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.
This topic is not relevant to past discussions of the "birther" debate.
i think it is relevant to point out that herb titus' claim is well over a year old and in that time there have been multiple court cases and ballot challenges concerning obama's eligibility. herb titus has yet to be sought out to give testimony in any of those challenges.
For those attacking Titus without refuting the assertions he made are committing what is called an "ad hominem" fallacy.
I don't recall seeing anyone argue that the guy is wrong because he's a right wing nut job.
I have seen people, myself included, challenge the OP's claim that the guy is some kind of authority on this subject based on his supposed credentials.
In fact, a reference to the title of the thread demonstrates the OP's fallacious appeal to authority.
No other ideological group commits these fallacies at the rate liberals do. If you disagree with that statement, I am open to logical, respectful debate.
any reason to dismiss an argument or only specifically bigotry?
do you have any links to research/numbers on the subject?
1) I am not a birther
2) Any human, regardless of ideology can commit a fallacy.
3) Liberals habitually claim racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc., to dismiss arguments. No other ideological group commits these fallacies at the rate liberals do. If you disagree with that statement, I am open to logical, respectful debate.
The problem is all the arguments presented in the OP have already been shot down as wrong time and time and time again, people get sick and tired of saying the same thing to those are simply too stupid or stubborn to understand they have no leg to stand on.
Let me put it to you in a way that will make more sense for some:
IF the claims of the Birthers had any validity don't you think the GOP would have pursued it long ago, you can count on them having investigated the matter and had their lawyers look at all the legalities, if there was a snowballs chance in Hades of them removing President Obama from the Whitehouse don't you think they would have do so. The reality is they haven't and are not going to, that should speak volumes to anyone that has more than two brain cells to rub together.
Contrary to Arthur "largely tr(ying) to dismiss the claims," he actually completely ignored them. American citizens were less ignorant about our citizenship laws then, and so no "Birther" movement was able to get traction.
I highly doubt the citizens were less ignorant of citizenship laws in 1884 in regards to the presidency. In fact, it wasn't until 1890 that the federal government even took over responsibility for regulating immigration to this country. And many states allowed non-citizens the right to vote(and they technically still can).
Quote:
And drilling down more directly to the actual feelings of the Founders and Framers on dual citizenship, Thomas Jefferson became a naturalized citizen of France after our revolution and while he was our Minister to that country. While it can be argued (improperly) that he was grandfathered under Article II, the Congress (composed mostly of Framers) didn't have to vote for him if they actually disapproved of dual citizenship. Yet they elected him Vice president once and President twice. While he was VP, we were even in an undeclared war with his adopted country.
I don't think anyone doubts the allegiances of Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the damn declaration of independence. You are confusing an absolute definition of the natural-born clause with what amounts to an implied meaning of the natural-born clause.
Quote:
Your claim that the purpose of the NBC clause is "to make sure the leader of the country has allegiances to this country and no other" cannot be supported from either the documentary or historical evidence.
What exactly do you think the natural-born clause is for then anyway? Why prevent naturalized citizens from becoming president, if there is no historical evidence that the natural-born clause has anything to do with allegiances to this country and no other?
Think of it like this. There are naturalized Mexicans living in California who fly the Mexican flag, and root for Mexican teams when they play the United States. Where do you think their loyalties lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
For starters, your need for "assumptions" is baffling given that we actually know the true facts, rendering any need for assuming anything completely moot.
For starters, we know that under Indonesian law Obama never qualified for Indonesian citizenship in the fist place. We know that his "legal name" has never changed, regardless of the name he used in Indonesia. And we know that he moved back to Hawaii in 1971, while his mother ans stepfather did not divorce until 1980.
Why speculate when the true facts are so readily available?
I was merely trying to paint a picture to show the intricacies of this situation. So I will state again, Obama's mother married Lolo Soetoro and moved to Indonesia. While she was there, she enrolled Barack in school under the name Barry Soetoro. If she had not gotten divorced from Lolo Soetoro and the laws would have allowed him to become a citizen, there is every reason to believe that Barack Obama might have stayed in Indonesia.
My question is simply, if Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia(which I'm sure his mother attempted to make him a citizen, but the laws prevented it), would that disqualify him for president? How many years of living in Indonesia as a dual citizen of Indonesia and America would need to pass before Obama would be disqualified for president?
I don't personally know how he feels about Indonesia or Kenya, but I'm sure he is at least more sympathetic to them than to their neighbors. Not that it overly matters, since neither country is very important globally. On the other hand, had Obama spent four years in Iran or North Korea with his adopted father in Iranian or North Korean schools, I think you would more understand my argument.
Quote:
But it is a term explained by more than half a millennium of Anglo-American common law. And at the time of the Framing, there existed a single definition in all of the English language. To whit:
Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.
I don't even know if that is true or not. Because last time I checked, in America, it wasn't until the 14th amendment(1868) that people who were born in this country to non-citizens even became citizens. So it can't really be possible that everyone born on US soil was a "natural born citizen", if they weren't even citizens to begin with.
Anyway, I'm not arguing against the eligibility of Obama directly. I understand the intention of the natural-born clause, but the wording of the natural-born clause is just so vague that legally, it would be hard to argue against Obama being a natural-born citizen. Moreover, there are even arguments that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, that he would still be considered a natural-born citizen. Because he would have been a citizen at birth, because his mother was a citizen. The alternative to natural-born citizen would be a naturalized citizen, and he would not have been a naturalized citizen.
So, throw out the whole eligibility and birther legal arguments. Because that isn't really what I'm trying to argue at all. Because legally, I have no argument.
What I'm saying is that, from an individual perspective, there is a strong foundation for questioning Obama himself, and his allegiances. And if we understand that the logical intention of the natural-born clause was to guarantee a president who was at heart a loyal American. Then we have to wonder what the framers might have thought about a man whose father was Kenyan, and who lived in Indonesia for several years as a child, and who surrounds himself with people who want to completely destroy the decentralized federalism that the framers created. And whether or not the framers, had they been alive today, might have wished they could modify their eligibility requirements, to prevent a man like Obama from ever becoming president.
That is what I'm arguing. But as I said before, I'm not saying I want Obama out of the white house. In fact, I'm about 95% sure he will be reelected this year. The Republican warmongers refused to pick someone of substance(Ron Paul), and went with someone who changes his views to match his parties rhetoric, rather than standing on any principles at all.
So, throw out the whole eligibility and birther legal arguments. Because that isn't really what I'm trying to argue at all. Because legally, I have no argument.
I highly doubt the citizens were less ignorant of citizenship laws in 1884 in regards to the presidency. In fact, it wasn't until 1890 that the federal government even took over responsibility for regulating immigration to this country. And many states allowed non-citizens the right to vote(and they technically still can).
Your doubt is noted. It is contradicted by the level of the relative discussions between 1884 and today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't think anyone doubts the allegiances of Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the damn declaration of independence. You are confusing an absolute definition of the natural-born clause with what amounts to an implied meaning of the natural-born clause.
First off... that implication is not mine... it belongs exclusively to the Birthers. They and only they repeatedly insist that it was the intention of the Framers to deny natural born citizenship status to dual citizens. The simple truth of Thomas Jefferson's circumstances proves that they actually had no concerns whatsoever. The campaigns he won were among the most bitter and partisan in all of American history... Jefferson was pilloried as an atheist, a subversive, a libertine and a (literal) slave lover. His opponents found every angle to smear him that they could find.
Yet not one single complaint about his dual citizenship was ever registered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What exactly do you think the natural-born clause is for then anyway? Why prevent naturalized citizens from becoming president, if there is no historical evidence that the natural-born clause has anything to do with allegiances to this country and no other?
There was widespread caution throughout the United States at the time of the Constitutional Convention about the new government becoming a hereditary monarchy. Some feared that delegates to the Convention wanted either Prince Henry of Prussia or the Frederick the Duke of York, the second son of King George III of England, to be the new monarch for America. This was specifically the circumstance that the NBC clause was included to prevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I was merely trying to paint a picture to show the intricacies of this situation. So I will state again, Obama's mother married Lolo Soetoro and moved to Indonesia. While she was there, she enrolled Barack in school under the name Barry Soetoro.
Close... but no cigar. Obama was registered by his step father, not his mother, before either Obama or his mother actually arrived in Indonesia at all.
And of course, Obama would be (at most) only the third US president to have been registered in school using their step-father's name without it having been legally changed. The others would be (at least) Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If she had not gotten divorced from Lolo Soetoro and the laws would have allowed him to become a citizen, there is every reason to believe that Barack Obama might have stayed in Indonesia.
Well, none of those circumstances apply. He cannot have become a citizen, his mother did get a divorce, and Obama did not remain in Indonesia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My question is simply, if Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia(which I'm sure his mother attempted to make him a citizen, but the laws prevented it), would that disqualify him for president?
First and foremost... why would you be "sure his mother attempted to make him a citizen" when she never tried to become an Indonesian citizen herself? That seems like a very bizarre thing to be confident regarding.
But second, US citizenship law is excruciatingly clear on this point. There is nothing that Obama, his mother, his step father or the government of Indonesia can possibly have done that would have revoked the natural born US citizenship that he gained by birthright in Hawaii.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
How many years of living in Indonesia as a dual citizen of Indonesia and America would need to pass before Obama would be disqualified for president?
As long as he also lived in the United States for fourteen years, there is no limit to how long he could have lived in Indonesia as a dual citizen and still be eligible for the presidency.
Of course, he would also have to actually get elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't personally know how he feels about Indonesia or Kenya, but I'm sure he is at least more sympathetic to them than to their neighbors. Not that it overly matters, since neither country is very important globally. On the other hand, had Obama spent four years in Iran or North Korea with his adopted father in Iranian or North Korean schools, I think you would more understand my argument.
No. I would still completely reject your argument. I do not attribute any nationalistic significance to where anybody lived when they were eight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't even know if that is true or not. Because last time I checked, in America, it wasn't until the 14th amendment(1868) that people who were born in this country to non-citizens even became citizens.
You are mistaken. People born in this country to non-citizens were natural born citizens all the way back to the founding of our nation and before. As the Supreme Court said in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Gray
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendement Senator Jacob Howard was explicit that it changed nothing about who was or was not a citizen, or how they became one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Howard
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
So as we see you are simply, factually wrong when you conclude that, "it can't really be possible that everyone born on US soil was a 'natural born citizen,' if they weren't even citizens to begin with."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What I'm saying is that, from an individual perspective, there is a strong foundation for questioning Obama himself, and his allegiances.
Then you have a powerful Constitutional remedy for your concerns.
The US State Department has testified to that fact under oath in the case of Strunk v. US Department of State.
They also testified that he was never adopted and was never a citizen of Indonesia.
Who was the individual who testified for the State Department stating specifically Obama never went by the name Barry Soetoro and that he specifically was not adopted?
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.
