Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

Advice and Consent is NOT Natural Law...

Legislation can change one and not the other.
Natural Law? Change Natural Law? Huh?

What "natural Law" is involved with this Obama case other than the FACT that people born on usa soil, with one usa parent, are naturally citizens of that soil and are "born of that soil"....

Nature can't be taken away....and birth is an act of Nature. It is YOU who is trying to DEFY NATURE, his birth place?

And it is you that is denying constitutionally sound LAW, based on some convoluted view of the constitution imo....
 
The FACT is they do NOT address Natural Born, your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding.

Again, if you Idiots are so sure of yourself, why not just say let the SCOTUS decide and be done with it?

Afraid your ignorant ass may in fact be wrong and you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about?

Why are you all so afraid of having the SCOTUS Rule on this?

The Court decides all by itself what to take and what NOT to take. So your little whine is nothing more than sour grapes.

I REPEAT, provide me a quote FROM the Constitution that DEFINES Natural Born. You keep claiming it is in there. Yet all you can produce is a LAW that was changed 5 years later. A law that does not say what you claim to boot.
 
No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.

Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.

You cannot Legislate Nature.

You keep failing to provide any proof the Constitution says anything you have claimed. Come on, provide us that quote from the Constitution.

As for Drug laws, the Federal Government has sole authority to regulate and legislate Interstate commerce or any activity that crosses State lines or Our Borders. Further they have the right to legislate what drugs are and are not legal using the exact same section of the Constitution. You may want to bone up on what powers the Federal Government has, cause so far you are batting 0.
 
No they describe Citizenship, at Birth.

Natural Born is not simplt Legislated Citizenship.

You cannot Legislate Nature.

what's the difference between:

citizenship when born,

or

citizenship at birth?

There is no difference....how could there be?

The intent of our founding fathers, and what was going on at the era they wrote it has to be considered as well....

They just went through a Revolution, they certainly did not want anyone with close allegiance and roots to the enemy running the show in their newly formed nation....or anyone in the future that did not have his allegiance to the United States, first and foremost.

People did not fly back and forth between different continents in a matter of hours back then, nor could they forsee this ever being the case in the future.

Women, had no power as individuals, so to say. They could not vote, they did not work or have professions outside of their homes, farms, own family run business...unless they were a Saloon gal, or a teacher....for the most part. NO female senators or congressmen till the latter last century and still extremely disproportionately male....

And the idea of single motherhood being perfectly acceptable, and legal was all probably inconceivable at the time,

let alone a white female american citizen meeting a black nigerian male here legally on a visa attending her college in the United States and her marrying him in the USA and having a child with him in the USA.

ALOT has changed since then, you'd have to agree....?

so the notion that ONLY THE FATHER can pass on citizenship to the child, that you keep quoting, is moot.

care
 
Natural Law? Change Natural Law? Huh?

What "natural Law" is involved with this Obama case other than the FACT that people born on usa soil, with one usa parent, are naturally citizens of that soil and are "born of that soil"....

Nature can't be taken away....and birth is an act of Nature. It is YOU who is trying to DEFY NATURE, his birth place?

And it is you that is denying constitutionally sound LAW, based on some convoluted view of the constitution imo....
It takes "Citizens" (plural) to make a Natural Born Citizen.

One Parent simply makes a Citizen Naturalized, at Birth, by Law.
 
what's the difference between:

citizenship when born,

or

citizenship at birth?

There is no difference....how could there be?

Because one is given by Heritage (Nature), the other is given by Law (through Legislation).

Laws cannot change Heritage.
 
As for Drug laws, the Federal Government has sole authority to regulate and legislate Interstate commerce or any activity that crosses State lines or Our Borders. Further they have the right to legislate what drugs are and are not legal using the exact same section of the Constitution. You may want to bone up on what powers the Federal Government has, cause so far you are batting 0.

The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.

How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?

Tell me, when did it ever cross any Border?

And you are telling others to "bone up".

Give me a break.

You can't even address the language in the Constitution, and you are going to attempt to tell someone else to bone up?

ROTFLMAO!!!!
 
The Court decides all by itself what to take and what NOT to take. So your little whine is nothing more than sour grapes.

I REPEAT, provide me a quote FROM the Constitution that DEFINES Natural Born. You keep claiming it is in there. Yet all you can produce is a LAW that was changed 5 years later. A law that does not say what you claim to boot.
Basically, the same men who wrote the Constitution wrote our first Immigration Law.

Your ignorance of this Nations History notwithstanding.
 
The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.

How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?

Tell me, when did it ever cross any Border?

And you are telling others to "bone up".

Give me a break.

You can't even address the language in the Constitution, and you are going to attempt to tell someone else to bone up?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

do the voices in your head sing harmony?
 
Vattel is cited some 187 times in SCOTUS Rulings, so far...

Let's see if we can make it one more, eh?

:)
 
Because one is given by Heritage (Nature), the other is given by Law (through Legislation).

Laws cannot change Heritage.

Yet you have not one shred of evidence to support your claim. I keep asking for a quote from the Constitution where in Natural Born is defined. You won't find any, leaving it to the Legislature to define.
 
Basically, the same men who wrote the Constitution wrote our first Immigration Law.

Your ignorance of this Nations History notwithstanding.

LAWS, there you admit it was a LAW. A Law that was changed 5 years later. ANd has been changed MANY times since. The Legislature MAKES Laws. Again since the Constitution does not define the term it is left to the Legislature to do so through, GASP, LAWS.
 
The Government has the Right to Regulate, not Outlaw.

How do they deal with people who grow Marijuana in their own Home, and consume it there?

Tell me, when did it ever cross any Border?

And you are telling others to "bone up".

Give me a break.

You can't even address the language in the Constitution, and you are going to attempt to tell someone else to bone up?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Still waiting for you to ever quote the actual Constitution in any manner or form.
 
Still waiting for you to ever quote the actual Constitution in any manner or form.
Again, for those obviously slow getting it.

The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...

Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

First Immigration Law:

"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"
 
Again, for those obviously slow getting it.

The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...

Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

First Immigration Law:

"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"

The first immigration law? :lol:

Care to post the first voting laws? Something along the lines of no women..

Keep going, you are making an excellent case..
 
Again, for those obviously slow getting it.

The ONLY 2 times Natural Born is mentioned by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution AND Legislation...

Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

First Immigration Law:

"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"

So you will now admit that a LAW attempted to define a term in the Constitution that is not defined? And that that law was superceded many many times since 1790?
 
The first immigration law? :lol:

Care to post the first voting laws? Something along the lines of no women..

Keep going, you are making an excellent case..

oh wait...he'll tell you what the intent was of the framers. yep, he'll leave out they wanted future generations to govern themselves.

heck, he's so conservative on this thing, I think he qualifies as a neo-con-constitutionalist
 
oh wait...he'll tell you what the intent was of the framers. yep, he'll leave out they wanted future generations to govern themselves.

heck, he's so conservative on this thing, I think he qualifies as a neo-con-constitutionalist

The Republican members of Congress rejected Gaar's argument in toto. They met to declare Obama president elect, and not one Republican stood up to challenge Obama's eligibility.

The Republican President has acknowldged that Obama is president elect. So did the Republican Vice President, who personally declared him president elect when the electoral result was ratified.

The Republican-run Supreme Court has refused to even hear challenges to his eligibility. Several times.

In other words, the Republican leaders in all three branches of government have rejected Gaar's claims.

Obama's birth certificate has been declared legitimate by the Republican governor of Hawaii. No serious Republican has taken up Gaar's cause, perhaps because they know their own candidate in 2008 was born in Central America, and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

No Republican with a 3-digit IQ has endorsed the idiotic notion that someone with a foreign parent can't be president. Because the Constitution says no such thing.

Even Gaar's own party has overwhelmingly rejected this asinine jihad.
 
No Republican with a 3-digit IQ has endorsed the idiotic notion that someone with a foreign parent can't be president. Because the Constitution says no such thing.

My IQ has never been tested below 133 (in my youth), and has recently been tested as high as 152, with the mean average over the last decade being in the mid 140's...
 
Back
Top Bottom