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.
So is it a vast UCMJ liberal conspiracy or a vast UCMJ conservative conspiracy? Make up your mind you're making folks dizzy with wild accusations that can't seem to stick to the wall.
...Yes, the rest of us have heard you just fine. And so has the military you've abused as just another pawn in your long career of smear. So says the modern whig party founded by Iraq & Afghanistan veterans sick to death of rabid republicans. Modern Whig Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No abuse. I've stated facts. And you've misinterpreted what I've said. Filtered it through your own biases, and came to the wrong conclusion. Your problem, not mine. You did that before on another thread (poverty statistics). Based your opinion on your own admittedly very limited life experience. It was easy to prove you wrong with factual evidence.
No abuse. I've stated facts. And you've misinterpreted what I've said. Filtered it through your own biases, and came to the wrong conclusion. Your problem, not mine. You did that before on another thread (poverty statistics). Based your opinion on your own admittedly very limited life experience. It was easy to prove you wrong with factual evidence.
Enough with another thread gibberish.
It is you who have misrepresented. The military did not administer prejudice based on who was president. It administers justice, period. Throwing up the other case was BS on your part right along with all the rest.
If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't spend so much of your time outright lying to sell people anything. That's why active duty military & vets are repulsed by republicans. Disgusted. So am I.
In your opinion. But that would make you have to ignore the significance of Jay's letter as the origination of the NBC clause in the Constitution.
"Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay."
where exactly in this letter is the two parent definition of NBC ?
It is you who have misrepresented. The military did not administer prejudice based on who was president.
Which is odd considering Lakin and any other troops who deploy under an illegitimate president's leadership would be twisting in the wind in a foreign country that might not be too happy that they're there.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American armyshall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay."
where exactly in this letter is the two parent definition of NBC ?
Seriously? See the bolded, above.
Obama was born a Brit, which he and everyone else admits. As such, Obama did not have 100% allegiance to the U.S. at birth.
Exactly. Which is why HD's post is incorrect. Thank you for chiming in.
Exactly? Exactly what? You apparently have no idea what nzrugby meant, let alone what it had to do with the discussion. If you failed to notice... it was your post he objected to. Not mine.
But lets not go round-and-round as two laymen trying to interpret what Wong Kim Ark means. Let's ask actual judges... specifically a panel of three of them on the Indiana Court of Appeals.
This is what they say Wong Kim Ark means:
Quote:
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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Which is odd considering Lakin and any other troops who deploy under an illegitimate president's leadership would be twisting in the wind in a foreign country that might not be too happy that they're there.
No more or less than troops who deploy under a legitimate one.
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.
