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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2013, 01:37 PM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,120,684 times
Reputation: 356

Advertisements

What a traitor. He is trying to redefine the term 'Natural Born Citizen'.


His bill states:

"As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth."


His redefinition is wrong. Our framers wanted our future presidents to be strictly a 'Natural Born Citizen' for Article 2 Section 1 purposes, not 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409 Statute Citizens for the presidency. That is why they developed the 'Natural Born Citizen clause in the first place. Nowhere in '8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409' is the term 'Natural Born Citizen' ever mentioned. Only "Nationals" and "Citizens" are mentioned. There is a difference between a statute 8 U.S.C. citizen and a natural born citizen.


Missouri Representative Lyle Rowland Attempts To Redefine
Natural Born Citizen Without Constitutional Amendment

Missouri House of Representatives


Again. Nowhere does U.S.C. Section 1401 define OR mention a Constitutional Presidential Clause Article 2 Section 1 term 'Natural Born Citizen':
8 USC 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Obama (or Ted Cruz) does not meet the current definition, because anti-constitutionalists, such as Representative Lyle Rowland, want to change the definition.

Last edited by Old Army Soldier; 02-25-2013 at 02:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2013, 01:58 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,092,865 times
Reputation: 14896
U.S.C. Section 1401 otherwise known as the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 only granted citizenship at birth to native American people and clarified the citizenship of Americans not born on U.S. soil. I doubt the "Framers" would get all that worked up about (for example) the granting of natural born citizenship to the children of U.S. service men or children of U.S. workers employed in foreign countries. Their concern was over the ability of immigrants being elected to the Presidency - not particularly surprising considering the number of foreign born Kings and Queens rising to the throne of England.

Section 1401 has gone through a number of amendments since 1924, particularly for those born of one U.S. parent OUTSIDE of the United States to recognize the equality of parentage. What the purpose of this bill is or isn't does seem clear, so if you want to discuss the issue outside of the normal bounds of birtherism or just plain hysterics, find out more information and come back to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Stuck in NE GA right now
4,585 posts, read 10,844,381 times
Reputation: 6616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
U.S.C. Section 1401 otherwise known as the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 only granted citizenship at birth to native American people and clarified the citizenship of Americans not born on U.S. soil. I doubt the "Framers" would get all that worked up about (for example) the granting of natural born citizenship to the children of U.S. service men or children of U.S. workers employed in foreign countries. Their concern was over the ability of immigrants being elected to the Presidency - not particularly surprising considering the number of foreign born Kings and Queens rising to the throne of England.

Section 1401 has gone through a number of amendments since 1924, particularly for those born of one U.S. parent OUTSIDE of the United States to recognize the equality of parentage. What the purpose of this bill is or isn't does seem clear, so if you want to discuss the issue outside of the normal bounds of birtherism or just plain hysterics, find out more information and come back to us.
Since I'm mixed blood American Indian I'm familar with the Indian Citizenship Act. My parents and theirs were not consider citizens even though they and their ancestors had been on this soil long before the Euros showed up. My parents and theirs lived in fear often because they had few rights and were not considered citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:07 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
9,033 posts, read 8,745,842 times
Reputation: 5665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
anti-constitutionalists, such as Representative Lyle Rowland, want to change the definition.
But... but... he's a Republican! How can he be a "traitor"?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:09 PM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,120,684 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
But... but... he's a Republican! How can he be a "traitor"?!
He has let liberal political correctness infect his mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:13 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,092,865 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
He has let liberal political correctness infect his mind.
Based upon what? I would think that you would be happy because it would in effect limit the number of foreign born natural born citizens since the act has been made more inclusive since 1924 but since you are generally clueless about most of the things that you write about.

Meeting calls, be back in an hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
9,033 posts, read 8,745,842 times
Reputation: 5665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
He has let liberal political correctness infect his mind.
From his website:

Quote:
Right to Life?
I believe in the right to life and that we must protect all people of Missouri from the elderly to the unborn. Life is a special gift bestowed upon us from our Creator, and we should thank God every day for this gift that has been given to us. I am endorsed by Missouri Right To Life.

Marriage?
I am a man of strong faith; and I work toward protecting the sanctity of marriage, as our God means for it to be - man and wife. I understand that marriage and faith are the bedrock that our society was founded upon. I am striving to make sure that those two institutions are protected by the state and not pushed to the wayside by a godless agenda.

Gunrights and Property Rights?
I am fighting to protect our property rights and our rural heritage. I understand the Second Amendment. A person has the right to protect their home and property; but most importantly, they have the RIGHT to protect their family. I am a hunter and a member of the NRA, and I will continue to uphold your right to bear arms and see that Missourians, for decades to come, will still have that right. I am endorsed by the NRA.
Some politically correct liberal he is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Western Colorado
11,086 posts, read 12,470,641 times
Reputation: 26110
Our elected officials propose lots of goofy stuff, most don't make it into committee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:33 PM
 
10,328 posts, read 10,351,300 times
Reputation: 4013
More stupid crap that does nothing to help the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,653,561 times
Reputation: 3949
How does this redefine natural born citizen? Exactly?
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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