Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
"Dumbass Tea Party"? Such a broad brush to call everyone "dumbass". Would those on the left like to be called the "dumbass left'"? implying that term applies to all of you on the left?

Besides, it's not a Tea Party. It's the T.E.A. Party. Maybe I misunderstood and you're not referring to the T.E.A. Party.

Did I miss a someting, and you went to some tea party?
No, what you missed was my earlier post about Tea Party candidate Ken Buck, who was caught on-air called the birthers in the Tea Party "dumbasses".

On an audio tape obtained by The Denver Post, Buck was caught muttering "will you tell those dumba---s at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?"

Read more: Senate hopeful Buck regrets criticism of Tea Party birthers - The Denver Post Senate hopeful Buck regrets criticism of Tea Party birthers - The Denver Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:22 PM
 
5,747 posts, read 12,051,162 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
Would those on the left like to be called the "dumbass left'"? implying that term applies to all of you on the left?
Seems to me that insults of that nature are hurled at Democrats every single day. During the election, I vividly recall being told here at C-D that being a Democrat was synonymous with being mentally ill. I'm sure given a few minutes I could track down the post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Hmmm... I don't see an 18th century time stamp on that opinion.

Furthermore, Steve Mount, the man who wrote that opinion on what is no more than his own personally owned website has the following credentials:
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1989, University of Vermont
Other formal learning: Constitutional Law, Community College of Vermont, 1999 (audit)
Who is Steve Mount? - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You honestly think we should take someone whose only relevant credential is that he once AUDITED a community college course on Constitutional Law seriously?

I'll believe Benjamin Franklin's own words and the College of William and Mary, one of our nation's top post-secondary schools, over some guy who audited a course on Constitutional Law at a community college.
Surprise! It's now the 21st century. The 14th amendment wasn't even extant when the constitution was written. So Vattel, Franklin, et al would have no opinion about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercalifornian View Post
Seems to me that insults of that nature are hurled at Democrats every single day. During the election, I vividly recall being told here at C-D that being a Democrat was synonymous with being mentally ill. I'm sure given a few minutes I could track down the post.
I concur! Gosh, a quick perusal through the P&OC forum would see all sorts of epithets hurled at Democrats: "Libitards", immoral, amoral, sucking off the government teat, etc. I bet you could find at least a dozen on the first page of P&OC alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:29 PM
 
2,888 posts, read 6,537,533 times
Reputation: 4654
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL View Post
Certificate of live birth not birth certificate.
What other kind would a living breathing person have?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNM View Post
What other kind would a living breathing person have?
LOL! Actually, there are certificates of fetal death, as well. After a certain number of weeks, one of those has to be filed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:00 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,270,334 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post

Benjamin Franklin noted Vattels' Law of Nation's influence on the "rising state" in his correspondence to Dumas in 1775.
EGHAD you're a freaking Vattelist

NEWS for YOU

VATTEL's Law of NAtions was translated into ENGLISH 10 years after the CONSTITUION WAS WRITTEN! and the term "natural born citizen": didn't EVEN appear in that version!

And our nation wasn't based on a SWISS PHILOSOPHER's IDEALS!

Most of our laws are BASED ON ENGLISH COMMON LAW, you KNOW THAT COUNTRY THAT MOST OF OUR FOREFATHERS ESCAPED FROM!

Article 2 and 14th amendment of our Constitution CLEARLY establishes who is a citizen and how to become won

You are either BORN a citizen or you ARE NATURALIZEd.

Since you have to be foreign born to be naturalized, all person's born in the US borders are automatic citizens at birth. Since you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen, NO matter who the **** your parents are.


Wong Kim Ark proved this!

Wong Kim Ark was the son of Chinese Immigrants, during a time when there was the Chinese Exclusion act in place (this DISALLOWED ALL immigrant chinese to be naturalized! THEY COULDN'T BECOME CITIZENS!) was born in San Francisco, CA. Because his parents couldn't become citizens, the US Supreme Court ruled that by virtue of being born on US Soil, he was was citizen of the United States:

Quote:
[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution[.]



Quote:
As another example, Bobby Jindal (Republican) wouldn't meet the Constitution's NBC requirement, either - his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth.

False he would be if he was born on US Soil.

You forget that Chester A Arthur had only 1 parent who was a citizen (his father wasn't till after he was born). And despite claims from his bitter opponent, the election board did not see and issue with his citizenship.


Your claim of Vattel's definition has no place in our history and our LEGAL history supports born in america = Natural born citizen


Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens†of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen†with “native born citizen†for purposes of presidential eligibility):
DeTomaso is “eligible†to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.†Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen†of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen†of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen†of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen†of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):
According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:02 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,004 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Surprise! It's now the 21st century. The 14th amendment wasn't even extant when the constitution was written. So Vattel, Franklin, et al would have no opinion about it.
What does the 14th amendment have to do with the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement for Presidential eligibility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:06 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,180 posts, read 14,865,184 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bily Lovec View Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,074,302 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama has no excuse to withhold it, unless he's trying to hide something, which looks quite obvious at this point.
He does not need an "excuse," and he is withholding nothing. He publicly released his birth certificate more than two years ago. That didn't meet your objectives so you moved the goal posts.

Too late. The game was already over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Interesting point about Hawaii's DHHL requirement. What they require now was changed after Obama released his incomplete birth record.
No it wasn't.

They changed the web page which was out of date. They didn't change the requirement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Funny that... the Hawaii DHHL had stricter requirements than the DNC.
The DNC is not trying to establish Hawaiian ethnicity. Different objectives, different requirements.

Duh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not to mention the fact that under Hawaiian law, as previously noted, it is entirely possible for a person to have been born out of state and/or out of the country and still have a birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.
Not one that says they were born in Honolulu.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top