Fox News Anchor Declares Obama Is Eligible

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by neo96

 

Would the founders really have wanted an anchor baby who grows up in say East Timbuktu coming back here living for 14 years and running for president?? There is no logic in that.

And how do you know what the "founders" would have wanted? There's a lot of things the "founders" wanted that don't really seem logical or reasonable (i.e. slavery, equality of the genders and socioeconomic classes, voting equality just to name a few). Also, your comment on anchor babies is just fresh considering how Alexander Hamilton wasn't even born on American soil yet he was one of our "founders."

reply to post by Daedalus24


And if you ever read the constitution you would see he was "grandfathered in" because he was alive at the time of the drafting of the constitution.....

The founders made it clear in the Federalist Papers who they did and did not want as President...guess you never read those either.

No wonder polls say the majority of those born in the US would not pass a citizenship test....sad reflection on our educational system and our citizens.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

And I replied to you before about you being wrong with this hogwash also.....that was one justice's opinion and was never ruled on by the supreme court....it was Jay's letter and Vattelles version that the founders based the constitution on.

The supreme court position was 6-2 IIRC.

Hmmmmm, what do you know about that...

Now how about an endorsement, now that would be news.

FOX NEWS ENDORSEMENT OBAMA

Got cha.

Of course he is eligible and why has this been popping up in the top for two days with so few pages and so few flags?

The Birther stuff plays right into his hands and makes those opposed to him for real reason look like they are part of a group of nuts. I half suspect some of the Birthers are actually working for or with Obama, to make his opponents look bad.

considering we never hear about his presidency of the UN security council while president
of which there is no controvercy re is this true or not:


you might just be right about that

United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Found to be a citizen of the United States...not Natural Born.

169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898 A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, All person 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.

.


www.canadafreepress.com...

The term “subject to the jurisdiction, thereof,” is the key, here. If you go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment, “full jurisdiction” means in part “full allegiance to America.” Because the illegal alien parents are here illegally, and subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico (or whatever country they came from), a divided loyalty exists - hence, based on the 14th Amendment, the children of illegals (anchor babies) are not citizens.

The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

the fourteenth amendment only grants citizenship to children of parents not owing allegiance to another country....this to has been ignored there is not right anchor babies to be citizens.

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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett

Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

English law carried forward in the United States relating to citizenship included both the strict common law notion of jus soli, as well as that part of the law of descent (jus sanguinis) included in long-standing British law7 (including as “natural born” subjects those born abroad of an English father), and that this was part of the “common understanding” of the term “natural born” to the framers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution

www.fas.org...

reply to post by timetothink


People only support the founders and constitution when it fits an agenda they hold, that works for all sides in politics.

reply to post by Blaine91555


After years of the Birthers making themselves look bad, i dont think they need help.

reply to post by Resurected


I haven't found anything I dislike about it.....

Sorry if you have....there are plenty of other countries out there....those who disagree are "free" thanks to the founding fathers to leave......buh bye.

TOok them this long to finally realize that he is? Who would really believe otherwise?

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Why the hell does this birther nonsense never get forgotten? Our country has so many problems yet we focus on such frivolous matters that have already been debunked. Either its about obama is a kenyan or healthcare is unconstitutional.

Such patriots the conservatives are, and I am not even a democrat.

I have more of a problem with Obama being a Keynesian than a Kenyan.

Ha! Sorry, but I'm stealing this!

Originally posted by BBobb

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Why the hell does this birther nonsense never get forgotten? Our country has so many problems yet we focus on such frivolous matters that have already been debunked. Either its about obama is a kenyan or healthcare is unconstitutional.

Such patriots the conservatives are, and I am not even a democrat.

I have more of a problem with Obama being a Keynesian than a Kenyan.

Ha! Sorry, but I'm stealing this!

You're welcome to it. I've found that most people have no idea what it even means.