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 02-27-2012, 03:04 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,272,509 times
Reputation: 1837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
Yes, because the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the type of person that the founders intended for Article 2 Section 1 for the Presidency.
Wrong. As you yet again failed to read for comprehension, Wong Kim Ark explicitly explained why the 14th amendment pretty much guaranteed that all person born in the US are natural born citizens.


Only racists lean on the "14th amendment" citizen bs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:04 PM
 
764 posts, read 597,344 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
Not true at all. Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (both black) both ran for president and their eligibility wasn't challenged as candidates.
I'm not saying he was questioned because he's black. I'm saying if he wasn't black, and came onto the scene under the exact same circumstances as a white male, this would have never happened. It's not as much that he's black, as it is that hes not a white guy with a western name.

Even if he was white, and a few people started making note of it, it would have never taken off. Culture ignorance and racism helped got the ball rolling. Ignorant people see his name and skin tone and are inclined to believe, because they want to...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,202,822 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithium View Post
I'm not saying he was questioned because he's black. I'm saying if he wasn't black, and came onto the scene under the exact same circumstances as a white male, this would have never happened. It's not as much that he's black, as it is that hes not a white guy with a western name.

Even if he was white, and a few people started making note of it, it would have never taken off. Culture ignorance and racism helped got the ball rolling. Ignorant people see his name and skin tone and are inclined to believe, because they want to...
You nailed it, it has been pointed out to the birfers that past presidents had foreign born parents. Of course, none of that matters, they were white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,013,345 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
That's a very good reason (though not an excuse) for you to have gotten that wrong.

I hope you have learned that you really should withhold your righteous indignation until you have been around long enough to have earned its use.
What have I got wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,202,822 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
Yes, because the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the type of person
What type of person? A white person?
Quote:
that the founders intended for Article 2 Section 1 for the Presidency. If it was the other way around then the Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen presidential clause would have been amended to the 14th Amendment so a naturalized born Citizen by statute could have qualified for the presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
802 posts, read 564,177 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Gong.

Mario Apuzzo is a DUI lawyer who has no experience or expertise in Constitutional law. He has filed a single case outside of his ambulance chasing expertise. It was thrown out as "frivolous" by the court, and that tossing was upheld by the Supreme Court.
No, another lie you are administering to the public. How do you not know he studied Constitutional law in law school? Those institutions he went to teach it. Basically the courts said his clients did not have standing to bring their action against Obama and Congress and it could therefore not address the merits of whether Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the proposed “common-law” definition. No court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case. It was never called 'frivolous'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
802 posts, read 564,177 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
What type of person? A white person?
No!!!...A 14th amendment statutory Citizen. Are you that dense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,013,345 times
Reputation: 6128
I have dual citizenship - but I have to go to Europe to claim it. Can I run for president? (side note - I am Caucasian).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:28 PM
 
26,581 posts, read 14,449,955 times
Reputation: 7435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
It was never called 'frivolous'.
“Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.”

-Judge Dolores K. Sloviter
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2012, 03:29 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
No!!!...A 14th amendment statutory Citizen. Are you that dense?
Those "statutory citizens" would have been the slaves who weren't accorded the rights of citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment. Every child to slaves thereafter would not have been "statutory citizens" they would have simply been born free citizens of the United States.

Your reading of the 14th Amendment is simply misinterpretation to suit your twisted agenda, and not the accurate reading that the courts have upheld.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:09 AM.

© 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