PDA

View Full Version : Obama..



Hunt3r.j2
10 Jul 2009, 10:26pm
Well, time to celebrate our presidents the American way, by criticizing them until they appear ridiculous.

Obama apparently, might not really be eligible to be president. If you stare hard enough at the constitution, it says that only citizens born in the US can be president. They state that Obama is born in Hawaii, but no hospital in Hawaii will release his long-form birth certificate.

Someone though, claims to have witnessed his birth. Like his grandmother. Who flat out said that he was born in Kenya.

I think it's creepy, but oh well, onto something creepier and can be proven.

If you read a speech that Obama made in June in the National Archives, he calls the Bush administration out for trying to make things look legal that aren't.

Then he goes into something called "Preventative detention." Basically, being arrested because the government expects you to do something wrong. He also wants it to be indefinite, without trial.

Oh wai-.

Yep, he wants to pull the same thing that Bush and Cheney did. Pour the champagne, we have won our rights back.

Drox
11 Jul 2009, 11:50am
Well, time to celebrate our presidents the American way, by criticizing them until they appear ridiculous.

Obama apparently, might not really be eligible to be president. If you stare hard enough at the constitution, it says that only citizens born in the US can be president. They state that Obama is born in Hawaii, but no hospital in Hawaii will release his long-form birth certificate.

Someone though, claims to have witnessed his birth. Like his grandmother. Who flat out said that he was born in Kenya.

I think it's creepy, but oh well, onto something creepier and can be proven.

If you read a speech that Obama made in June in the National Archives, he calls the Bush administration out for trying to make things look legal that aren't.

Then he goes into something called "Preventative detention." Basically, being arrested because the government expects you to do something wrong. He also wants it to be indefinite, without trial.

Oh wai-.

Yep, he wants to pull the same thing that Bush and Cheney did. Pour the champagne, we have won our rights back.

lol Aslong as your under "Our" federal government, then what the people want or need is weighed in the hands of fat cats in DC. No matter which party wins the office of president, its pretty much always the same outcome and same policies.

Omar
11 Jul 2009, 12:30pm
lol Aslong as your under "Our" federal government, then what the people want or need is weighed in the hands of fat cats in DC. No matter which party wins the office of president, its pretty much always the same outcome and same policies.

I.e the whole election democracy thing is an illiusion?


One more thing that confuses me, why is there so many Jews in the US goverment and congress when the majority of the country it self is christian? can it be stated that the majority is stupid, while the miniority is the supreme ruler?


Hmm?

Drox
11 Jul 2009, 01:09pm
I.e the whole election democracy thing is an illiusion?


One more thing that confuses me, why is there so many Jews in the US goverment and congress when the majority of the country it self is christian? can it be stated that the majority is stupid, while the miniority is the supreme ruler?


Hmm?

Our election system is a joke, it goes by Electoral College which rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens vote for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

It's believed to be fair, but swing states usually can go either way which kinda pisses people off.

As far as the jew thing, America was founded on christian values and whatnot but as people like to say America is a melting pot. So we accept all religions and races into our government if they are born in America. Altho right now we are very iffy on Islam, since we are fighting radicals of that religion but most people of that religion are very kind people and I see nothing wrong with them being in government aslong as they follow the American way of doing things like how everyone else is suppose to which alot of people in our government forgot.

PotshotPolka
11 Jul 2009, 02:20pm
I.e the whole election democracy thing is an illiusion?


One more thing that confuses me, why is there so many Jews in the US goverment and congress when the majority of the country it self is christian? can it be stated that the majority is stupid, while the miniority is the supreme ruler?


Hmm?

I don't know where the hell you heard that, probably somewhere on Al Jazeera. Your obesession with Jews is unhealthy and uncalled for.

And as far as "illusion of democracy" goes, sometimes the answers you give are the answers you give. If asked the question what is 2+2, party A says 4 when party B also says 4 it doesn't mean the parties are both the same, its just a rational outcome. American foreign policy is one of the things that seems to rarely change between the two parties, regardless of rhetoric. The two exceptions being Carter's attempts to lock foreign dignitaries in the closet together at Camp David and Reagan later dropping tomahawks on a foreign leader's house for doing something stupid... like blowing up a plane over Ireland.

Hunt3r.j2
11 Jul 2009, 05:52pm
Personally I'd like to see a requirement to own land before you can vote. At least that way we don't have something like the Obama deal where people who don't even have the same views as him voted for him since he was black.


Disappointing, but that's why the US was a republic instead of a democracy.

Or so I hear.

Nighthawk
11 Jul 2009, 06:18pm
Our election system is a joke, it goes by Electoral College which rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens vote for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.


Percentage based elections would have been (and still are) hell. We can't rely on the total percentage of the people, because states have a hard enough time tallying the results from counties, which have a hard enough time tallying results from their cities, which have a hard enough time tallying results from the city's population. Do we really want to make it harder?

Italian Jew
11 Jul 2009, 06:23pm
Personally I'd like to see a requirement to own land before you can vote. At least that way we don't have something like the Obama deal where people who don't even have the same views as him voted for him since he was black.



Or maybe some preferred his views over McCain's views. I know this may sound crazy to you, but a good portion of people can think about the issues and vote based on their own opinions on them.

Also, your statement implies that those who do not own land are those who disagreed with Obama, yet voted for him based on race. I don't think there is a correlation between those two points.

And what is with this owning land nonsense? That worked great hundreds of years ago, but today, you have millions of people who do not own land. They may be on their way to owning it or just renting a place (not even land, just property), but your idea would prevent millions of citizens from voting.


You may now go back to drinking your special punch. :crazy:

Drox
11 Jul 2009, 06:37pm
Percentage based elections would have been (and still are) hell. We can't rely on the total percentage of the people, because states have a hard enough time tallying the results from counties, which have a hard enough time tallying results from their cities, which have a hard enough time tallying results from the city's population. Do we really want to make it harder?

Yes

Nighthawk
11 Jul 2009, 06:43pm
Yes

So we find out the results longer and with more error?

Italian Jew
11 Jul 2009, 06:59pm
So we find out the results longer and with more error?

I guarantee that CNN/FOX/NBC/etc. will call the election before the results get in.

phatman76
11 Jul 2009, 07:13pm
Well, time to celebrate our presidents the American way, by criticizing them until they appear ridiculous.

Obama apparently, might not really be eligible to be president. If you stare hard enough at the constitution, it says that only citizens born in the US can be president. They state that Obama is born in Hawaii, but no hospital in Hawaii will release his long-form birth certificate.

Someone though, claims to have witnessed his birth. Like his grandmother. Who flat out said that he was born in Kenya.

I think it's creepy, but oh well, onto something creepier and can be proven.

If you read a speech that Obama made in June in the National Archives, he calls the Bush administration out for trying to make things look legal that aren't.

Then he goes into something called "Preventative detention." Basically, being arrested because the government expects you to do something wrong. He also wants it to be indefinite, without trial.

Oh wai-.

Yep, he wants to pull the same thing that Bush and Cheney did. Pour the champagne, we have won our rights back.

Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is a citizen. To quote article II section I of the USAC:

"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. "

Those born on foreign soil to US citizens are still US citizens. That is why my cousin born in Ghana while my uncle was a missionary is a US citizen and not a Ghanaian. So it really doesn't matter where he was born, his mother is a citizen so he is.

As for preventive detention, you seem confused. That was not the only questionable thing the Bush-Cheney administration did, especially since preventive detention was an established practice in this nation before 9/11. The 6th ammendment has been interpreted by jurisprudence to give a year between indictment and trial for legal holding, this is the detention period preventive detention refers to. This one year gap ONLY applies to citizens first of all, so there is nothing unconstitutional with us holding a non-citizen terrorist for a decade in a cell with charges. Despite this, terrorists held in Gitmo have been charged and are awaiting trial, mainly because of the hullabaloo about tribunals being legal or not.

Theoretically a case could be made that the sixth amendment is being violated because they have been indicted but are not being tried. This is true. But they are not citizens. Even if they were, the previous administration made earnest attempt's to move them to trial, but was prevented by congress.

But I think you are really talking about holding a man without charges. I think it is legal to hold an enemy combatant without charges just by virtue of their status. The Bush administration held to this also. Obama is squirming right now because he promised to empty Gitmo but can't, that is why there is all the double-speak from him and his administration on policies like preventive detention and whatnot. But I don't think anybody should misconstrue that as him being okay with holding those prisoners. I wish he were, but he isn't. He is having trouble getting rid of them, not wanting to hold onto them. So... Yeah....


as for the comment about Jews, I am pretty offended at that...

Omar
11 Jul 2009, 07:52pm
What the FUCK is this shit?

I didn't say Jews were bad people, I merely said why there is so many in the goverment even though it's a miniority

It's like if Pakistan or what-ever-the-fuckistan had alot of christians in their goverment, or china had alot of Japanese in their goverment, I'm not saying.

oh, and Potshot, I didn't see it on Al Jazeera, I think it was even stated on this forum.. can't remember by who.
It was a question.

You guys make it seem like I hate the religion.
For the record, I "like" Judaism more then christianaty.

matt 187
11 Jul 2009, 08:07pm
You guys make it seem like I hate the religion.
For the record, I "like" Judaism more then christianaty.

Omar->:hail:

Drox
11 Jul 2009, 08:58pm
So we find out the results longer and with more error?

Yep

Slavic
11 Jul 2009, 09:40pm
I didn't say Jews were bad people, I merely said why there is so many in the goverment even though it's a miniority

I would like to see some documentation about all of these Jews holding offices in our government, seriously. Not pointing at you Omar but I've seen this brought up so much; mostly from white bigots.

Omar
11 Jul 2009, 09:59pm
I would like to see some documentation about all of these Jews holding offices in our government, seriously. Not pointing at you Omar but I've seen this brought up so much; mostly from white bigots.

On the forums, I've heard it from them
But also in real life, I've heard it from my friends (my best friend, like this really fucking geek about this kinda shit) My parents, like.. almost every one that i know that talks about politics n.... shit

Alpha2
11 Jul 2009, 10:29pm
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/Joe12304/commiebastard.jpg

Desum
11 Jul 2009, 10:37pm
Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is a citizen. To quote article II section I of the USAC:

"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. "

Those born on foreign soil to US citizens are still US citizens. That is why my cousin born in Ghana while my uncle was a missionary is a US citizen and not a Ghanaian. So it really doesn't matter where he was born, his mother is a citizen so he is.


"NATURAL BORN citizen." Key words there, Natural Born. Someone born in Kenya who moves to the US is not a naturally born citizen of the US.

Italian Jew
11 Jul 2009, 11:06pm
"NATURAL BORN citizen." Key words there, Natural Born. Someone born in Kenya who moves to the US is not a naturally born citizen of the US.

The part also says "or citizen of the United States". There is no actual definition listed in the constitution for "natural born", so it would be up for debate by any legislative or judicial committee.

This is all moot by the way considering that he was born in Hawaii.

Hunt3r.j2
11 Jul 2009, 11:33pm
The part also says "or citizen of the United States". There is no actual definition listed in the constitution for "natural born", so it would be up for debate by any legislative or judicial committee.

This is all moot by the way considering that he was born in Hawaii.

I would gladly believe that, except for the fact that the birth certificate he released is a short-form one, that Hawaii will give AFTER birth. The big deal is that the long-form birth certificate, the one that has the physician's signature on it, isn't there. They actually had Congress investigate if McCain was actually eligible, but just about every case and inquiry for his long form birth certificate is either scoffed at, tossed aside, or never even gets a hearing.

Oh and it says you have to be born in the US or been a citizen from the founding of it. The first one is probably the only one possible, so yeah.

I just don't get why they didn't just clear up the mess and let it be over with.

Oh and apparently the entire judicial and legislative branches of the gov believe "natural born" means "born in the USA."

I wouldn't really care if Obama stopped following in the footsteps of Hoover. The stimulus package has failed, and now they tell us we need another. Somehow I think that the debt is just piling up too fast for us to even get out by the end of this year, as economists predict.

Not to mention, you don't even have to be born in the US to get a Hawaiian short-form birth certificate. Back in Obama's time it was very possible and legal.

Meh, the fact that he is ineligible doesn't worry me as much as his policy decisions.

Also, keep in mind that he spoke about not just detaining people who don't live in the country, but also citizens. Potential terrorists like people who protest against taxes, abortion, people who fight for gay rights, Libertarians, and anyone else who isn't Republican or Democrat. You would be held until you being a potential "threat" is over.

I suppose that's a life sentence.

Drox
11 Jul 2009, 11:48pm
The part also says "or citizen of the United States". There is no actual definition listed in the constitution for "natural born", so it would be up for debate by any legislative or judicial committee.

This is all moot by the way considering that he was born in Hawaii.

Arnold for 2012 maybe? :P

Italian Jew
12 Jul 2009, 12:38am
I would gladly believe that, except for the fact that the birth certificate he released is a short-form one, that Hawaii will give AFTER birth. The big deal is that the long-form birth certificate, the one that has the physician's signature on it, isn't there. They actually had Congress investigate if McCain was actually eligible, but just about every case and inquiry for his long form birth certificate is either scoffed at, tossed aside, or never even gets a hearing.


Even though it was confirmed by officials, subsequent cases were thrown out by judges who found the plaintiffs and their claims bat shit insane, and the document is accepted by the State Department, I guess we can't trust it.

The long-form certificate you request doesn't exist because the database went electronic in 2001. The only certificates you can obtain are copies of what is considered a short-form certificate. It is an official birth certificate, so get over it.

They investigated McCain because he was born outside of the US. Unless you want to continue to wear your tin foil hat, Obama was documented (and confirmed) as being born in the US.



Oh and it says you have to be born in the US or been a citizen from the founding of it. The first one is probably the only one possible, so yeah.



"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."

It does not say you have to be born in the US. Despite this being irrelevant to the situation, there is no set definition on being "natural born" or what the bold section actually means. That's why you have inquiries like McCain experienced to discuss things.




I just don't get why they didn't just clear up the mess and let it be over with.



Because crazies like you bring it up even though the fad died after the election and only the most stubborn continue it.




Oh and apparently the entire judicial and legislative branches of the gov believe "natural born" means "born in the USA."



No. For instance, McCain was allowed to be considered a "natural born" citizen because of his parents, not so much because of his location. He wasn't born in the United States, but on US property. His location was an ambiguous point in the discussion because one official could believe one way while another believed in the opposite (Panama vs. US Base/Court Cases vs. Certain Laws). The fact that he was born to a military family on a base made the difference. Congress did not want to prevent children of soldiers overseas from being exempt from the constitutional eligibility of president.

Keep in mind, early presidents were not born in the US, but in British colonies. The terms"natural born" and "citizenship" in regards to eligibility can be interpreted to mean a variety of things. Both this and the previous paragraph were the selling points in the Congressional decision.





I wouldn't really care if Obama stopped following in the footsteps of Hoover. The stimulus package has failed, and now they tell us we need another. Somehow I think that the debt is just piling up too fast for us to even get out by the end of this year, as economists predict.



The White House has refuted the claim for another stimulus. The only ones bringing this up are media morons. You also cannot judge the plan from a few months of action when it was designed with long term goals in mind.

Economists predict everything. It just matters who is paying them, and what they are being paid to say.





Not to mention, you don't even have to be born in the US to get a Hawaiian short-form birth certificate. Back in Obama's time it was very possible and legal.



Obama obtained his certificate in 2007 when he asked for a copy for the campaign.




Meh, the fact that he is ineligible doesn't worry me as much as his policy decisions.



Then why bring it up?




Also, keep in mind that he spoke about not just detaining people who don't live in the country, but also citizens. Potential terrorists like people who protest against taxes, abortion, people who fight for gay rights, Libertarians, and anyone else who isn't Republican or Democrat. You would be held until you being a potential "threat" is over.

I suppose that's a life sentence.

Misguided again I see. Citizens that would be detained would be anyone breaking the law (violent protesting, discrimination, illegal firearms, etc.)

The threat would be from some redneck who just bought an ample supply of ammo to go with his assault rifle collection and decided to start a rampage on any "non-american" he finds. He isn't targeting people with opinions other than his. If he is targeting anyone, it would be those who would seek to undermine what this country actually stands for with violence and illegal activity. If you want to blog about your complaints, fine. If you want to go to the mall and shoot up a bunch of black people because "they all voted for him", not fine.

phatman76
12 Jul 2009, 12:44am
Italian thank you for dismissing that bullshit with some fact so i didn't have to :]

matt 187
12 Jul 2009, 01:17am
nice wall of text IJ

Italian Jew
12 Jul 2009, 01:21am
Italian thank you for dismissing that bullshit with some fact so i didn't have to :]

:D



nice wall of text IJ

I bet you didn't even read it. :toung:

You just saw hundreds of words and said "Yep, looks legit to me!"

matt 187
12 Jul 2009, 01:21am
:D




I bet you didn't even read it. :toung:

You just saw hundreds of words and said "Yep, looks legit to me!"


same thing i do to all post yep.

Hunt3r.j2
12 Jul 2009, 03:21am
Misguided again I see. Citizens that would be detained would be anyone breaking the law (violent protesting, discrimination, illegal firearms, etc.)

The threat would be from some redneck who just bought an ample supply of ammo to go with his assault rifle collection and decided to start a rampage on any "non-american" he finds. He isn't targeting people with opinions other than his. If he is targeting anyone, it would be those who would seek to undermine what this country actually stands for with violence and illegal activity. If you want to blog about your complaints, fine. If you want to go to the mall and shoot up a bunch of black people because "they all voted for him", not fine.

I personally think that the main problem is the fact that he isn't moving fast enough, especially on issues like Guantanamo and how it's going to be done.

9P9zRBGPR8o
This is probably the main reason why I don't really think I can trust Obama.

I think he's a lot like Hoover though. He's very bright, smart, and probably knows exactly what's going on more then anyone else. His only failing is that he didn't do enough when he needed to.

Also he seems to lean towards the socialist side of things. I do not want to see the country going towards collectivization and further to the left.

roach coach
12 Jul 2009, 09:22pm
Birth Certificate conspiracy theories ftw :usa2:

Mikey
12 Jul 2009, 09:52pm
Just to clear this up, many Americans(not calling out names) don't know jack shit about their citizenship rights.
If you wore not born on in the US you can NOT pilot military air units. am sure there are more of things you can't do, but it's really fucked up. If u want to run for president on the other hand, you need to be born to citizen patents OR be born on American soil.

Hunt3r.j2
12 Jul 2009, 10:00pm
Birth Certificate conspiracy theories ftw :usa2:

Haha I don't think it's so much a conspiracy theory as an (bad?) example of how Obama's life seems to be inconsistent. It's fuzzy and we don't have anything to go on except his word.

Heck, I don't know when he changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama.

Italian Jew
13 Jul 2009, 12:11am
Haha I don't think it's so much a conspiracy theory as an (bad?) example of how Obama's life seems to be inconsistent. It's fuzzy and we don't have anything to go on except his word.

Heck, I don't know when he changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama.

His birth name was Barack Hussein Obama. His nickname was Barry, so when his mom got divorced and married a Mr. Soetoro, his name became Barry Soetoro until he decided to change it back to his formal name sometime in college. People believe it was because he wanted to "grow up" in a way, but for whatever reason, it was changed back. Obama became more in touch with his roots so to say.

The people who hammer in these conspiracy theories look at the worst possible scenario from the facts and believe it to be true no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Hunt3r.j2
13 Jul 2009, 12:58am
His birth name was Barack Hussein Obama. His nickname was Barry, so when his mom got divorced and married a Mr. Soetoro, his name became Barry Soetoro until he decided to change it back to his formal name sometime in college. People believe it was because he wanted to "grow up" in a way, but for whatever reason, it was changed back. Obama became more in touch with his roots so to say.

The people who hammer in these conspiracy theories look at the worst possible scenario from the facts and believe it to be true no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Meh, I'm just more worried about whether or not this idea of Keynesian economic policy will prevent the worldwide recession/depression. We'll be fucked if by next year the unemployment rate has risen by more then 10 percent.

Desum
13 Jul 2009, 01:25am
"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."

Key words are bold, directed towards Italian. It isn't "Citizen of the united states", its "Citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution." If they hadn't put that in, then no one could be president in the US for another 35 years since everyone would of been born outside the country, even if they were on the to-be US soil. You can't just take a fragment of a sentence and ignore the rest of it to prove your point.

Red
13 Jul 2009, 11:06am
I personally think that the main problem is the fact that he isn't moving fast enough, especially on issues like Guantanamo and how it's going to be done.

9P9zRBGPR8o
This is probably the main reason why I don't really think I can trust Obama.

I think he's a lot like Hoover though. He's very bright, smart, and probably knows exactly what's going on more then anyone else. His only failing is that he didn't do enough when he needed to.

Also he seems to lean towards the socialist side of things. I do not want to see the country going towards collectivization and further to the left.

Nice to see even Maddow calling him out on his instant hypocrisy.

Italian Jew
13 Jul 2009, 11:23am
"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."

Key words are bold, directed towards Italian. It isn't "Citizen of the united states", its "Citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution." If they hadn't put that in, then no one could be president in the US for another 35 years since everyone would of been born outside the country, even if they were on the to-be US soil. You can't just take a fragment of a sentence and ignore the rest of it to prove your point.

Technically its both a Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at the time of adoption. Notice the use of commas; they are there so that both Natural Born Citizens and Citizens meet the same requirement, or at least that's how it seems. If you want to read into it too much, wouldn't that mean you would have to have been born at the time of the adoption?

Also notice there is another comma between the Adoption and Eligible parts. If the previous comma was gone and this one still remained, then you would be right. However, since that is not the case, the constitution is ambiguous about the matter. There are so many damn commas and so many ways to interpret this small statement, so please, tell me exactly what the authors of this document were trying to get across.


Oh and it says you have to be born in the US or been a citizen from the founding of it. The first one is probably the only one possible, so yeah.


It does not say you have to be born in the US. Despite this being irrelevant to the situation, there is no set definition on being "natural born" or what the bold section actually means. That's why you have inquiries like McCain experienced to discuss things.

When I used the bolded section, Hunt3r.j2 was a bit confused as you. I bolded the section to show that nobody knows what that part really means. I was stating that you didn't have to be born in the United States (which isn't the constitutional definition of natural born).

I also stated the confusion brought about by what I said was an ambiguous statement (no definition on what it means to be natural born/citizen as well as what those two mean in regards to time). Looking back on it, maybe I should have bolded the whole damn thing so my point would have been made clearer. The fact that I only bolded a small section of it does not mean I refused to look at the other part of it in consideration.

The Constitution has many of these dubious sections, and to the ire of some, it is up to the then current government to decide what we are going to believe is actually meant (even if it wasn't the idea of the authors of the Constitution). The Constitution is basically a framework for the law.

For instance, a natural-born citizen could mean a citizen at birth. Title 8 Section 1401 defines the circumstances of becoming a US citizen at birth. ( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html ) This may not have been what the authors of the Constitution were getting at, but this is the current model for what the government views as a citizen and a possible Natural-Born one at that.

Simply put, Desum, you shouldn't ignore grammar to get your point across. This shit is confusing and was designed in a way to make it flexible for future generations.

Slavic
13 Jul 2009, 03:03pm
For instance, a natural-born citizen could mean a citizen at birth. Title 8 Section 1401 defines the circumstances of becoming a US citizen at birth. ( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html ) This may not have been what the authors of the Constitution were getting at, but this is the current model for what the government views as a citizen and a possible Natural-Born one at that.

This is what I take to be the meaning of natural-born citizen. A person birthed from American citizens whether it be in Michigan, Guam, or Peru is declared an American citizen at birth and is thus entitled to all of the rights an American citizen is given at birth.

The location isn't the issue, but how the person is granted the citizenship is. If my parents birthed me in Mexico on vacation from the US, would that make me no less a citizen then a child born of us parents on US soil?

Hunt3r.j2
13 Jul 2009, 04:05pm
My interpretation of the clause "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;" is that it means that you have to be naturally born, ie a citizen of the US from birth, or someone who was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

Found a statement that rings true to me: "A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away."

Big reason why I don't like Obama expanding the gov.

Slavic
13 Jul 2009, 06:55pm
My interpretation of the clause "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;" is that it means that you have to be naturally born, ie a citizen of the US from birth, or someone who was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

So then you agree that Obama's citizenship is genuine since he is a citizen from birth; why did you make such a racket about it?

Hunt3r.j2
14 Jul 2009, 06:42pm
So then you agree that Obama's citizenship is genuine since he is a citizen from birth; why did you make such a racket about it?

I don't get that though, because they've had to correct the hospital he was born in. It could be just careless error, but it's a bit hard not to botch something like that.

Snopes and Wikipedia corrected it after the records were corrected. It went from Queens to some other hospital that I can't spell.

The point is that Obama's life is fuzzy, and I don't like that.

Hunt3r.j2
14 Jul 2009, 06:42pm
So then you agree that Obama's citizenship is genuine since he is a citizen from birth; why did you make such a racket about it?

I don't get that though, because they've had to correct the hospital he was born in. It could be just careless error, but it's a bit hard not to botch something like that.

Snopes and Wikipedia corrected it after the records were corrected. It went from Queens to some other hospital that I can't spell.

The point is that Obama's life is fuzzy, and I don't like that.

RedOctober
15 Jul 2009, 06:07pm
i don't know why people are complaining. its not like he wasn't able to prove his citizenship adequately before the election or he couldn't even be officially nominated. The Democrat party would make dam sure he was a citizen because it look really bad on their part if word leaked.

Metal
15 Jul 2009, 06:19pm
come to canada
my government is filled with old people

Hunt3r.j2
20 Jul 2009, 12:50am
come to canada
my government is filled with old people

The thing is that some people only get smarter with age.

George Carlin, anyone?

Anyway, Obama I think is going to fail, for reasons that I don't know. I'd like to believe that he will do amazingly well and that my gut is wrong but seeing as how our next SCOTUS is anti-2A I'm worried :|

phatman76
20 Jul 2009, 02:38am
but seeing as how our next SCOTUS is anti-2A I'm worried :|

Wrong. We have more pro 2nd amendment judges on the bench now than we did 25 years ago. Did you read the Washington Handgun Ban opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller? It was a decisively pro-second amendment opinion.

On top of this, the Obama administration has shown no signs of picking up the Assault Weapon Ban again, the NRA is arguably the most powerful citizens lobby on Capitol Hill outside of the AARP.

Obama doesn't have the political capital to waste on guns, what with healthcare reform and the economy on his plate. On top of this, I can't reasonably see another gun rights case making the SCOTUS docket for 4 years. If they have just ruled on a landmark case, they will be reluctant to pick another one up on the same topic.

Finally, Sotomayor is replacing an already liberal justice, so the balance of the court has not shifted.

Hunt3r.j2
23 Jul 2009, 02:09am
Wrong. We have more pro 2nd amendment judges on the bench now than we did 25 years ago. Did you read the Washington Handgun Ban opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller? It was a decisively pro-second amendment opinion.

On top of this, the Obama administration has shown no signs of picking up the Assault Weapon Ban again, the NRA is arguably the most powerful citizens lobby on Capitol Hill outside of the AARP.

Obama doesn't have the political capital to waste on guns, what with healthcare reform and the economy on his plate. On top of this, I can't reasonably see another gun rights case making the SCOTUS docket for 4 years. If they have just ruled on a landmark case, they will be reluctant to pick another one up on the same topic.

Finally, Sotomayor is replacing an already liberal justice, so the balance of the court has not shifted.
I know, but I would've liked to see a more pro-2A justice.

Besides, the 2A is a "FUCK WE'RE FUCKED START REVOLTING." clause in the constitution.