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.
No we are dealing with ignorant people, who wish to rewrite 200 years of history against one man, who was nothing more than born to a middle class American family, who happens to be half black.
the only people who have shown any type of stubborn views are birthers, seeing as they have based their ENTIRE lie, on the "what is the middle name of Barack Obama" question of known right wing nut jobs. Nutty theories born of nuttiness on a nut job website.
Where does the 14th Amendment mention natural born Citizen.
No we are dealing with ignorant people, who wish to rewrite 200 years of history against one man, who was nothing more than born to a middle class American family, who happens to be half black.
One man? There are similar assertions that Romney, Rubio, and Jindal are also ineligible. None of this has anything to do with race, and everything to do with conflicting allegiances at birth.
Where does the 14th Amendment mention natural born Citizen.
DC shows yet again, that he doesn't understand how the Constitution and Amendments works. Amendments either support, define, add or eliminate whats in the Constitution or previous Amendments.
as Historian Dude so pointed out:
Quote:
As we both know, the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is simply declaratory of the law that was already in effect. The fact that it was racially applied prior does not indicate any alteration of the law.
The Constitution recognizes only two types; naturalized and natural born.
There is no third. Even Minor v. Happersett says so.
Quote:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
I no longer go to Facebook. Will you please keep me posted and let me know if BO starts making claims that he was raised in poverty or anything like that? I didn't confirm what I read a few years ago. It may have been a lie and was that he claimed to have been a child of poverty.
No, his grandma and grandpa lived in the same household and his Toot *grandma* made history in Hawaii for being the first female Bank Vice President. Gramps had a job, too so it is written so IF this was claimed it was of course not so.
One man? There are similar assertions that Romney, Rubio, and Jindal are also ineligible. None of this has anything to do with race, and everything to do with conflicting allegiances at birth.
Yeah sure! I'm convinced that if Romney is elected POTUS that this forum will have multiple threads about his eligibilty going, for three years after he is inagurated... yes, Im SO sure!
[quote=Arus;22636547]so what? so have millions of Americans. this has nothing to do with eligibility.
nice that you think so lowly of single mothers.[/quote]
Where did you notion that the one you quoted thinks lowly of single moms? Not in what you quoted. An assumption on your part?
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.
What in the Constitution are you claiming was amended by a statute?
