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

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 ... Full Story

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174174 Oct 7, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
Wojar,
The law is a trifle.
The longer this political logjam in Washington continues, the less respect people will have for the law.
Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
I suggest they get their house in order, lickity split.
Hey, did you know that the FAA is in non-compliance with the Ciean Air Act?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The problem is not that the law is a trifle but that some in power trifle with the law.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174175 Oct 7, 2013
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
The Health Care Law Guru vs. the Conservative who Inspired It
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013...
--------
People Want Full Medicare for All
by Ralph Nader / September 26, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/kazjgbq
Freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who somehow got through Princeton and Harvard Law School, is the best news the defaulting Democratic Party has had in years.
As the Texas bull in the Senate china shop, he has been making a majority of his Republican colleagues cringe with his bare-knuckle antics and language. His 21-hour talkathon on the Senate floor demanding the defunding of Obamacare made his Republican colleagues cringe. His Nazi appeasement analogies and threats to shut down were especially embarrassing
After listening to his lengthy rant on the Senate Floor on Tuesday and Wednesday, one comes away with two distinct impressions. Ted Cruz cannot resist inserting himself here, there and everywhere. And nothing is too trivial for Senator Talkathon. He likes White Castle hamburgers, he loves pancakes; he talked about what he liked to read as a little boy, where he’s traveled, what clothes he wears and other trivia.
You’d think he would have used his time to talk specifically about the suffering that uninsured people and their children are going through, especially in the Lone Star State. Or about what could replace Obamacare other than his repeated “free market” solution, which is to say the “pay or die” profiteering, tax-subsidized corporate system.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/26-1...
After ObamaKare is completely installed and Obama is no longer in office and we are trillions of dollars into it, we will still need health care reform.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174176 Oct 7, 2013
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
Barack 'BUSH' Obama destroyed Liberalism because he continued over 90% of all Bush/Cheney failed policy.
==========
FDA Policy: Big Pharma Firms Pay to Play
'Instead of protecting the public health, the FDA has been allowing the drug companies to pay for a seat at a small table where all the rules were written.'
October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/nyayytn
Major pharmaceutical companies are engaging in "pay to play" arrangements that allow them to shape public policy on painkiller testing rules and regulations, according to e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The Washington Post reports:
A scientific panel that shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers was funded by major pharmaceutical companies that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to affect the thinking of the Food and Drug Administration, according to hundreds of e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The e-mails show that the companies paid as much as $25,000 to attend any given meeting of the panel, which had been set up by two academics to provide advice to the FDA on how to weigh the evidence from clinical trials. A leading FDA official later called the group “an essential collaborative effort.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/...
ObamaKare adversely effect over 200 million United States citizens that already had health insurance. Obama lied when he said that ever one would be able to keep their insurance, that every one would be able to keep their doctor, that every one would save $2500 a year on insurance costs. Obama lies every day,and the more he lies the more the Liberals love him. Today he claimed that he was always willing to compromise with Republicans even though he has been against even listening to any Republican point of few his entire political career and in fact stated fatalistically just a few days ago that he would never listen to any Republican or compromise on any issue. Obama would rather let every citizen starve than listen to a Republican.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174178 Oct 7, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>After ObamaKare is completely installed and Obama is no longer in office and we are trillions of dollars into it, we will still need health care reform.
That's not what the Heritage Foundation said when they originally proposed the individual mandate. It would save money under Republicans and cost under Democrats?

UR FOS Frank.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174179 Oct 7, 2013
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy

In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:


§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174180 Oct 7, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Parental birthplaces and their childhood citizenship means nothing. The definition of "natural-born" in our Constitution is born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their child's birth ON U.S. soil.
Sorry, that has never been the law in this country.

Never happened. Not since day 1 of the republic.

Judge Lewis Sanford, Lynch v. Clarke 1844
Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895).
US v. Ark, 1898
Look Tin Sing,

and on and on and on.

Simple fact is children born in the US of immigrants who were never naturalized were ALWAYS considered natural born citizens.

That's an historical fact.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174182 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Sorry, but de Vattel's theory was not law in the US (nor was it a standard even as late as 1898).

Indeed, Vattel stated that "whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

Duh!

Furthermore, Vattel's law requires that the citizenship of the child follows that of the father. If that were the law in the US children of foreign parents would not only be deprived of natural born status THEY WOULD BE ALIENS. That has never been the law practiced in this country.

MORON.

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).

Get real. MORON.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174184 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
Your playmate's fantasy Play Law has nothing to do with Vattel.

In fact Dufus Dale's asinine theory requires jurisdiction to be defined according to no law that ever existed.

Dufus Dale even repudiates Vattel, which Play Justice LRS holds so dear.

Vattel:
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

According to the demented Play Justice Dale, the jurisdiction only extends over citizens. If aliens commit a crime, "it is NOT her proivince ... to exercise justice...."

MORON.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174187 Oct 7, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Parental birthplaces and their childhood citizenship means nothing. The definition of "natural-born" in our Constitution is born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their child's birth ON U.S. soil....
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy WelbyMD wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy WelbyMD's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy WelbyMD would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy WelbyMD thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents? Why does slimy WelbyMD want you to think that George Washington, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the others were afraid of the US-born children of foreigners----such as your ancestors?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy WelbyMD want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who claims that where eligibility to become president is concerned the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal to the US born children of US citizens? Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale do.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174188 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution was wrong because MORON BOY quotes Vattel?

According to Vattel, children of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174190 Oct 7, 2013
According to Vattel, children [born in the US] of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174191 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
Vattel also recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country. We did not adopt that recommendation, and there is no evidence that we adopted Vattel's definition of a Natural Born Citizen either. Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. John Jay, who apparently used the term Natural Born Citizen first in his letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born from the definition in the common law to Vattel, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and he didn't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174192 Oct 7, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your dual-citizen would be below the level of a naturalized citizen, since they would carry two allegiances. This is why the constitution does not recognized a dual-citizenship status.
There is no mention of either a two-parent requirement or a bar on dual citizens becoming president in the US Constitution.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have SAID SO. But they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who believes that the principle "all men are created equal is wrong and that the writers of the Constitution really did not believe it? Slimy Dale and slimy WelbyMD.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174193 Oct 7, 2013
Re: "An older half-brother, older half-sister and Grandma Sarah Obama were present at the birth in Mombassa which was attended by Dr Alan Schecter. "

That is total crap. Not one single Obama relative has ever said that Obama was born in Kenya. And Obama's Kenyan grandmother certainly didn't. Birther sites simply did not quote her when she said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii "where his father was studying at the time."

The claim that Dr Aland Schecter was the doctor is simply another big lie. Only 21 people total came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and all but one of them came by ship----and there were no direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii. And the KENYAN GOVERNMENT has said that it investigated the "born in Kenya" story----and that it is not true.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174194 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but de Vattel's theory was not law in the US (nor was it a standard even as late as 1898).
Indeed, Vattel stated that "whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
Duh!
Furthermore, Vattel's law requires that the citizenship of the child follows that of the father. If that were the law in the US children of foreign parents would not only be deprived of natural born status THEY WOULD BE ALIENS. That has never been the law practiced in this country.
MORON.
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).
Get real. MORON.
Your interpretation is incorrect. Sorry 'bout that, lil fella! LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174195 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
According to Vattel, children [born in the US] of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?
Two aliens do not produce an alien? Really? Look up allegiance, brainfart. You simply do not understand what "our" founding fathers intended. You are at sea! LMAO! Pout often? LMAO!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174196 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.
Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Justice LRS want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Slimy Justice LRS, Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174197 Oct 7, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.
And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Justice LRS want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Slimy Justice LRS, Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale.
Good Lord, sockpuppet! Do you have any clue as to how badly you need someone else pulling your strings? Big time!!! LMAO! ID 10T Error (catastrophic failure). boing boing boing
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174198 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Your interpretation is incorrect. Sorry 'bout that, lil fella! LMAO!
Oh look. Romper is an expert on the translation of French AND time travel.

Talk about stuck on stupid.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174199 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord, sockpuppet! Do you have any clue as to how badly you need someone else pulling your strings? Big time!!! LMAO! ID 10T Error (catastrophic failure). boing boing boing
Rational people will notice that Justice LRS has neither responded to the facts nor discussed the Constitution.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.

But that is NOT what the Constitution says. There is nothing in it that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal to the US-born children of US citizens where becoming president is concerned. And, surely, if the writers of the US Constitution had wanted to make an exception to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"---they would have told us, and they didn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 min Frijoles 71,030
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 54 min Earthling-1 49,219
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Uzi 68,883
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr John Galt 1,154,077
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr Justice1313 51,253
New Beach Boys song. 11 hr The Beach Boys 1
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 11 hr _Zoey_ 363
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 15 hr Ralph 98,853
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:01 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:01PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler
Bleacher Report11:56 AM
Eagles vs. Redskins: Live Score and Analysis for Philadelphia
Yahoo! Sports 5:54 PM
Eagles playoff hopes suffer with loss to Redskins
Bleacher Report 6:14 PM
RG3 Showing Enough to Remain Starter in WSH