BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Comments
136,041 - 136,060 of 174,658 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155058
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Truth Detector wrote:
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are,-excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients,(Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens,(-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage,-being as parents determine one’s inherited nature,-one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.
But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.
That is YOUR opinion and nothing more and until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue, it will remain just your opinion.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155060
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I KNOW MANY OF YOU (LIKE ME) ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO FOOTBALL SEASON. WELL, HERE'S A LITTLE RECAP OF LAST SEASON.........
Coincidence? Just wondering..........
Alabama beat Arkansas,
and Arkansas fired their coach.
Alabama beat Tennessee,
and Tennessee fired their coach.
Alabama beat Auburn,
and Auburn fired their coach.
Then Alabama beat Notre Dame, and the Pope resigned.......
Damn, I wish the White House had a team!
Well, the White House will make a laughing stock of birther nutballs when the Alabama Supreme Court dismisses the eternal birther nuisance BC contestation suit. And so the White House coach will remain.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155061
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
AH, but they did not know when the attacks would stop, DID THEY? And we still had people who were alive that might have been killed!!!
Obama has told the military and the Dept. of State people that if it comes between MY politics and your life, I will make sure I survive as president! And to hell with you!!!
Well, fact is, attacks did not continue, nothing could be done to save the poor unfortunate four, so quit extrapolating and "what if" and "if when the attacks would stop"...

You wrote "Obama has told the military and the Dept. of State people that if it comes between MY politics and your life, I will make sure I survive as president! And to hell with you!!!"

Okay, sigh, another request for proof that Obama thought or said the above. Do you realise how serious your allegation is? If you can't prove it, will you rescind it? Or do I have to ask a million times for proof?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155062
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
AH, but they did not know when the attacks would stop, DID THEY? And we still had people who were alive that might have been killed!!!
Obama has told the military and the Dept. of State people that if it comes between MY politics and your life, I will make sure I survive as president! And to hell with you!!!
And Rogue, how conveniently you have no comment on the 11 killed by BP and in association, Halliburton, in the Gulf by fellow Americans and ally Brits, not by the enemy. Found guilty, BP accepted verdict of sheer negligence leading to the death of those 11 men. Yet, you have zilch to say. Second request from you in less than 5 minutes, a record. Did I not supply you with proof the minute you asked , twice , two days ago and yesterday? You said yesterday you supplied links. Except for various cut-and-paste giberish, you don't.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155063
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques, this is for you. You may notice that the aircraft's registration number begins with a "C" which means it is registered in..... Canada. I am sure the the Canadian CAB (like our FAA) has taken action against the pilot!
Video: Longest Takeoff Run ... Ever
By Robert Goyer / Published: May 02, 2013
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots...
I know what the "C" means. Do you know what "N" means? Now you know how I feel.

Considering the strip is rough grass, downhill instead of ideal uphill, and a tail dragger which in this case is no help for sure, pilot did pretty well, considering. Of course, his initial mistake was taking off from that strip in the 1st place, yes, he was STUPID,, displayed poor judgement, yet skillful but again mostly STUPID as it normally should've ended in tragedy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155064
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And ruminants emit almost 30% of global methane emissions. Ain't that a gas?
Can you tell us what percentage of DRY atmospheric gases does our Earth contain?
For Instance about;
78% is nitrogen,
21% Oxygen,
1% Argon, and
1% all other gases!!!
Now, depending on temperature and humidity our lower tropospheric gases can contain up to 5% water vapor, typically 1-3% water vapor while CO2 is less than 0.1% and I have not seen statistic for methane yet.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155065
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now here is another left-leaning source. How do I know? Well, they mention CO2 which is less than 0.1% of our atmosphere but fails to mention ARGON which is more than ten times what CO2 is!!!

Layers of the Atmosphere:

The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere, which is the body of air or gasses that protects the planet and enables life. Most of our atmosphere is located close to the earth's surface where it is most dense. The air of our planet is 79% nitrogen and just under 21% oxygen; the small amount remaining is composed of carbon dioxide and other gasses. There are five distinct layers of the earth. Let's look at each, from closest to farthest from the earth...
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeograp...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155066
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your spin is boring, boring, boring, it would have been nice if you could have made a point and not just thrown fruit-salad at us.
11 American rig workers killed and to you, it's a spin, it's boring, it's a fruit salad?

You dismiss it out of hand?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155067
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Excuse me but according to Wiki, there is 23.8 times as much argon as there is CO2!!!! I had said ten times, so I stand corrected.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The common name given to the atmospheric gases used in breathing and photosynthesis is air. Dry air contains roughly (by volume)
78.09% nitrogen,
20.95% oxygen,
0.93% argon,
0.039% carbon dioxide,
and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155068
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Question

Can the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment be any clearer than this?

comments by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890

"...every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is...a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, incude persons born in the Untied States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

"...Indians born within the limits of the united States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not...born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded...as being quasi foreign nations."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895

"...the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States,...the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.... They have always been regarded...as being independent nations..."

On p. 2890, Howard declares that every persons born in the USA and SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION is a citizen, other than persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. This means that persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers are NOT INCLUDED in the set of persons who ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA.

He then goes on to say that persons who ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA are ALSO EXCLUDED from citizenship. He provides the specific example of the Indians who belong to a tribe, who are considered members of independent nations.

This establishes the principle that members of independent nations ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA, therefore their children are not given citizenship even if they are born within the limits of the United States.

This exclusion applies to ALL independent nations, including Mexico. Later court rulings gave citizenship to Indians and Eskimos, but this applied to ONLY these groups. These rulings DID NOT open citizenship to children born to foreigners from all the foreign nations in the world.

Children born to parents who are citizens of foreign countries are NOT citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. So, Congress is permitted to refuse citizenship to them under the Fourteenth Amendment as it stands today.

The entire discussion recorded here IMPLICITLY treats children as having the same citizenship status as the parents, with no dispute or debate. It is taken as being understood that ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE SAME CITIZENSHIP AS THEIR PARENTS.

This was entirely the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause. It was intended to give citizenship to all freed slaves and their children, while NOT giving citizenship to the children born to foreigners from independent nations.

Can it be any clearer that ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT CITIZENS?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155069
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Justice Dale wrote:
Question

Can the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment be any clearer than this?

comments by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage... Â…

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890

"...every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is...a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, incude persons born in the Untied States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

"...Indians born within the limits of the united States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not...born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded...as being quasi foreign nations."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage... Â…

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895

"...the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States,...the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.... They have always been regarded...as being independent nations..."

On p. 2890, Howard declares that every persons born in the USA and SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION is a citizen, other than persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. This means that persons who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers are NOT INCLUDED in the set of persons who ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA.

He then goes on to say that persons who ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA are ALSO EXCLUDED from citizenship. He provides the specific example of the Indians who belong to a tribe, who are considered members of independent nations.

This establishes the principle that members of independent nations ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA, therefore their children are not given citizenship even if they are born within the limits of the United States.

This exclusion applies to ALL independent nations, including Mexico. Later court rulings gave citizenship to Indians and Eskimos, but this applied to ONLY these groups. These rulings DID NOT open citizenship to children born to foreigners from all the foreign nations in the world.

Children born to parents who are citizens of foreign countries are NOT citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. So, Congress is permitted to refuse citizenship to them under the Fourteenth Amendment as it stands today.

The entire discussion recorded here IMPLICITLY treats children as having the same citizenship status as the parents, with no dispute or debate. It is taken as being understood that ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE SAME CITIZENSHIP AS THEIR PARENTS.

This was entirely the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause. It was intended to give citizenship to all freed slaves and their children, while NOT giving citizenship to the children born to foreigners from independent nations.

Can it be any clearer that ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT CITIZENS?
Can it be any clearer that Dufus Dale knows nothing about the Constitution or rule of law?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155070
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
11 American rig workers killed and to you, it's a spin, it's boring, it's a fruit salad?
You dismiss it out of hand?
As you used it, it sure the fuch is!! Benghazi wasn't an oil well accident, you stupid POS.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155071
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques, this is for you. You may notice that the aircraft's registration number begins with a "C" which means it is registered in..... Canada. I am sure the the Canadian CAB (like our FAA) has taken action against the pilot!
Video: Longest Takeoff Run ... Ever
By Robert Goyer / Published: May 02, 2013
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots ...
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what the "C" means. Do you know what "N" means? Now you know how I feel.
Considering the strip is rough grass, downhill instead of ideal uphill, and a tail dragger which in this case is no help for sure, pilot did pretty well, considering. Of course, his initial mistake was taking off from that strip in the 1st place, yes, he was STUPID,, displayed poor judgement, yet skillful but again mostly STUPID as it normally should've ended in tragedy.
Since you are not as up on aviation as I am, let me educate you some. One, his aircraft has an operator manual and he should be familiar with it's performance.
Next, a down slot take off is preferred as you get to your takeoff speed faster.
Then a tail-dragger is almost at the correct take off angle.
And considering the situation, his passengers are lucky to live to tell about it!!!
In Vietnam I did several overloaded take offs but that was under combat situations when the rule book gets tossed in the back and you put the Bible on the dash (Instrument panel).
Oh, I wrote this story and it is published on VHPA.org
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques, this is for you. You may notice that the aircraft's registration number begins with a "C" which means it is registered in..... Canada. I am sure the the Canadian CAB (like our FAA) has taken action against the pilot!
Video: Longest Takeoff Run ... Ever
By Robert Goyer / Published: May 02, 2013
http://www.vhpa.org/stories/deuce.pdf
Oh, I sort of found the pilot after I wrote this story. His real name was "Mcfarland", not McFarlan. Unfortunately he had passed on before I had found him.
http://www.vhpa.org/DAT/datM/G19442.HTM

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155072
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>As you used it, it sure the fuch is!! Benghazi wasn't an oil well accident, you stupid POS.
I did not use it lightly, just presented the fact, namely that the four Benghazi victims were killed by the enemy. Unfortunate, horrible. But much worse is the fact that the 11 rig workers were killed by fellow Americans and Brit allies. Courts found evidence of of gross negligence bordering on manslaughter and a hefty $4.2 billion gross negligence fine which BP and its buddy in crime Halliburton did not contest. Benghazi was not an oil well accident, but gulf was not an accident either, it was willful negligence that killed 11 innocent persons by their own people, not the enemy. You thoughtless hating birthers have never ever commented negatively on that. Instead, you protect the big corporate giants like you were one of them which, I assure you, you are NOT.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155073
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Can it be any clearer that Dufus Dale knows nothing about the Constitution or rule of law?
LMAO!! The same old BS out of the same old POS!
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155074
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR opinion and nothing more and until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue, it will remain just your opinion.
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are,-excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients,(Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens,(-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage,-being as parents determine one’s inherited nature,-one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.
But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.

?????
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155075
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR opinion and nothing more and until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue, it will remain just your opinion.
The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are,-excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients,(Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens,(-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage,-being as parents determine one’s inherited nature,-one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.
But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term:“natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.

?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155076
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell us what percentage of DRY atmospheric gases does our Earth contain?
For Instance about;
78% is nitrogen,
21% Oxygen,
1% Argon, and
1% all other gases!!!
Now, depending on temperature and humidity our lower tropospheric gases can contain up to 5% water vapor, typically 1-3% water vapor while CO2 is less than 0.1% and I have not seen statistic for methane yet.
You could find it if you knew how to look.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155077
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
The same way you lose say a tennis ball in the woods. After a few years you have no idea what’s grown on it and even that little deed would give you no clue to the vastness of outer space. But who ever accused you of being logical?
Logic dictates since none of the so called prophets or writers of the bible seemed aware of this or anything else outside their habitat nothing was ever revealed to them, but you are free to believe what you wish as am I.
Don’t believe me? Take a look! I think even Moses would be impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
LMAO! "Don't believe me"? Well, just look at this YOUTUBE clip! LMAO! Groidboy actually thinks he knows how God's mind works! Sure you do. Better go get another rock. fishlips
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155078
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
LRS discovers (delusional) belatedly that anything I post must be "on cue" to Jacques, even though I posted to this forum over a year before Jacques. What a sad little twerp.
<quoted text>
And you've been bytchin' and moanin' the whole time! Just like the scalded azz ape that you are! squidiot

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

64 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min USAsince1680 1,080,313
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 41 min TRD 67,964
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Terry rigsby 48,917
Steve Wilkos : talk show host ? or simple mi... (Feb '08) 1 hr Steve is the best 356
One kilometre high and counting (Jul '07) 2 hr TW_sugar_daddio 11
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr Frijoles 68,377
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Mothra 45,797
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Sublime1 97,539
Abby 7-24 23 hr Pippa 42
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••