RE: Stacking the Court

RE: Stacking the Court (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Brain -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 8:24:38 PM)
He was thinking of The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch bought it recently unfotunately. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The Times sure has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it if they publish this drivel. Unless something has happened in the last few days that I'm not aware of, Murdoch doesn't own the Times, though there have been rumors for years he was making attempts. He does own the New York Post, if that's what you were thinking of.

cadenas -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 8:41:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse John McCain was born on a US military base, not in a hut in Africa. Funny, though: Panamanians born in the same hospital wouldn't have been US citizens. John McCain inherited his citizenship from his parents. As did Barack Obama regardless of where he was born. Wrong issue. The President is required to have been born on US soil. Being a citizen is not the sole requirement. No. The Constitution just says "must be a natural-born citizen" - nothing about US soil. And, BTW, John McCain's birth was not born on a US military installation in the first place (not that it makes any difference). There was no US hospital (military or civilian) anywhere near where he was born until several years after his birth. He was actually born in a Panamanian hospital in the city of Colon. Also, Dept of State says this in their manual on citizenship: quote: Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. None of that makes a difference. McCain, just like Obama, inherited his citizenship from his parents regardless of birth place.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 2:19:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse John McCain was born on a US military base, not in a hut in Africa. Funny, though: Panamanians born in the same hospital wouldn't have been US citizens. John McCain inherited his citizenship from his parents. As did Barack Obama regardless of where he was born. Wrong issue. The President is required to have been born on US soil. Being a citizen is not the sole requirement. No. The Constitution just says "must be a natural-born citizen" - nothing about US soil. And, BTW, John McCain's birth was not born on a US military installation in the first place (not that it makes any difference). There was no US hospital (military or civilian) anywhere near where he was born until several years after his birth. He was actually born in a Panamanian hospital in the city of Colon. Also, Dept of State says this in their manual on citizenship: quote: Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. None of that makes a difference. McCain, just like Obama, inherited his citizenship from his parents regardless of birth place. All of these threads and posts dismissing the birthers claim based on "inheriting his citizenship", without a mention that they think he didnt inherit his mothers citizenship because SHE wasnt a citizen. I think its bs, but that is what they are basing it on. It isnt even close to McCain, who was clearly born to US citizens.

eyesopened -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 4:37:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I default to Conservative, I lean right... I believe that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. I know John McCain was NOT born in the United States and was not a natural born citizen. Being born on a Military Base in a sovereign country does make a natural born citizen I guess I have to post this again. Not willing to rely on moveon I chose the INS. quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 It doesn't matter if Obama WAS born in Kenya. His mother was a US citizen, ergo Obama was a citizen at his birth ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This is true. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html 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. Here ya go. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Notice that military or diplomatic service can be included in the the 5 years timeframe but military or diplomatic service is not a requirement of the 5 years. Obama's mother was a US citizen and lived in the US more than 5 years. Sheesh can we put this to rest already!

Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 5:28:24 AM)
You know, I think he'll be the President one day.... [8\|]

truckinslave -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 5:57:02 AM)
"Not that facts every get in the way of a good fantasy, but Obama's mother was a US citizen. So even if he wasn't born in Hawaii but on the South Pole, Obama would still be a US citizen". You really should check out citizenship laws. And the only defintion of "natural born citizen" extant when the Constitution was written. (see: Law of Nations)

blacksword404 -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 11:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Maybe because they weren't US citizens serving in the military . Exactly. Being born on a military base does not make any difference; it's still foreign territory. McCain is a citizen because he inherited his citizenship from his parents. And Obama would be, too, even if he had really been born in Kenya. Incidentally, from what I hear about 25% of the Canadian population also are US citizens for the same reason; many don't even know that they are. No. Military bases have special status. Just like our embassies. They are considered U.S. territory.

cadenas -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 11:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave "Not that facts every get in the way of a good fantasy, but Obama's mother was a US citizen. So even if he wasn't born in Hawaii but on the South Pole, Obama would still be a US citizen". You really should check out citizenship laws. And the only defintion of "natural born citizen" extant when the Constitution was written. (see: Law of Nations) Oh, I am very familiar with citizenship laws. Eyesopened already posted a summary of the relevant section (although if you want to be precise, the "five years" term has been changed many times. Relevant here is the rule in force on August 4, 1961, not the one in force today. I don't recall off the top of my head how citizenship was inherited back then, but it wouldn't have affected him much). Eyesopened did make one mistake: at least some of the five years must be after a certain age. A US citizen who left the USA at a very young age and never came back does not pass citizenship to the child. Are you really saying that we should use the definition of citizenship from 1789? On that count, Obama would be excluded because he isn't white. The debate over what "natural born" means actually started before the Constitution was ratified - the term wasn't clear even to the founding fathers. At the time, there was no real definition of citizenship yet. And if you really They just didn't consider it important enough to resolve. Since the issue has only come up about six times - and only one disputed person (Chester Arthur in the late 19th century) ever became President - in going on 250 years, I'd have to agree with them. In the end, though, none of that matters. The courts have already decided countless times that the claims regarding Obama's citizenship are bogus - and for once, I agree with the court system.

cadenas -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/26/2010 11:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 No. Military bases have special status. Just like our embassies. They are considered U.S. territory. a) Department of State is clear in that being born on a military base (or even in an embassy) does NOT automatically confer citizenship (I cited the section of the citizenship manual earlier upthread). Incidentally, military bases are NOT extraterritorial like embassies, and US soldiers on military bases are subject to the foreign jurisdiction and can be arrested by the foreign police according to local laws (diplomats can't). And in fact, George Bush made the point that military installations are NOT US territory when he chose Guantanamo for his abductions. b) People born in the Panama Canal Zone at that time became US Nationals, not US citizens (similar to American Samoans today) unless they inherit their citizenship from their parents. People born in Panama proper had no claim to US citizenship - again, unless they inherit it from their parents. c) McCain wasn't even born in the Panama Canal Zone nor on a military base. He was born in a civilian hospital in the Panamanian city of Colon. McCain did inherit his US citizenship from his parents, though.

SeekingAZ -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/27/2010 1:34:35 AM)
quote: The only election reform we really need is a sunshine law that states that any individual or entity (organization, corporation, etc) that donates any more than… oh… I dunno… say a hundred bucks (I’m flexible on this) has to file a publicly available record of it – which would be posted on a website. That way whoever is supporting a candidate will be open knowledge and those who want to squawk about where a candidate is getting their donations can then use their freedom of speech to do so without having to deny others their rights. I used to agree with the above premise. Reading Clarence Thomas's opinion (mostly supporting the majority opinion) on the recent McStain-Feingold case changed my mind. Those people that gave more than $199 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California have been victims of systematic intimidation due to their donations being made public knowledge. As in death threats, vandalism, and in (successful) pressure against their employers to either fire them or face picketing or vandalism of the employer's property. Thomas is right, non-anonymous political donation isn't free speech at all (My phraseology not Thomas's). And btw, i don't give a flying fuck on anyone's opinion pro or con on proposition 8, that isn't the issue. Defeating the growing brown shirt mob is the issue.

truckinslave -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/28/2010 5:17:42 AM)
cadenas, you're right about, well, mostly nothing, but I'll discuss only three of your errors. 1. In 1961 citizenship passed to children born overseas only through the father. (If he was not born in Hawaii he is in fact an illegal alien). 2. No court has ever decided anything about Obama's lack of citizenship, claims thereto, or anything else. They have never examined one piece of evidence, heard testimony from a single witness. They have ruled only, thus far, that no one who has brought suit had standing to have his suit heard by the court. 3. There was no written discourse between the Founding Fathers of the definition of "natural born citizen", as far as I am aware; it was fully defined in Law of Nations. Nor has it ever been redefined by any US federal Court.

Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/28/2010 5:21:06 AM)
Thank God you came along before the guy became President or something!

blacksword404 -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/28/2010 5:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 No. Military bases have special status. Just like our embassies. They are considered U.S. territory. a) Department of State is clear in that being born on a military base (or even in an embassy) does NOT automatically confer citizenship (I cited the section of the citizenship manual earlier upthread). Incidentally, military bases are NOT extraterritorial like embassies, and US soldiers on military bases are subject to the foreign jurisdiction and can be arrested by the foreign police according to local laws (diplomats can't). And in fact, George Bush made the point that military installations are NOT US territory when he chose Guantanamo for his abductions. b) People born in the Panama Canal Zone at that time became US Nationals, not US citizens (similar to American Samoans today) unless they inherit their citizenship from their parents. People born in Panama proper had no claim to US citizenship - again, unless they inherit it from their parents. c) McCain wasn't even born in the Panama Canal Zone nor on a military base. He was born in a civilian hospital in the Panamanian city of Colon. McCain did inherit his US citizenship from his parents, though. Ok that does make sense. I always though our bases abroad were considered U.S. territory.

DarkSteven -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/28/2010 5:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Military bases have special status. Just like our embassies. They are considered U.S. territory. Correct. I should know - I was born in a military hospital in Heidelberg while my father was in the service, and I ended up with dual citizenship as a result.

cadenas -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/31/2010 11:36:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Military bases have special status. Just like our embassies. They are considered U.S. territory. Correct. I should know - I was born in a military hospital in Heidelberg while my father was in the service, and I ended up with dual citizenship as a result. The military hospital had nothing to do with it. You would have inherited your father's US citizenship even if you had been born in a civilian hospital, and even if your US citizen father had been a civilian working for a German company.

cadenas -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/31/2010 11:56:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave cadenas, you're right about, well, mostly nothing, but I'll discuss only three of your errors. 1. In 1961 citizenship passed to children born overseas only through the father. (If he was not born in Hawaii he is in fact an illegal alien). No, that rule was abolished in the 1930s - and later retroactively overturned by the Supreme Court, too. In fact, there are cases where a FATHER'S citizenship isn't inherited (this happens when paternity isn't proven until the child is 18 years old). From December 24, 1952 until November 14, 1986, the rule was: one of of the parents must be a US citizen. quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave 2. No court has ever decided anything about Obama's lack of citizenship, claims thereto, or anything else. They have never examined one piece of evidence, heard testimony from a single witness. They have ruled only, thus far, that no one who has brought suit had standing to have his suit heard by the court. Of course not. The only person who had standing is John McCain. That doesn't invalidate that the evidence exists and is publicly available, plenty of it, while there is no evidence of a birth in Kenya.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375