RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling

RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (Full Version)

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

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 7:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "only definition of the term avaiable to the Founding Fathers" That was OVER 200 years ago...... There`s been a few SCOTUS rulings since the founders created the SCOTUS, to make such interpretations......yes? Well that's just it. It no longer matters what the founding fathers said. I mean after all, [they] revolted as much against the Bank of England's monetary system as anything else. And yet from about 120 years later...here we are. What matters now is what the courts say and we can forget the founding fathers until that is of course you are usually right wing and don't like what the court ruled. The federal courts and this court have ruled and that's it...period. True that... Did the FF create the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution only in the terms of those days or did they know and intend that the Constitution`s interpretations would change over the coming generations? They created a living,breathing document and system of government that would change adapt and grow to the needs of the times. It`s essentially the main reason why the United States has survived over two hundred years of history.

truckinslave -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 8:18:48 AM)
Mkaes no difference how long ago it was... that is what the term meant. Yes, to answer your your question. SCOTUS just has not defined, or interpreted "natural born citizen". Nor has any federal court, although Minor skirted doing so.

truckinslave -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 8:21:59 AM)
quote: de Vattel was not the only definition of 'natural born' available What other definition was available? quote: Well, we have some proof that Hamilton, (and only proof of Hamilton) had read and sustained some agreements with Emmerich de Vatte We have proof others owned Law of Nations

mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 8:56:04 AM)
we would like to see that proof 1) they owned it, memorizing every word and holding it as pure gospel, and 2) it affected the usual meaning of 'natural born' or 'citizen' or 'natural born citizen'. c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel, from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). Meaning "easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. *As a euphemism for "illegitimate, bastard" (of children), it is first recorded 1580s, on notion of blood kinship (but not legal status).* The noun sense of "person with a natural gift or talent" is first attested 1925, originally in prizefighting. Natural-born first attested 1580s. Natural order "apparent order in nature" is from 1690s. Natural childbirth first attested 1933. Natural life, usually in ref. to the duration of life, is from late 15c. Natural history is from 1560s (see history). To die of natural causes is from 1570s. If you read any, and I mean any biography of Alexander Hamilton, for example you will see the term natural born in describing his entry upon the earth. Now a far more viable argument could be made that the natural born citizen clause would in effect upend what at that time been the historical heritage of passing 'provenance' from the patriarch (an uncertain lineage and very british) to 'provenence' defined by the matriarch. Why might they do this? Well, it was reasonably common for slaveholders to do the horizontal boogie with their slave girls, and it would prevent such as Obama from becoming president and making slaves of all the white people. Now, while one could point out that there must have been a white woman tatting in the tweeds with a black man, the mores of society and double standard would pretty much force them to give away the baby or to leave society altogether. So, they were saying a bastard child (cuz we definitely know who the mother is) could be president (thumbing noses at the limeys) but not a man's bastard quadroon. but the terms natural, born, citizen all existed before Vattel, as did many things. So did the words: the, whale, is, undoubtably, one, of, largest, mammals, alive, today. When we combine them in the phrase: 'The whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today'. We see that they do not impart some secret or phantasmigorical poignant meaning that transcends and transmogrifies their separate meaning. All we are confronted with is an unremarkable and self-evident tautology. How does 'we the people' differ in the mystical properties of 'natural born citizen', since it comes at the forefront, and is the nail in the foot to spin on, we should get a SCOTUS ruling on this, and then wend our way word for word down the document... Then the vast panorama of secretive and ancient mystical knowledge will lead us all into enlightened states, and the shithouse lawyering and hyperbolic rhetoric can be fought to the death to save our union on paper from the evil empires that surround us. Mordancy or persiflage?

Owner59 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 9:10:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Mkaes no difference how long ago it was... that is what the term meant. Yes, to answer your your question. SCOTUS just has not defined, or interpreted "natural born citizen". Nor has any federal court, although Minor skirted doing so. "that is what the term meant." In those days. The FF made a system that wasn`t "slaved" to them. That`s why our Constitution was created as amendable(changeable). And there have been a few amendments......since the FF`s days......Yes? So if your point is,that was then,you`re correct. We`re saying that was then and this is now.

DomKen -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/7/2012 11:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: de Vattel was not the only definition of 'natural born' available What other definition was available? quote: Well, we have some proof that Hamilton, (and only proof of Hamilton) had read and sustained some agreements with Emmerich de Vatte We have proof others owned Law of Nations Actually we have proof that none owned a version with the term "natural born citizen" because that english translation did not yet exist and the phrase in the original does not translate into that. At the time the Constitution was written the only English version was a more direct translation that simply used the word 'natives' where the later translation uses natural born which is also what is in the original.

thompsonx -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/8/2012 3:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Jefferson much later than Hamilton, since he went to Paris to chase girls as our ambassador, much like Franklin before him. While it is pretty common knowledge that franklin would fuck a trash can if someone would hold the lid for him jefferson,it is my understanding, was kept on a pretty short leash by sally. Oh yea...who has such common knowledge ? What a bunch of shit. Where are the diaries of B. Franklin gigolo to the french maiden ? The adams biography by macallum quotes adams on franklin quite extensively. Adams opinion of franklin's social pedadillos is quite obvious.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/8/2012 11:09:16 PM)
“citizen by birth” != "natural born citizen" Its doubtful he qualifies for the first but he in no way qualifies for the second.

jlf1961 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 5:19:46 AM)
Let me get this straight, according to some of you birthers, being born in the United States does not grant you citizenship. Although there is one case where SCOTUS clearly said different. The key word to the argument is BORN, considering the definition of the word, then someone born in the United States is a citizen. Another point by your argument is that there is no one that is qualified under the constitution to be president, since the term NATURAL BORN has not been defined. Sorry but you people cannot have it both ways. Being born in the United States grants you citizenship, plain and simple. President had to prove his birth to run for senate and then again for president. By the way, McCain was not born in the United States, he was born in Panama, and no one made a fuss about his right to run for president.

Moonhead -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 5:49:26 AM)
Sorebutt's white, though.

mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 6:58:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne “citizen by birth” != "natural born citizen" Its doubtful he qualifies for the first but he in no way qualifies for the second. Thanks for the minority dissenting opinion. Should I assume that the logic and law leading this dicta is impeccable, but the internet is not sufficient to contain it? Perhaps we should ponder in what manner a man is born, in these; our United States of America.

Owner59 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 7:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "only definition of the term avaiable to the Founding Fathers" That was OVER 200 years ago...... There`s been a few SCOTUS rulings since the founders created the SCOTUS, to make such interpretations......yes? Well that's just it. It no longer matters what the founding fathers said. I mean after all, [they] revolted as much against the Bank of England's monetary system as anything else. And yet from about 120 years later...here we are. What matters now is what the courts say and we can forget the founding fathers until that is of course you are usually right wing and don't like what the court ruled. The federal courts and this court have ruled and that's it...period. But if the contrarian`s ONLY point was that words and terms might have had slightly different meanings and interpretations over two hundred years ago,then he would be correct. So why did he post repeatedly to prove something that goes without saying? If it was to entertain us for a few days......I thank the man.[:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 8:04:41 AM)
Well what we have here so far is that Vattel was owned and read by the preponderance of the framers of the constitution where natural born, or natural born citizen discussion and theory was not remarked upon in that volume. We also learned that the etymology of natural-born had existed for some 200 years prior to the birth of the founding fathers, and Vattel was not the only definition, nor even defined by Vattel. There was also some rubbish quoting stale slices of cheesehead law, now redacted that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything, and a new attempt to forward it again underway. So a plethora of canards have been exposed to the garish light of day, right here on this thread. It may be that some patriotic natural born citizen here who employs himself by practice of the law, might save this thread and give it to whoever is going to argue natural born citizen some ages hence at SCOTUS, to save them some from chasing some williwaws outright in their deliberations.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 8:38:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Let me get this straight, according to some of you birthers, being born in the United States does not grant you citizenship. Although there is one case where SCOTUS clearly said different. The key word to the argument is BORN, considering the definition of the word, then someone born in the United States is a citizen. Another point by your argument is that there is no one that is qualified under the constitution to be president, since the term NATURAL BORN has not been defined. Sorry but you people cannot have it both ways. Being born in the United States grants you citizenship, plain and simple. President had to prove his birth to run for senate and then again for president. By the way, McCain was not born in the United States, he was born in Panama, and no one made a fuss about his right to run for president. it seems the troughers agenda is that all that is required is that someones ass hits US dirt and they are automatically a citizen. not so.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 8:41:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne “citizen by birth” != "natural born citizen" Its doubtful he qualifies for the first but he in no way qualifies for the second. Thanks for the minority dissenting opinion. Should I assume that the logic and law leading this dicta is impeccable, but the internet is not sufficient to contain it? Perhaps we should ponder in what manner a man is born, in these; our United States of America. The historical legacy has already been proven, it does not originate in vattel, so you all can make up whatever story you would like to believe, I am not going to post it again.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne “citizen by birth” != "natural born citizen" Its doubtful he qualifies for the first but he in no way qualifies for the second. Thanks for the minority dissenting opinion. Should I assume that the logic and law leading this dicta is impeccable, but the internet is not sufficient to contain it? Perhaps we should ponder in what manner a man is born, in these; our United States of America. The historical legacy has already been proven, it does not originate in vattel, so you all can make up whatever story you would like to believe, I am not going to post it again. We know it didnt start with Vattel. Try telling that to the birthers. Historial legacy or no, the law is plainly put as to who is considered a natural born citizen. Until, and unless, the SC decides otherwise, that is how it stands. And, frankly, I dont see the definition changing because it could very well affect the citizenship of millions of people.

Owner59 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:22:10 AM)
There`s also another move afoot,from the same lunatic fringe republican crowd that brings us this weirdness, that would put restrictions(not in the law presently)on who could run for POTUS,like requiring both parents be US citizens born inside the US.....which would exclude President Obama from running. If any republican can explain this with anything other than negative terms.......please do so.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:23:16 AM)
the law is title 8 and the laws of hawaii in that time frame. the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been. there are several distinctions between citizen by birth and natural born citizen. unfortunately it was redacted. go fish

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:35:06 AM)
quote: he mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. From the age of 14. At what point is residency given up? How long must one be out of the country to no longer be a resident of that country?

mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:35:59 AM)
Title 8 portions were not redacted they were *repealed, or moved to other titles*. Magnuson act, 1943. Prior to Hawaii entering the union and the birth of Obama. Further, there is no controversy about chinese or 'coolie' 'blood' here, which is what Title 8 was. Nothing you say is factual. Hawaii does not make or determine US Citizenship laws, either. You should learn law rather than espouse nonsense.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875