Obama = The Greatest Statist!!!

0 Kudos

Started By	Comment
Shagnanigans		#2561	[-]
Posts: 5710 (10/24/09 07:23 AM) I'm not drunk Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Divorce wasn't exactly a consideration back then; it was generally assumed that both parents would be living in the same place, unless one were deceased. He's a child of a natural born citizen, so even if the Kenya thing had any validity (which it doesn't), he'd still qualify. This is how the statutes have been interpreted.
Archimedes		#2562	[-]
Posts: 1040 (10/24/09 07:30 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Let me try to explain it again: The Constitution says you must be a "natural born citizen" to be able to run for the office of President. The Constitution does not define "natural born citizen". To be a "regular" citizen, you must have at least one American parent... as Obama does. The US Supreme Courts has acknowledged there is a legal distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" but have not needed to rule on that distinction yet. Would the USSC define a "natural born citizen" as requiring two American parents? Who knows?
Shagnanigans		#2563	[-]
Posts: 5711 (10/24/09 07:34 AM) I'm not drunk Reply Quote More Recent Posts	You don't need to explain it again, I've been up to my ass in the Constitution for the last month. :) Children BORN to citizens are natural BORN citizens...that's the key there. If it does get to the Supreme Court, it'll take about ten minutes for them to decide formally on what everyone knows in the common sense interpretation of the law.
glazerboy		#2564	[-]
Posts: 3467 (10/24/09 08:51 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Archimedes wrote: Shagnanigans wrote: Yep, only one parent is required to be American for the child to be American. I'm guessing Obama had to declare his citizenship solely American when he was 18, they usually make you choose when one parent is a citizen of another country. There is no gray area. Obama's straight-up American, unless he'd renounced his U.S. citizen at 18. He didn't, obviously. There is a distinction between a "citizen at birth" and a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution to be eligible to run for the Presidency. Article Two, Section One: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Any person born anywhere in the world with at least one American citizen parent is indeed a citizen, but they may not meet the requirements of a "natural born" citizen (which is not explicitly defined in the Constitution) In the 1874 case of "Minor vs. Happersett" the Supreme Court ruled: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. So the Supreme Court has acknowledged the difference between "citizens" and "natural born citizens" but had no need to resolve it for that particular case. The issue they declined to resolve in that particular case was whether children born in this country to parents who are NOT legal citizens are in fact citizens by reason of their birth.
Beefcake		#2565	[-]
Posts: 4415 (10/24/09 09:22 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I can see where there would be a legitimate argument that "natural born citizen" is more narrow than "citizen", but that's irrelevant since Obama was born in the US. So can we please stop talking about it? There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama. We don't need to give the idiot 'birthers' any credibility -- they are right wing whack jobs who don't have a clue. The left has plenty of whack jobs, too, like the one who throw paint at people or claim that trees have rights. If you want to make righties claim the birthers, then you lefties have to defend the "trees-have-rights" whack jobs.
Sloansalad		#2566	[-]
Posts: 4956 (10/24/09 09:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ents have rights though, right?
B DeBrun		#2567	[-]
Posts: 21961 (10/24/09 09:31 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Archie (or whoever) didn't show the entire definition: 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. I always thought the 14 years was the most interesting part. Do they mean 14 consecutive years prior to running for office? Or 14 years cumulative? I guess Herbert Hoover's election settled the answer as cumulative. So now we have the natural born question. We turn to the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But as usual, naturalized isn't defined there. So we have to look elsewhere in the US Code. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. _{* There is an exception in the law - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.} Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. Assuming the worst case scenario, BO born outside the USA: he qualifies under the next to last criteria. I guess the only question for some, like the 14 years above, is whether the 5 years is cumulative or consecutive up to the end. But that's clutching at straws. I think the Obama camp is partially to blame. They could simply have released the usual information (tax returns, etc..) to the public way back when (as early as possible). The longer one withholds information longer than expected is just giving ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.
Shagnanigans		#2568	[-]
Posts: 5718 (10/24/09 09:40 AM) I'm not drunk Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think the extreme right-wing lunatics are to blame, since they pulled this drama out of their ass and have run with it nonstop. Don't blame the victim, dude.
B DeBrun		#2569	[-]
Posts: 21963 (10/24/09 09:47 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	You are missing the point as usual Shaq. You want to be the first to get the information out. Don't let others shape that information on their terms before you have a chance to do so. Like I said before, the longer you go without addressing an issue no matter how trivial, the vacuum you create will be filled in at your expense.
Pahrump Mania		#2570	[-]
Posts: 4903 (10/24/09 09:47 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Without any basis I wonder if there is something else on Obama's birth certificate that he doesn't want people to know, like maybe his parents never married. But he's a citizen. I can't believe that people really spend time worrying about this, Obama is going to be removed from office for not being a citizen right after Bush stands trial in the Hague for war crimes.
Shagnanigans		#2571	[-]
Posts: 5721 (10/24/09 09:50 AM) I'm not drunk Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm not missing the point, DeBrun. You have an opinion and I do not agree with it, as usual. In this case, I think Obama's camp tried to take the high road initially and ignore the lunatics. Giving them attention only feeds their idiocy. Unfortunately, there was enough controversy that the White House had to play ball, but it was lame.
TobaccoRhoda		#2572	[-]
Posts: 28517 (10/24/09 10:55 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jesus, you guys. I even double posted and clarifyed the gray area and you still missed the point. Archie had to explain it twice more. I feel like we're speaking different languages.
lilnubber		#2573	[-]
Posts: 12182 (10/24/09 12:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I couldn't believe you brought that shit up in the first place. You acted like it was new news (redundant?)
airshowpilot		#2574	[-]
Posts: 1758 (10/24/09 12:56 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	�This blew my mind I thought some of the stuff was made up about him up until I listened.
PoChop		#2575	[-]
Posts: 2926 (10/24/09 03:12 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Natural born refers to vaginal delivery and not a C-section.
lilnubber		#2576	[-]
Posts: 12187 (10/24/09 08:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	TobaccoRhoda wrote: CNN didn't deign to actually cover this on their webpage, but they did put a link to a blog on it. Thursday, October 22, 2009 Unprecedented: White House Tries to Ban Fox from Press Pool Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government. Before an interview with "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool. This marks the first time in history that an administration had attempted to ban an entire network from the press pool. To their credit, the other networks objected. They told the White House that if Fox were banned, none of the other networks would participate. The White House relented, but in an apparent act of petulant retaliation, it restricted each network to a two-minute interview instead of the standard five. Interestingly, this behavior completely contradicts an opinion rendered Tuesday by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs when questioned by ABC's Jake Tapper. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage. Tapper: That's a pretty sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision? Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon. Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say? Gibbs: That is our opinion. Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool? Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association. Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be ... Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job. So the administration contradicted itself within 48 hours. That's about twice as long as normal. Perhaps the White House will next try to pull Fox News' press pass. And it was all made up.� Fox made the whole thing up.� THIS is why Fox is not a "news" network. Adding to the Fox News v. White House feud today is a dust-up over an interview with pay czar Ken Feinberg. Turns out, it was a sort of miscommunication, but the White House adds that if they had left Fox out it would be a case of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense. TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened. Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them). But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview. The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night. Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox. TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue. "If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all." A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing." But the White House isn't backing down from its feud with Fox. "This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. An administration source wondered if the networks were annoyed Fox disclosed logistical negotiations since they are treated as off the record, but the bureau chief did not view this in the same light as discussions about, for example, the president going to Iraq. As for the ongoing battle, Earnest said: "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future." We clipped video of Garrett discussing the issue. Foxz "News" is full of shit.
DaveSoGay		#2577	[-]
Posts: 5485 (10/24/09 08:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	If Fox News gets to be included in interviews with the President and his staff, how come Comedy Central gets left out?
DelosWorld		#2578	[-]
Posts: 1859 (10/24/09 09:00 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Well thank goodness Nubber cleared that up for us. I'll be expecting to see Obama on Fox News Sunday tomorrow morning.
Charming Nemesis		#2579	[-]
Posts: 8853 (10/24/09 09:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	See, the White House said it was all just a little misunderstanding. Nothing personal.
Archimedes		#2580	[-]
Posts: 1051 (10/24/09 09:17 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	lilnubber wrote: And it was all made up.� Fox made the whole thing up.� THIS is why Fox is not a "news" network. Foxz "News" is full of shit. You link to "talking points memo DC"? Even the damn huffington post says they're full of shit... A Fox News executive told the Huffington Post Saturday that the network "absolutely" did request an interview with Obama administration "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg and that the White House acknowledged a mistake on the part of a Treasury department staffer in failing to initially include Fox News in the round of interviews Feinberg conducted Thursday. "Of course we requested an interview," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente told the Huffington Post. This directly contradicts reports by the Associated Press and Talking Points Memo, both of which reported that the White House had excluded Fox News because it did not request an interview. Whether Fox News requested an interview was irrelevant in this case, however, as the interview was conducted a pool including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Clemente said that CBS News Washington Bureau Chief and current pool chairman Chris Isham - who did not respond to phone or e-mail requests for comment Saturday - received a call from the Treasury Department Thursday saying that Feinberg would be available to speak to all of the networks in the pool except for Fox News, and that Bloomberg would be included instead. Clemente said that when Isham presented that scenario on a conference call with the other pool members - including Fox News - "they unanimously said, instantly, no, that's not gonna fly. Either Fox is in or none of us is doing it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/fox-news-exec-on-attempte_n_332707.html I did a google news search for the exact phrase "exclude fox news" and in the first 3 pages only saw one refernce to this being a fraud by Fox News... and that was your Talking Points Memo sight. If this was a case of false reporting by Fox, where is the CNN or MSNBC story on it?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Obama = The Greatest Statist!!!