Can a subject of the Queen become president of the USA ? (vote, children)
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.
Do so now, or be proven to be a liar. Your choice.
Ahhh the "proven liar" tactic. One cannot be a liar based on opinion. But if you have to resort to name calling then it's because you can't defend your position and have to resort to attacking the messenger.
The difference between my opinion and your opinion is I have something to point to while you have nothing but three words.
Try using that line in front of the Supreme Court. "Your Honors if you do not agree with me you are a proven liar."
Ahhh the "proven liar" tactic. One cannot be a liar based on opinion. But if you have to resort to name calling then it's because you can't defend your position and have to resort to attacking the messenger.
The difference between my opinion and your opinion is I have something to point to while you have nothing but three words.
Try using that line in front of the Supreme Court. "Your Honors if you do not agree with me you are a proven liar."
I'm going to stick with the premise that the exact words do not have to be used.
Income Taxes don't really have to be paid, do they? People can just ignore the Constitution's tax amendment because, to put it in your words... "It does not matter," and "exact words do not have to be used."
By the way, you've admitted you're wrong by now claiming that "exact words do not have to be used."
It would be great if we could really go by that line of logic because instead of Obama being president, since words don't really mean anything specific, we can just refer to him and treat him as the failed commuity organizer has-been he really is. I'll use YOUR tactics... "It does not matter," and "exact words do not have to be used."
Ahhh the "proven liar" tactic. One cannot be a liar based on opinion.
No one asked for your opinion. You claimed the law defined "natural born citizen." Quote that law word for word and post the link, or prove yourself to be a liar.
If what the dumbed-down proclaim to be true were actually true, the requirement would merely have been "born citizen."
I'm always amused at your efforts to retroactively order the Framers of the Constitution around. It is a combination of delusional hubris and historical ignorance unique to your posts in this droll forum.
Um... You DO know that the 1790 "natural born citizen" provision was repealed in 1795, don't you?
Wrong. It was not repealed. It was replaced with a later law that simply chose to use other language. The intention and understanding of the first Congress (poulated overwhelmingly by Framers) still remains explicit in the historical record represented by the 1790 law.
Again, post the U.S. Code which defines "natural born citizen."
Natural born citizen is not defined by the US Code.
Who is or is not a natural born citizen, however, is.
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.
