alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[Skylar]

A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth.

True, but not because of any statute, because being the child of two citizens of the same nation, the nature of citizenship compels that the natural consequence of the birth is that the child of the two citizens, is a citizen.

Then why did the Congress in 1790 fold in children born to US parents abroad as 'natural born citizens' if the ONLY way to be a natural born citizens was to be born to US parents?

Like you, I have no idea what you're talking about.... but unlike you, I possess the means to reason objectively...

You don't reason objectively. You offer us your opinion. And then insist it is objective truth. Take natural born status for example. The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

You ignore them all, cite your subjective opinoin....and then bizarrely claim to have 'reasoned objectively'. That's not objectivity. Objective reasoning would be to apply standards that aren't hopelessly dependant on your opinion.

For example, the Naturalition Act of 1790:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

This is a source that isn't dependent on your personal opinion. Its an objective source that any of us can read. And it explicitly contradicts your narrative. Using place of birth and location of residency as the key components in establishing natural born status. Not the citizenship of the parents. With congress extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

Something they would never do and never have to do if your narrative were valid.

How do you assimilate this objective information into your argument? You don't. You ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Literally arguing your own ignorance as an excuse for dismissing it entirely. And then stating your baseless and hopelessly subjective personal opinion again.

That's not objective reasoning. That's you ignoring objective evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That's you placing your subjective opinion ABOVE objective evidence, clinging to what you want to be true rather than what the evidence actually indicates is true. You have no explanation for why this law would have been created if your narrative were valid. Your argument completely collapses.

And this is hardly the only example. There's also Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court cite English Common law contradicting you:

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

With Wong Kim Ark describing a 'natural born' the exact same way I do:

"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth."

How do you deal with this pair of objective contradictions of your assertions? You again ignore the objective evidence and make up whatever you'd like. Citing yourself. And then laughably label your opinion 'objective reasoning'.

And you're still not done ignoring objective evidence and clinging to your personal opinion. Even the dictionary contradicts you.

Natural Born

(adv)
1. native-born.

the definition of natural-born

And when you follow the link to the definition of 'native born'.....your argument implodes yet again.

adjective
1. born in the place or country indicated:

the definition of native-born

Just like the founders in the 1st session of congress, English common law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the Supreme Court......the dictionary uses places of birth to determine natural born status.

And then there's you. Ignoring all objective evidence and insisting that you know better than all of them.....because you say you do.

Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming?

Based upon what?

Based on the child already being a natural born citizen if your interpretation was correct. Which the 1st session of congress demonstrated clearly isn't the case. As the founders found it necessary to extend natural born citizenship to children born to US citizens abroad. If the child already had natural born citizenship.....there would be no need to extend it.

How do you resolve this utter decimation of your entire argument? You ignore it. You ignore all objective evidence. And cling to your personal opinion.

Citing yourself. And you citing you isn't objective anything. Its just your subjective opinion.

 

[Faun]

Of course, because in your deformed conservative brain, Hillary started something which had already started.

Started? We're speaking of who brought the issue to national prominence? As in 'Started'?

Yep... Hillary "Started" it... .

Your delusions are noted, but it started on a rightwing blog ... spread to a rightwing forum ... then spread to another rightwing blog .... all before any anonymous emails were sent, purportedly by supporters of Hillary.

But that's fine. I understand why you think Hillary started something which had already started.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You don't reason objectively. ...

It says in an attempt to fulfill it own subjective needs.

Your concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

 

[Syriusly]

A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth.

True, but not because of any statute, because being the child of two citizens of the same nation, the nature of citizenship compels that the natural consequence of the birth is that the child of the two citizens, is a citizen.

Then why did the Congress in 1790 fold in children born to US parents abroad as 'natural born citizens' if the ONLY way to be a natural born citizens was to be born to US parents?

Like you, I have no idea what you're talking about.... but unlike you, I possess the means to reason objectively...

You don't reason objectively. You offer us your opinion. And then insist it is objective truth. Take natural born status for example. The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

You ignore them all, cite your subjective opinoin....and then bizarrely claim to have 'reasoned objectively'. That's not objectivity. Objective reasoning would be to apply standards that aren't hopelessly dependant on your opinion.

For example, the Naturalition Act of 1790:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

This is a source that isn't dependent on your personal opinion. Its an objective source that any of us can read. And it explicitly contradicts your narrative. Using place of birth and location of residency as the key components in establishing natural born status. Not the citizenship of the parents. With congress extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

Something they would never do and never have to do if your narrative were valid.

How do you assimilate this objective information into your argument? You don't. You ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Literally arguing your own ignorance as an excuse for dismissing it entirely. And then stating your baseless and hopelessly subjective personal opinion again.

That's not objective reasoning. That's you ignoring objective evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That's you placing your subjective opinion ABOVE objective evidence, clinging to what you want to be true rather than what the evidence actually indicates is true. You have no explanation for why this law would have been created if your narrative were valid. Your argument completely collapses.

And this is hardly the only example. There's also Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court cite English Common law contradicting you:

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

With Wong Kim Ark describing a 'natural born' the exact same way I do:

"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth."

How do you deal with this pair of objective contradictions of your assertions? You again ignore the objective evidence and make up whatever you'd like. Citing yourself. And then laughably label your opinion 'objective reasoning'.

And you're still not done ignoring objective evidence and clinging to your personal opinion. Even the dictionary contradicts you.

Natural Born

(adv)
1. native-born.

the definition of natural-born

And when you follow the link to the definition of 'native born'.....your argument implodes yet again.

adjective
1. born in the place or country indicated:

the definition of native-born

Just like the founders in the 1st session of congress, English common law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the Supreme Court......the dictionary uses places of birth to determine natural born status.

And then there's you. Ignoring all objective evidence and insisting that you know better than all of them.....because you say you do.

Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming?

Based upon what?

Based on the child already being a natural born citizen if your interpretation was correct. Which the 1st session of congress demonstrated clearly isn't the case. As the founders found it necessary to extend natural born citizenship to children born to US citizens abroad. If the child already had natural born citizenship.....there would be no need to extend it.

How do you resolve this utter decimation of your entire argument? You ignore it. You ignore all objective evidence. And cling to your personal opinion.

Citing yourself. And you citing you isn't objective anything. Its just your subjective opinion.

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

I was educated in the 1960's and 1970's- and my very conservative Civics teacher was not only insistent that we learn that in the United States that one of the eligibility requirements was to be a 'natural born citizen'- he was proud that in America that anyone born in the United States could aspire to grow up to be elected President.

There was a time when Conservatives actually believed in immigrants becoming Americans- and their children the President.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

 

[Skylar]

You don't reason objectively. ...

It says in an attempt to fulfill it own subjective needs.

Your concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

Yawning.....that's it? Your tell already?

If you could support your argument objectively, you wouldn't have to run. Yet you abandoned your entire argument, ignored all objective evidence....and fled.

Remember that.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

Says you, citing you. You're offering us your opinion.

And contradicting your opinion is the Founders themselves in the Naturalization Act of 1790.......in the very first session of congress. Where they *extended* natural born citizenship to people you insisted already had it. If the children of 2 US citizens born abroad already had natural born citizenship, Congress wouldn't have had to extend it to them in 1790.

Obliterating your argument.

With United States v. Wong Kim Ark citing English Common law which used place of birth to define natural born status, even if both parents were aliens.

Obliterating your argument again.

With the dictionary indicating that natural born means native born........tied to place of birth. Not parentage.

Obliterating your argument yet again.

How do you deal with the objective evidence that simply destroys your entire argument? You ignore it, restate your opinion....and then bizarrely insist that your subjective opinion is objective evidence. Citing yourself.

Subjective isn't objective, Keyes. Its why you always lose.

 

[Faun]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

 

[Slyhunter]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

 

[Skylar]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

And by 'popularity', you mean history?

When Chester Authur became President in 1881, no one said a thing about his US birth to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Being born in the US clearly established natural born status.

However, when a rumor began to circulate that Authur was actually born in Canada, then eligibility issues did arise. In explicit contradiction of your argument.

Sigh.....again. Just like you were contradicted by the Naturalization Act of 1790, just as you were contradicted by the founders, just like you were contradicted by the 1st session of congress, just like you were contradicted by the dictionary, the Supreme Court and English Common law.

So we have yet another objective contradiction of your claims. And you continuing to cite your subjective opinion. Um.......objective evidence trumps your subjective opinion every time.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'. You're just making shit up now. With the only disdain you've demonstrated being your own toward accuracy.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

Says who? Remember, you're just making shit up about Chester Authur now. Literally offering your imagination as objective evidence on a topic you know nothing about.

Hell, you didn't even know about Chester Authur until I told you. You insisted that it was Obama that established the 'precedent' of being president with only one US parent. Now you're blaming it on Chester Author in the 1880s.

Here's a simpler explanation: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

You have yet to prove he was born in Kenya. And while 'disprove any batshit I can possibly make up' may be popular among conspiracy theorists, truthers and flat earthers.....its legally meaningless.

As Obama's COLB resolves any legal questions to his place of birth in Hawaii, acting as prima facie evidence in any court of law.

Prima Facie evidence vs. your imagination has the same winner every time: not you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible.

Just because Chester Author wanted to be Vice-President and his lawyers made the same specious case that you're making, albeit poorly... in NO WAY alters the viability of the principle that otherwise precluded his being set into office.

And it sure as hell doesn't change the fact that the principle also precludes obama from being President.

What it DOES mean is that Author's Presidency was illegitimate... obama's Peasantpimpery is illegitimate... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

Principle is not effected by populism, it doesn't change due to the ravages of time... Assuming the US survives the consequences of the obama cult... which I'm setting at 20:1 against. We can rest assured that at some point after Cruz, another proponent of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and unless Cruz is able to reverse the damage done by 100 years of Leftist subversion, in two terms... there is zero chance that the US Survives the next one.

Now what would I like to see?

As I said in the first thread and every other thread started when Cruz first started feeling around... I would prefer Cruz simply recognize the Principle... step aside out of respect for the position and in so doing declare the obama Peasantpimpery ILLEGITIMATE, pledging to work with the next administration to seek out and prosecute obama, those who supported him and who are responsible for seating him despite his disqualification, as they new administration sets to reversing all policy set by the illegitimate cult.

Seems unlikely... but that's what I'd like to see.

 

[Faun]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

 

[Faun]

The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.

The Phrase Natural Born Citizen speaks to "THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP".

The nature of citizenship is a function of ... (wait for it... ) NATURE.

This is to say that the function of the standard for the office of the US President rests in THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP... and decidedly NOT: THE LAW.

Meaning that the Constitution requires that beyond the age requirement, the minimal requirement to hold the office of the President of the United States, the individual must have come to BE a citizen of the United States as a natural consequence of their birth.

This requirement was established so as to preclude divided loyalties common to individuals who are merely citizens by law; such as where a child is born to two individuals of distinct nationalities. The Child may well be the citizen of TWO nations... but in any regard such a child would likely be influenced by the loyalties of the foreign parent to the foreign ideas common to their parents nationality; ideas which are often HOSTILE TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLE.

Thus the PRESIDENT being the Chief Executive, he is tasked with defending the state via its Charter of Principles and to do so through strict adherence to the Charter of Laws.

An individual with loyalties to Foreign Ideas Hostile to those Principles, will likely alter enforcement of the Laws as a means of escaping the responsibilities intrinsic in the principles.

The Standard, set now ell over two centuries hence, reads like PROPHECY... as the failure to adhere to that standard has subjected the United States to PRECISELY what the Standard was designed to prevent.

Now... that standard... was intended to prevent the British and French and their degenerate ideas from infiltrating the US Government.

And in a delicious irony... we have in the above cited would-be 'contributor', a Mouthy British subject, coming to deflect, conflate, obscure and take whatever measures are necessary to separate you, the Reader, from the Principles set under that standard, so as to prevent you from recognizing that it was designed to prevent people like IT, from getting anywhere NEAR the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Again... to Recap: "Natural Born Citizen" is NOT a phrase of law... it does not speak to "THE LAW", it does not count UPON the law, because it stands ABOVE THE LAW... as it sits entirely in NATURE.. and specifically:

THE NATURE of CITIZENSHIP.

Two Citizens join to produce a child... the NATURAL consequence of of that child being BORN... is A CITIZEN.​

And being the conservative hypocrite you are, you'll carelessly toss all of that aside to vote for a candidate you believe does not have the Constitutional authority to head the Executive branch.

Yep, folks, conservatives like this gay_keys loser have no convictions. They stand for nothing other than ideology over country.

Their standards don't actually apply to them. Even their 'precedent' argument is meaningless drivel. As the first president born in the US with only 1 US parent......wasn't Barack Obama.

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible. But they ignore their own reasoning, history, reason, the founders, English common law, the Supreme Court, US law, everything......

.......and just make up whatever they like. This they call 'objective'. I call it adorable.

You still haven't proved he wasn't born in Kenya.

Says he was born in Honolulu...

 

[Skylar]

It was Chester Authur in 1881. Who was born in the US to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Even by their own logic, Obama is eligible.

Just because Chester Author wanted to be Vice-President and his lawyers made the same specious case that you're making, albeit poorly... in NO WAY alters the viability of the principle that otherwise precluded his being set into office.

Who said his lawyers made a 'specious case' for Authur's eligibility? You do, citing yourself. You're literally making up history as you go along. Inventing imaginary arguments, imaginary lawyers, imaginary cases.

All made up, pulled sideways out of your ass. All while ignoring the fact that your own 'logic' demands Obama's eligibility.

You claimed that Cruz was eligible because Obama already established 'precedent'.

That said... while I am going to vote for Doctor Ben Carson in the Primary, I support Senator Cruz as a candidate... on the basis that the practical precedent has been altered and for all intents and purposes, there is no standard in play in any US institution anywhere, at any level for any reason, including candidates for the office of the Presidency... and should Cruz prevail in being nominated, I will vote for him.

alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee | Page 13 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

By your own twisted 'logic', Authur did the same for Obama. Yet you ignore your own horseshit reasoning. If even you are going to ignore your own nonsense, surely you can understand when we treat your claims like the garbage they are.

And of course, its hardly as if historical precedent were the only thing you were ignoring. You ignored the Naturalization Act of 1790 where natural born citizenship was extended to children born outside the US to US parents. You ignored the Wong Kim Ark decision where the Supreme Court cited English Common law as defining natural born status being based on place of birth, even to 2 alien parents. You ignored the dictionary which equates natural born with native born....a status based solely on place of birth.

And in its place........you offer yourself. A poster that didn't even know about Chester Authur until I told him. And one who ignores his OWN 'logic', along with all objective evidence......to cling to his subjective opinion.

Sigh.......this is why you always lose, Keyes. As offering your opinion as objective fact is the *only* tool in your wheel house. You've got nothing else.

 

[Faun]

... and if Cruz is elected, HIS Presidency will also be illegitimate.

... and despite believing this, gay_keys says will still vote to put Cruz in office if given the chance.

Yes, folks, there really are low life conservatives like gay_keys who seek to undermine the Constitution in order to find ideological gains.

 

[Skylar]

Got any sort of reference for that little tidbit?

Yes... the phrase: "Natural Born Citizen".

If you'd like to offer argument which would provide for a natural circumstance that provides for axiomatic unqualified, unquestionable citizenship, which does not include both parents being citizens in good standing, I'll happily consider what you have to say.

Naturally... however, you have no such argument, because reason requires that if you has such, you would have offered it when you offered that steamy pile of feckless crap, which I just refuted.

Feel better?

When we consult the dictionary on 'natural born', it doesn't support you at all.

Natural born:

adjective
1.
native-born.

the definition of natural-born

And when you follow native born, you get this:

adjective
1. born in the place or country indicated:

the definition of native-born

So lets recap. You ignored history. You ignored the founders. You ignored the 1st session of congress. You ignored the Naturalization Act of 1790. You ignored English Common Law. You ignored the Supreme Court. You even ignored your own 'logic'.

And now you're ignoring the dictionary on the meaning of words.

Sigh.....are you starting to see why your handle is a punchline?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And by 'popularity', you mean history?

ROFL!

And it switches from appealing to popularity to the appeal to misleading authority.

(Reader, that people have historically accepted a misnomer, does not establish the misnomer as valid.)

When Chester Authur became President in 1881, no one said a thing about his US birth to an American mother and an Irish-Canadian father. Being born in the US clearly established natural born status.

So what? Setting aside that your pushing a vacuous assertion, with absolutely no evidence in support of that assertion... that those present accepted a misnomer, doesn't magically render the misnomer valid.

(But hey... Don't take my word for it, ask the Reader. )

However, when a rumor began to circulate that Authur was actually born in Canada, then eligibility issues did arise. In explicit contradiction of your argument.

Points that are irrelevant to my argument, would have no means to contradict my argument.

So, given that such is impossible, it's fairly unlikely...

Sigh.....again. Just like you were contradicted by the Naturalization Act of 1790

Given that the phrase Natural Born Citizen does not refer to law... it is impossible for the law to be relevant to the phrase.

My guess is that the reason the framers used the phrase, was to avoid the phrase being subject to popular whimsy and its effect on legal statutes. They were DEEP in insight.

Obama didn't pledge to 'fundamentally change the US constitution'.

Am I?



Can't transform the United States of America, without transforming the US Constitution, or the government adherence to such. (Sweet Fail ya have going here...)

All that said... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.