It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obama's Kenyan birth records discovered in British National Archives
page: 11share:
Originally posted by NAMTERCES
I believe Obama has paid people to raise the birther issue. I think he is questioning his own birth. Why? Because it makes people look silly, his opponents get fixated on silly issues, and he gets to look alot smarter, as a result.
It's a scheme and a plot by Democrats to make Republicans and Tea Party people look foolish and incapable of running the country.
***snip***
A very good theory.
Except that they don't need help to look foolish and incapable. All they need to do is publish their policies.
Originally posted by karen61057
Originally posted by WhitePrideWW
If obama was not born in USA he needs to get kicked out of office because its the law that if ur not born in USA you connot be president!!
Just joined today White Pride?
Don't you find it astonishing that some people are actively defending the politicians (republicans) that have an agenda where they (some people) will be trodden even further down into the muck?
reply to post by totallackey
Nice try.
What I said in part was
What I'm referring to is the requirement for the president to be a Natural Born Citizen. Can you define that for us in terms of Constitutional eligibility for the presidency? It's a trick question. The Supreme Court has never ruled what it means or how to define "natural born citizen" for eligibility purposes. If you think it's cut and dried, then you haven't been paying attention.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Nice try.
What I said in part was
It's a rule that's far outlived its appropriateness and is completely irrelevant, other than being a line in the Constitution that confuses the hell out of everyone.
What I'm referring to is the requirement for the president to be a Natural Born Citizen. Can you define that for us in terms of Constitutional eligibility for the presidency? It's a trick question. The Supreme Court has never ruled what it means or how to define "natural born citizen" for eligibility purposes. If you think it's cut and dried, then you haven't been paying attention.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
So what!!! It's not like anyone is going to do anything about it anyway...so...why bother discussing it? All people do is complain, complain,
complain....like it's gonna change something. You complain, but then go back to work, the next morning.....furthering your support of the system you
complain about. lol....WHAT A JOKE!
reply to post by yeahright
Yes, that is correct...you did write that in PART...in total, however; you wrote the rest also....and the rest indicated you wanted to trash the portions of the Constitution you do not understand...
ETA: Why do you think the SCOTUS is required to define the term "natural born citizen?" Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code settles the requirements quite nicely.
Yes, that is correct...you did write that in PART...in total, however; you wrote the rest also....and the rest indicated you wanted to trash the portions of the Constitution you do not understand...
ETA: Why do you think the SCOTUS is required to define the term "natural born citizen?" Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code settles the requirements quite nicely.
edit on 23-7-2012 by totallackey because: Additional info
reply to post by karen61057
Well, I think I need to actually see this document instead of just hearing about it, first.
Well, I think I need to actually see this document instead of just hearing about it, first.
reply to post by totallackey
I never stated nor implied anything about trashing any part of the Constitution, other than elimination of what I see as the irrelevancy of a Natural Born Citizen requirement for POTUS. Why do you persist with that?
Title 8 Section 1401 settles nothing about the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. And that won't be definitively settled until the SCOTUS determines it. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.
This is a far from settled issue.
In 2008, the Congress passed a non binding resolution (meaning it had no legal effect) to stipulate McCain was eligible for the presidency.
"Natural Born Citizen" in terms of presidential eligibility isn't settled, and won't be until there's a SCOTUS ruling.
My basic point is, we can either continue to go through the machinations and contortions of attempting to derive some sort of definition which will apply to specific instances as they arise, or we could eliminate the requirement, which in my opinion is as relevant as an astrological sign. Meaning, not at all.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I never stated nor implied anything about trashing any part of the Constitution, other than elimination of what I see as the irrelevancy of a Natural Born Citizen requirement for POTUS. Why do you persist with that?
Title 8 Section 1401 settles nothing about the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. And that won't be definitively settled until the SCOTUS determines it. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.
This is a far from settled issue.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it can be argued that section 1403 applied to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain -- but absent a court ruling either way, the resolution stands..
...
There is a need to have a definition of natural-born citizen that cannot be politicized. The definition must be protected from the politics of today and ensconced in the Constitution.
In 2008, the Congress passed a non binding resolution (meaning it had no legal effect) to stipulate McCain was eligible for the presidency.
"Natural Born Citizen" in terms of presidential eligibility isn't settled, and won't be until there's a SCOTUS ruling.
My basic point is, we can either continue to go through the machinations and contortions of attempting to derive some sort of definition which will apply to specific instances as they arise, or we could eliminate the requirement, which in my opinion is as relevant as an astrological sign. Meaning, not at all.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by yeahright
Not true.
That's Ankeny and it's never once been overturned, or even really challenged (stupid birthers).
Not true.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
That's Ankeny and it's never once been overturned, or even really challenged (stupid birthers).
reply to post by longlostbrother
What isn't true?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
What isn't true?
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
The thing that gets me about all the birther stuff: Who cares where he was born? His mother was an American citizen, he is by default an American
citizen (unless his mother provably denounced her citizenship). Americans are born in many countries to woman on missionary projects, in government
foreign service, in the military, on vacation, etc.
reply to post by yeahright
What isn't true is your claim that it's an unsettled issue. It's settled and there's only one definition that any serious people - scholars, lawyers, historians, courts - use. The only people that think it's unsettled are birthers and people who have been blinded by their propaganda.
What isn't true is your claim that it's an unsettled issue. It's settled and there's only one definition that any serious people - scholars, lawyers, historians, courts - use. The only people that think it's unsettled are birthers and people who have been blinded by their propaganda.
reply to post by longlostbrother
There has been nobody blinded by the Government who is controlled by the same Bankers who own the Media? What???
There has been nobody blinded by the Government who is controlled by the same Bankers who own the Media? What???
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by longlostbrother
There has been nobody blinded by the Government who is controlled by the same Bankers who own the Media? What???
Who can even guess what you mean by that gibberish, not me.
If you're attempting claim that all the courts and all the judges and all the scholars and historians that come down on the same side on this, the side that recognises that the 14th Amendment is based on jus soli, the side that sees that birthers lie endlessly about the law and history, if you're saying at all of those people are corrupt, and you and your cadre of birthers, a group known for generating political propaganda, are the only ones that known the "real" truth and are uncorrupt, then, as usual, you're simply trolling.
Fun for you and your one friend, but useless to people interested in facts.
Originally posted by AuranVector
They're supposed to have a microfilm copy of the entire British birth archives.]
What have the British birth archives got to do with Obama? You must not realise that this whole thread is just another birther hoax, Clinton was never in the UK as claimed, and there is no Public Records Act 1958 CHAPTER 52..
So this is just another attempt by some birthers to just make things up.
edit on 25-7-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)
reply to post by yeahright
This is really quite amusing...You argue against Title 8 Section 1401, then post an article about McCain who qualified under Title 8 Section 1401? WTH?
Then you post an OPINION stating the definition needs to be above political reproach and ensconced in the Constitution...then you look to the SCOTUS to perform this operation...clearly OUTSIDE OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION!
And, then back to trashing the bits you do not understand...sorry if you do not understand why there should be a requirement for the US President to be a natural born citizen of the US...
I guess it really does not matter anymore though...
This is really quite amusing...You argue against Title 8 Section 1401, then post an article about McCain who qualified under Title 8 Section 1401? WTH?
Then you post an OPINION stating the definition needs to be above political reproach and ensconced in the Constitution...then you look to the SCOTUS to perform this operation...clearly OUTSIDE OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION!
And, then back to trashing the bits you do not understand...sorry if you do not understand why there should be a requirement for the US President to be a natural born citizen of the US...
I guess it really does not matter anymore though...
reply to post by longlostbrother
You need to look into this deeper. There is not, nor has there ever been a determination for a definition of Natural Born Citizen as referred to in the Constitution for eligibility for POTUS. And until there is, which will only be done when (1) another amendment is passed or (2) the SCOTUS makes a ruling on it.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
You need to look into this deeper. There is not, nor has there ever been a determination for a definition of Natural Born Citizen as referred to in the Constitution for eligibility for POTUS. And until there is, which will only be done when (1) another amendment is passed or (2) the SCOTUS makes a ruling on it.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by totallackey
I see. You're incapable of following a discussion. That's all I needed to know. That's my fault for knowingly participating in one of these stupid birth threads. Y'all have a great day.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I see. You're incapable of following a discussion. That's all I needed to know. That's my fault for knowingly participating in one of these stupid birth threads. Y'all have a great day.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by yeahright
What about Perkins v. Elg which states that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen and even explicitly states that they are eligible to run for President? That seems like a pretty clear cut SCOTUS decision to me.
What about Perkins v. Elg which states that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen and even explicitly states that they are eligible to run for President? That seems like a pretty clear cut SCOTUS decision to me.
reply to post by Xcalibur254
Last reply from me then I'm out.
Think about it. How does that apply to McCain? It doesn't. How would it cover someone like Goldwater? It doesn't. There are circumstances where people are born outside the USA and (like McCain) are citizens at birth. Are they "natural born citizens"? It's an open question.
Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory, not a state at the time. So he certainly wasn't a "citizen at birth". How can someone not a citizen at birth be an "Natural Born Citizen"? They become citizens by statute.
This is going to come up again and again until it's settled once and for all as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in terms of eligibility for president. The people born within the borders of the USA to US citizens are natural born citizens, unquestionably. I don't think you're suggesting that those are the only people who are eligible, because you would be excluding people like McCain. The rules are complex and all over the place, and the entire unnecessarily distracting mess could be eliminated tomorrow if we didn't have an (undefined) "natural born citizen" Constitutional requirement for the office.
If it wasn't a confusing and open issue, there would have been no reason for Congress to pass an (unbinding) resolution about McCain's eligibility. It is, and they did.
Done.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Last reply from me then I'm out.
Think about it. How does that apply to McCain? It doesn't. How would it cover someone like Goldwater? It doesn't. There are circumstances where people are born outside the USA and (like McCain) are citizens at birth. Are they "natural born citizens"? It's an open question.
Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory, not a state at the time. So he certainly wasn't a "citizen at birth". How can someone not a citizen at birth be an "Natural Born Citizen"? They become citizens by statute.
This is going to come up again and again until it's settled once and for all as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in terms of eligibility for president. The people born within the borders of the USA to US citizens are natural born citizens, unquestionably. I don't think you're suggesting that those are the only people who are eligible, because you would be excluding people like McCain. The rules are complex and all over the place, and the entire unnecessarily distracting mess could be eliminated tomorrow if we didn't have an (undefined) "natural born citizen" Constitutional requirement for the office.
If it wasn't a confusing and open issue, there would have been no reason for Congress to pass an (unbinding) resolution about McCain's eligibility. It is, and they did.
Done.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
You know what would be awesome? A presidential candidate "Throw Down". On live tv, for all the US to see, a physical handing over of all required
documents in their original entirety, ALL of them, before the debate. Let's vet one of the most important positions in the US properly, by the
people. We will have a list of the requirements posted, and check them off one by one. Better yet, vet them as you would a CEO applying for a job
with a multi-million dollar company, check everything and publicize it live. Grades, financial status, experience running businesses,
military/strategic experience, etc. We the public should be able to see these things. Of course we would have to appoint real people to procure
these documents, people from the area where the documents are stored, and they would hold them before the debate, in a safe place.
Our elected officials are so d#$% corrupt, we could never actually have this happen. Would you trust the appointed people to procure the documents? I would not for either political party, and as a result, this is what we are left with.
But, we should ALWAYS question what our elected officials are up to, be they black, white, repub, dem, yellow, whatever, AND should have the freedom to do so without being labeled a racist, idiot, birther, libtard, repuke, whatever. There should be civil discourse, and frequently.
Our elected officials are so d#$% corrupt, we could never actually have this happen. Would you trust the appointed people to procure the documents? I would not for either political party, and as a result, this is what we are left with.
But, we should ALWAYS question what our elected officials are up to, be they black, white, repub, dem, yellow, whatever, AND should have the freedom to do so without being labeled a racist, idiot, birther, libtard, repuke, whatever. There should be civil discourse, and frequently.
new topics
-
Happy Birthday OZZY
Music: 1 hours ago -
Chinese national busted in LA sending weapons to NK
World War Three: 1 hours ago -
South Korea declares martial law for first time in 50 years over North Korea threat
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago -
Alien warfare predicted for December 3 2024
Aliens and UFOs: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
Alien warfare predicted for December 3 2024
Aliens and UFOs: 7 hours ago, 13 flags -
Statements of Intent from Incoming Trump Administration Members - 2025 to 2029.
2024 Elections: 17 hours ago, 9 flags -
South Korea declares martial law for first time in 50 years over North Korea threat
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago, 8 flags -
Chinese national busted in LA sending weapons to NK
World War Three: 1 hours ago, 1 flags -
Happy Birthday OZZY
Music: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7866 • : KrustyKrab -
Biden pardons his son Hunter despite previous pledges not to
Mainstream News • 132 • : WeMustCare -
South Korea declares martial law for first time in 50 years over North Korea threat
Other Current Events • 26 • : cherokeetroy -
Chinese national busted in LA sending weapons to NK
World War Three • 10 • : caterpillage -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3471 • : Thoughtful3 -
Australia passes social media ban for children under 16
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 29 • : chr0naut -
Alien warfare predicted for December 3 2024
Aliens and UFOs • 34 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Happy Birthday OZZY
Music • 0 • : gortex -
Could Biden pardon every illegal alien
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 24 • : WeMustCare -
Assad flees to moscow
World War Three • 48 • : cherokeetroy