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 is appalling what I heard this morning from a segment on CBS News 'Sunday Morning'. It was truly Marxist. It was like it was ghost written by Barack Obama himself. What was spewed was totally un-American. The reason the framers wanted a true natural born Citizen inserted into Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause, was for a purpose...........Loyalty. It was to assure that a future president would be born with sole allegiance to the United States. It was to prevent him from having split allegiances with other foreign sovereign governments in case said person was born to foreign subjects that could disrupt his singular loyalty to America. After all, the framers lived in a time when America just won a war for their independence. It's really common sense and very logical why they wanted a future president that was a true American born to two U.S. citizen parents that would guarantee sole allegiance to the United States at birth. The 'Office Of The Presidency' is the only office in American government that calls for a special specific kind of citizenship to hold that one patriotic position. A simple 'born Citizen' on U.S. soil is not enough. For people to disregard the framers original intent as well as the Constitution in today's times, and to disregard that a president not be a natural born Citizen is putting this country and its national security in serious danger.............and it already is due to this type of Marxist mentality.
What is specifically Marxist about it? Did Marx theorize on presidential eligibility or the nature of and distinctions between different types of citizenship? Please explain.
Assuming that you meant "hear," Leo Donofrio was the first birther lawyer to get to the Supreme Court, and he got there on the merits without any hurdle of standing. The case was Donofrio v. Wells. That was the argument he made.
Your link does a good job of explaining it, but in a nutshell, Mrs Minor wanted to vote. She tried to register to vote, but the state of Missouri did not allow women to vote at that time, so the registrar refused her. She sued him, because voting is a privilege of citizenship, and she was a citizen. The court agreed that she was a citizen, and the court agreed that voting is a privilege of citizenship, but the court determined that the states did have the power to determine the qualifications for the privilege of suffrage, and that Missouri was within its rights to bar women from voting. Until the Constitution was amended to qualify women to vote, Missouri could refuse them that privilege. Minor V Happersett explained.
1. Use terms like racist or conspiracy nut liberally.
2. Call others that don't agree with you names like children at recess, which is exactly what they do.
3. When presented with facts, resort to fantasy...or shoot the messenger.
4. Rinse and repeat until your brain is thoroughly washed.
It was actually put their to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being President.
^^This. I have read that before. People tend to think of the Founding Fathers as deity, but they were human connivers like all the rest of us.
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.
