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.
lol. "social studies" as been taught since the 70's. over fifty years ago, which to me seems the OP or people against it were "homeskooled". .
They teach American history in HS for honors/smart students
I certainly had both Civics and American History in h.s., then several poli-sci courses in college. The Birthers just make things up, refuse to provide citations or quotations to support their madness, then squeal when serious posters don't buy what they're trying to sell. Eventually people stop bothering to respond to their inane game-playing, leaving them to sit and groom one another like chimps. Maybe it's best to pass by without throwing them peanuts, as that only encourages their screeching.
i'm still waiting to see a civics book that agrees.
Really?
And yet we have...
Quote:
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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"
Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and thereby owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Obama's OWN CAMPAIGN openly admits Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948, and thereby Obama was born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Obama is not a Constitutional natural born citizen. He is not eligible.
Amend the Constitution to permit those such as Obama to be eligibile for POTUS/VPOTUS, and Obama's honestly good to go.
Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and thereby owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Obama's OWN CAMPAIGN openly admits Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948, and thereby Obama was born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Obama is not a Constitutional natural born citizen. He is not eligible.
And yet despite this shocking news (dramatically revealed to the nation in 2004), there is not a single judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor (except for a former dean of Pat Robertson's law school), who agree with that interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.
IC, why do you think a virtual consensus of legal experts disagree with you on this topic? Is it because they know what the Constitution says, and they've all teamed up to hide the truth from the public, or is it that birthers have discovered something that they never knew, making a small group of people whose sole purpose is the removal of President Obama from office the supreme authority on this question of constitutional law?
And yet despite this shocking news (dramatically revealed to the nation in 2004),
False. Obama's campaign website was not launched in 2004.
Quote:
...there is not a single judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor (except for a former dean of Pat Robertson's law school), who agree with that interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.
Also false.
Quote:
"Sen. Leahy: "Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens."
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security: "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."
Note that no one in Congress disputed what Senator Leahy and Michael Chertoff said, or offered any alternative meaning of the natural born citizen clause.
Who vetted Obama's eligibility? Who certified his Constitutional eligibility so that he was qualified to appear on state ballots? Post the certification.
The entire point of Dreams of my Father is that his father returned to Kenya and was never there for him growing up. The fact that Obama's father was not a US citizen was news to exactly no one by 2008.
Note that no one in Congress disputed what Senator Leahy and Michael Chertoff said, or offered any alternative meaning of the natural born citizen clause.
Nobody disputes what Leahy and Chertoff said. They just didn't say what you think they said.
How many times do I have to tell you that you are committing a basic error of formal logic until you're embarrassed enough to stop trying it? I link you to exactly the error you've made every time (and have done so again for your convenience).
Of all the extremist that have somehow made the Republican Party their home, these people are absolutely the nuttiest bunch we have. They just do not want to give up no matter what. Now they are trying to SUE saying that Obama is not qualified to serve because his father was not a US citizen. The Constitution plainly states Obama is a US citizen. He was born in the state of Hawaii which became a state before he was born. Therefore he is a natural born citizen. Actually the Democrats, if they had as many nutty people as we seem to have, could have made a better argument that John McCain was not a "natural born citizen". After all he was born in PANAMA which has never been a part of the United States. But the Democrats were not that nutty. So why must we be? It is past time for ALL the GOP candidates and leaders to denounce these people and tell them to get the hell out of the GOP and head on down the road. Maybe they can start "The Birther Party" or something.
Never have there been worse times culturally or economically in America...... and you are worried about a small insignificant cult that has no bearing whatsoever on current events?!?!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN?!?!
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.
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.
. 
