.
Since it's actually neither irrelevant, off-topic nor hypothetical, is that officially your admission that your answer is "yes?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,804 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Oh! Look who's back?
I told you I'd be back, no?

And thank you again for keeping the facts of Obama's Constitutional ineligibility to be POTUS at the top of POC!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top