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.
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
- ankeny v daniels.
And again, the Ankeny court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen."
And again, the Ankeny court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States."
That's because it was never an issue before the court. You can blame you Birther buddy Ankeny for that little oversight.
Actually... that turns out to not be true. Neither the Clintons nor anybody actually associated with their campaign ever came within a light year of the Birther issue.
Birthism was invented by right-wing Republicans. The very first Birther post was made on the FreeRepublic forum on Saturday, March 1, 2008. It was by a Freeper who used the handle "FARS" in a thread entitled “FR CONTEST: Pin the Middle Name on the Obama,” where posters were offering various 'funny' middle names for Barack Obama in lieu of “Hussein.”
Based on the immediate response (not very positive from other Freepers) it might have died there, except that four days later, on March 4, 2008, FARS’ rumor was cited by pseudonymous right-wing blogger “Alan Peters” on his blog “Ruthless Roundup.” Peters then flogged the issue continuously until it was picked up by the broader right-wing blogosphere.
Democrat and Puma Phil Berg did not pick up the meme until later, and he filed the first actual Birther court case in August.
So, on March 1, 2008 at the height of the Democratic Primaries just when Obama was solidifying his lead over Hillary Clinton, a Republican starts a rumor of Barack Obama's non-native birth.
That's true. The children of the above would not be a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen but rather a 14th Amendment statutory citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
So you hold that my children, born in the USA to a US citizen and UK subject, who have resided here all of their lives, are not natural born citizens and are ineligible for certain rights and privileges?
And again, the Ankeny court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States."
crunch!........ birther switching gears. again:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
there is no mention of obama any where in that quote. if you want to discuss anyone born in the borders of the US being a NBC....... there you go with a court decision.
if you want to switch gears and go with "born in kenya" then that's fodder for another thread.
So, on March 1, 2008 at the height of the Democratic Primaries just when Obama was solidifying his lead over Hillary Clinton, a Republican starts a rumor of Barack Obama's non-native birth.
So you hold that my children, born in the USA to a US citizen and UK subject, who have resided here all of their lives, are not natural born citizens and are ineligible for certain rights and privileges?
Please respond affirmative or negative.
I wonder why Steve and the other birthers will not answer my direct question?
I was fully aware of that article when it was first written. It is factually wrong and I already proved that.
It ascribes the origin to an email "circulating" in April of 2008. But I have already linked you to the right-wing Republican blogs that started the rumor more than a month prior.
Unless you want to credit the Clinton supporters with time travel, again, the facts are what they are.
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.
