One shouldn’t have to explain that to those who should know better. Thank you though…
1 Like
You’ve made a great patriotic contribution by providing us with that link!
By definition!
Exactly! And no Dr. Frankenstein razz-ma-tazz either!
No, I think that teahadders, Conderate war re-enactors, and bomb-throwing “patriots”, are presumed to be loyal. Read this in the Kahs’stution a while back I believe.
[quote=“LynnDee, post:97, topic:25024, full:true”]
Pres. Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship?? Good grief. Where do they even get this stuff?
[/quote]They really churn it out, don’t they?!
Then preen before one another how clever they are.
Orly ?
1 Like
You win-- a birther doll!
Unless you already knew of this:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/its-time-for-birthers-to-throw-orly-under-the-bus/
jw1
1 Like
News to me, but Orly is not a woman you can keep down, activist judge or not…
Shall we assume she has been abducted by a black helicopter and held prisoner in some abandoned Wallmart ?
2 Likes
The tingly part is that yesterday–
we had the plaintiff in the case referenced in the linked article-- posting on this thread!
jw1
1 Like
But David is a ‘certified’ birther…certified nuts. How many $$$ on lawyers fees has he blown with Oily Taintz?
+10 for John Keister and Almost Live! Them’s were the days…
David will only be satisfied if get gets his hands on the placental sack.
1 Like
I think Orly works “pro bono”…
I’m thinking, as I stated, a time machine is the only way. That way he could attend the birth and then go surfing at Waikiki Beach. Of course the goal posts would be moved to say hawaii wasn’t a state in 1961 or some such. Truth is if Obama isn’t “natural born” then at least a half dozen other past Presidents can’t qualify nor can about half the present GOP field. I wonder what Orly Taitz has to say about all this. If she’s consistent in her beliefs then she should be filing a bunch more frivolous law suits.
It is not there.
“…citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
This is from Vattell who was French. This has nothing to do to do with American law. Birthers use this…
I liked this, then realized commenter was referring ONLY to the candidates, not the birther fetishists as well.
Still like it, but just sayin’…
1 Like
You really have to wonder if David is a troll, just another right winger working the gravy train, actually a lunatic birther or the worst option, too fricking ignorant to realize that the birther thing was just one of the first false attacks hurled at the black President that never was real but he is too dumb to know when to move on which even birther hero Trump has realized and done.
How about the fact that the birther mission has been a loser for the idiot birthers from day one and yet David tries to play the sensible birther likes there is a difference.
Being famous for being an idiot isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
1 Like
Or some such! 
I am not a “birther”
Consider what the Constitution has to say…
Sect 1 article 2. Eligibility for President
’ No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States…’"
14th Ammendment
"all persons born or naturalized…
The statement is “OR” not “AND”. One or the other. Also, the “or” makes the two equal. ( oh really?) The committee on detail proposed that the " President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years"
This was adopted without further debate recorded. The committee of eleven changed the term “citizen” to “natural born citizen” further confusing the difference even more.
The term “natural born citizen” is not defined. Two proposals of types:
Jus Sanguinis… Citizen of the blood
Jus Soli…Citizen of the soil
European countries base most on blood…family, ect ( a Frenchman can become an American, but an American cannot become a Frenchman)
America…Jus Soli, of the soil, mainly because Americans come here from all over the world. There isn’t really an American culture.,we are international.
There are differing discussions in court cases, but Federal cases have always held citizen by birth right (of the soil).
If we want this changed, this should be made by Congress, not court cases, because different courts hold different opinions in one country at the same time.
There are not two classes of birth right citizens currently. Do we really want this?
Currently, there is no mechanism to revoke a Jus Soli (born here on this land) citizenship as this is considered a birth right.
Naturalized citizens may not run for President. Jus Soli citizens can.
There is no requirement for jus Sanguines currently
Citizens “of the blood” are not discussed except in cases where a child is born outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., to parents where one is a citizen is considered. “Natural born Citizen” (Naturalization Act of 1790) which was repealed in 1795 changing “natural born citizen” to “citizen” ,retaining the residency requirement. If a citizen under the 1795 act does not return to America, his children will not be citizens.
The change citizen to natural born citizen confuses the matter even more.
Allegiance of non citizen parents of a child born in America does not affect the citizenship of the child when that child becomes an adult. Of course the child can revoke the citizenship. The only discussion of allegiance that I could find was a discussion between John Jay and George Washington which resulted in the residency requirement. I could not find any requirement of allegiance of the alien parents of a birth right (of the soil) citizen…and the comment that citizens being both “of the land” and “of the blood” was made in a book written by a Frenchman before the American Revolution.
The Birthers making assumptions that a President must be both “of the soil” AND “of the blood” citizens are just that…assumptions. This is not law, and the Constitution does not make that distinction since “natural born” is not defined (perhaps it should be…by congress. Any change would require a constitutional amendment )
Allegiance of the parents is not covered, except in cases of dual citizenships. ( and that in by court cases)
In 1862; congressman Bingham: congress shall have the power to pass a uniform system of naturalization. To "naturalize "a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the republic. Those born here are “citizens by birth” wether black or white. ,
(This was to give black Americans citizenship)
But in 1866: Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a “natural born citizen”;but sir I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.
So there it is. Congress cannot redefine “citizen” or “natural born citizen” by statute. Congress cannot change requirements of citizenship!
Much less establish the requirements to be eligible to be elected the President.
(Nor can any one else,Birthers! )
An Amendment is required to 1. Define citizenship (14th) and under section 1 Article 2: Eligibility of a President.
We the people need to define citizenship: it seems that naturalized, then Jus Solis then Jus Sanguines need definition. (All 3) then; anchor babies…define requirements for their citizenship? If jus solis alone, should they be allowed to stay, or should birth here from illegal and legal immigrants be denied. Should one of these parents be a citizen? " Citizen" and “natural birth citizens” should have clear definition, and what limitations as citizens, if any, should their be?
Then what do we the people feel that Eligibility for election of a President should be?
If We the People feel that candidates for President should be both jus solis and jus Sanguines then congress needs to make that distinction by Amendment.
Should Jus Sanguines be parents with citizenship already in place, or should parents have to be citizens by birth and/or naturalization first?
Of course the residency requirement should remain since people are becoming international.
Give this thought…talk to your Senators And representatives about what you think should happen.
We do need to accomplish this…