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 12-16-2010, 12:09 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,518,225 times
Reputation: 2337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Attempt to refute? Yes. Succeed in doing so? No.

I posted the ENTIRE CONCLUSION. The ENTIRE CONCLUSION is not out of context.

It ain't mere dicta, neither!

Last edited by ergohead; 12-16-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:11 PM
 
39,092 posts, read 23,262,402 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You can try a grammar police rationalization, but the intent and meaning of 'natural born citizen' is quite clear in John Jay's letter to Washington, which is why SCOTUS decisions have ALWAYS found those born in the U.S. with foreign allegiance to be citizens, NOT 'natural born citizens.'
John Jay's letter, whatever its intent, is not US legal code. You're wrong. You're wrong about SCOTUS as well. Because none of the pertinent rulings by SCOTUS have anything to do with determining "natural-born" status. They have to do with determining citizenship. Period. There are only two kinds of citizenship in the United States. Citizens who have had to be naturalized, going through a process and rescinding their allegiance to other nations, and citizens who don't have to be naturalized. The ONLY instance where natural-born citizenship is required is for the Presidency. And SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on a definition of natural-born citizenship. EVER.

And legally speaking, rationalization or not, grammar is exactly the technical kind of thing a legal ruling is based upon. And it's darned ironic that you try to use grammar (it's parents, not parent! LOL) to try to make your point, but when it's pointed out that it's just grammar, you try to dismiss it away as a 'rationalization'.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. Unless you can find an American law or law case that says that that is NOT enough to be a natural-born citizen, you have no foundation for your argument. Vattel didn't write American legal code. The entire birther argument has no foundation. NONE. NADA. NOTHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,165,826 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Lakin is a Constitutionalist, as are many.
He will now have plenty of time to finally get around and read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,165,826 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I've not seen anyone cite any factual evidence that John Jay did not mean to exclude anyone born a foreign national from serving as CIC and POTUS by suggesting the 'natural born' clause be added to the Constitution.
That's because you can't prove a negative.

Really.

Look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,165,826 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. Lakin specifically objected to what he reasonably believed was an illegitimate order to deploy.
A jury of his fellow officers appears to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:17 PM
 
62,728 posts, read 28,017,960 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother.
AND a non-citizen father, which in this case makes him a born Brit. A fact that Obama and others readily admit.

Refer to Jay's letter, the origination of the 'natural born' clause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:28 PM
 
39,092 posts, read 23,262,402 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
AND a non-citizen father, which in this case makes him a born Brit. A fact that Obama and others readily admit.

Refer to Jay's letter, the origination of the 'natural born' clause.
Jay's letter DOES NOT MATTER. It's not part of American legal code. You can quote any letter you want. You can quote Vattel ad nauseum. But they won't make a bit of difference, they are irrelevant, because they are not part of AMERICAN LEGAL CODE. The ONLY things that matter are LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS or RULINGS IN FEDERAL COURTS. Neither of which the birther movement has. Which is why they don't have a LEGAL CASE, no matter how many LAWSUITS they bring. They don't have an argument. YOU don't have an argument. It doesn't matter if Obama's father was a British citizen or not. It doesn't matter if the man was from Venus or another galaxy. Because there is NO law on the books, NO rulings by any federal court, that actually define a "natural-born citizen" so that Obama would be disqualified. He was born in the United States to an American mother. Naturally born on US soil to a US citizen parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:31 PM
 
62,728 posts, read 28,017,960 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Jay's letter DOES NOT MATTER. It's not part of American legal code.
It is direct evidence of the English language origination of the 'natural born' clause in the Constitution. As such, it matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,165,826 times
Reputation: 3949
LOL... this is not the first time Informed Consent has run screaming from answering simple and direct questions, posed multiple times. The refusal to answer them can only mean that he knows he cannot do so honestly and still have his arguments survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,165,826 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It is direct evidence of the English language origination of the 'natural born' clause in the Constitution. As such, it matters.
Too bad it offers no definition at all.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top