It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

No you don't, that's not in the Constitution

lostrib

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.Article II section 1

You are mistaken.

No, idiot. It's not in the Constitution that we have to investigate their influences. And not everyone agrees that is how the Constitution should be interpreted

Please tell me how we are to determine the intention of the laws established by the founders without investigating their influences. I really would like to know. Also please tell me what the purpose of a law is if you "interpret" it into being whatever you want it to mean, regardless of what it was actually supposed to mean.
#202 Posted by DroidPhysX (17093 posts) -

Also noticed Lai avoids questions that gets him butthurt.

#203 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[quote="Article II section 1"]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.Laihendi

You are mistaken.

No, idiot. It's not in the Constitution that we have to investigate their influences. And not everyone agrees that is how the Constitution should be interpreted

Please tell me how we are to determine the intention of the laws established by the founders without investigating their influences. I really would like to know. Also please tell me what the purpose of a law is if you "interpret" it into being whatever you want it to mean, regardless of what it was actually supposed to mean.

Please tell me how the Founding Fathers included women's rights, minority rights, slavery, 21st century defense technology, 21st century politics, 21st century medicine and the 21st century economy in their plans.

#204 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So you're in favor of only SELECTIVELY applying the concept of founder original intent when it agrees with your views?

Their views on slavery contradicted their views on individual liberty, which is why it is appropriate to outlaw slavery.

They made their views on slavery perfectly clear, whether they were contradictory or not. Just like they made their views clear on minorities or women voting. The point going over your head is that you cannot simultaneously say that whatever the founder original intent was must be observed 100% while also deciding to ignore clearly stated original intent when you disagree with it.

It doesn't matter how clear they made their views on slavery. Their views on slavery were irrational and they contradicted their value of individual liberty. I am saying what the founders intended with regards to individual liberty must be respected if the constitution is to have any credibility as a legal document, and if the US government is to have any credibility as a governing institution. Even in the case of slavery it had to be formally outlawed with an amendment by following the proper procedures established by the founders.
#205 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Dread Scott v Sandford Knox v Lee Plessy v Ferguson Schenk v United States Nebbia v New York Perry v United States Wickard v Filburn Korematsu v United States United States v Alcoa Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders National Federation of Independent Business v SebeliusLaihendi

I asked for examples of corruption, not rulings that you don't like.

Those rulings are all corrupt because they explicitly contradict the constitution.

Please cite how each case explicitly contradicts the Constitution.

#206 Posted by Abbeten (3132 posts) -
laihendi arguing that the intentions of the founders matter but only insofar as they align with his own beliefs, anything beyond that should be disregarded
#207 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

No, idiot. It's not in the Constitution that we have to investigate their influences. And not everyone agrees that is how the Constitution should be interpreted

jimkabrhel

Please tell me how we are to determine the intention of the laws established by the founders without investigating their influences. I really would like to know. Also please tell me what the purpose of a law is if you "interpret" it into being whatever you want it to mean, regardless of what it was actually supposed to mean.

Please tell me how the Founding Fathers included women's rights, minority rights, slavery, 21st century defense technology, 21st century politics, 21st century medicine and the 21st century economy in their plans.

The US government was founded to protect individual liberties. Women and minorities have almost all of the legal rights white males have, and many legal advantages over white males as well (affirmative action, for example). That is a nonissue. Also it is not the purpose of government to concern itself with technology, medicine, or economics. You are just showing your statist bias. You think the government is made up of supermen who know how to run our lives better than we do. The government doesn't know how to run my life better than I do.
#208 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
I don't think it's racist, it's just stupidity.
#209 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The US government was founded to protect individual liberties

Obviously not since it invalidated more peoples individual liberties from the get go than it does now.
#210 Posted by lostrib (44046 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[quote="Article II section 1"]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.Laihendi

You are mistaken.

No, idiot. It's not in the Constitution that we have to investigate their influences. And not everyone agrees that is how the Constitution should be interpreted

Please tell me how we are to determine the intention of the laws established by the founders without investigating their influences. I really would like to know. Also please tell me what the purpose of a law is if you "interpret" it into being whatever you want it to mean, regardless of what it was actually supposed to mean.

Plenty of people take it as it's written. In addition, you listed two people that you say were influenced by Vattel, but there were like 40 signers of the Constitution and more than that who helped write it at the Constitutional Convention.  Have fun proving that they agree with this idea of natural born citizen, or at least a majority.  In addition, SCOTUS, created by the founding fathers and Constitution to uphold the laws laid out by the Constitution, have defined "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens;" thus making it the law of the land, and until that changes, Obama is a natural born citizen and legitimate President.  Any court cases regarding this have been dismissed by SCOTUS and lower courts.

And more important, this entire conspiracy theory is idiotic, there is nothing to gain from it being right, if that were at all possible.  Just drop it and instead focus on Obama's/Democrats policies, which are actual, justified criticisms 

#211 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Please tell me how we are to determine the intention of the laws established by the founders without investigating their influences. I really would like to know. Also please tell me what the purpose of a law is if you "interpret" it into being whatever you want it to mean, regardless of what it was actually supposed to mean.Laihendi

Please tell me how the Founding Fathers included women's rights, minority rights, slavery, 21st century defense technology, 21st century politics, 21st century medicine and the 21st century economy in their plans.

The US government was founded to protect individual liberties. Women and minorities have almost all of the legal rights white males have, and many legal advantages over white males as well (affirmative action, for example). That is a nonissue. Also it is not the purpose of government to concern itself with technology, medicine, or economics. You are just showing your statist bias. You think the government is made up of supermen who know how to run our lives better than we do. The government doesn't know how to run my life better than I do.

"The US government was founded to protect individual liberties. Women and minorities have almost all of the legal rights white males have."

So the US Government does not protect the individual liberties of women and minorities, as they are not equal to white men.

Do not assume that I explicitly trust everything the government says and does. I do not. I do think that it is the one of the job of the US government to provide oversight for medicine and much techonolgy so that the individual liberties of citizens are not infringed upon by unscrupulous companies who would provide inferior products and serives that would, at best, trick consumers, and at worst, hurt them.

A person who supports the government isn't necessary a blind follower, particularly and education person. Don't make assumptions you cannot support.

#212 Posted by mattbbpl (11052 posts) -
Wait, Laihendi's a birther?
#213 Posted by Planeforger (16392 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

Laihendi

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important. Obama has made it clear that he does not respect those principles.

Obama does not respect personal responsibility. Obama does not respect freedom of speech. Obama does not respect habeas corpus - the concept of being innocent until proven guilty.

I find it a tad bizarre that you'd call a US-born Constitutional Law professor a 'foreigner with no respect for constitutional principles'. Believe me, con law is not something that you'd want to build a career on unless you -really- like the Constitution. Also, habeas corpus isn't the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. The latter is a principle governing the onus of proof in criminal trials, while the latter ensures that the trials take place in the first place. I would imagine that they don't need to exist at the same time.
#214 Posted by Aljosa23 (26209 posts) -

Wait, Laihendi's a birther?mattbbpl
Naw just a really misguided preteen.

#215 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Their views on slavery contradicted their views on individual liberty, which is why it is appropriate to outlaw slavery.

They made their views on slavery perfectly clear, whether they were contradictory or not. Just like they made their views clear on minorities or women voting. The point going over your head is that you cannot simultaneously say that whatever the founder original intent was must be observed 100% while also deciding to ignore clearly stated original intent when you disagree with it.

It doesn't matter how clear they made their views on slavery. Their views on slavery were irrational and they contradicted their value of individual liberty. I am saying what the founders intended with regards to individual liberty must be respected if the constitution is to have any credibility as a legal document, and if the US government is to have any credibility as a governing institution. Even in the case of slavery it had to be formally outlawed with an amendment by following the proper procedures established by the founders.

You're still, either deliberately or not, missing the point. Either founder original intent is basically GOSPEL to be followed RELIGIOUSLY or it is NOT gospel but merely another data point. In which case, EVERYTHING about your argument completely falls apart. If founder original intent is not completely absolute, then searching through some obscure 18th century text for reasons why Obama is disqualified to be president is pointless. As Abbeten so astutely pointed out: You can either argue that Founder Original Intent is the be-all, end-all of everything that matters or not. If it IS all-powerful, then you cannot say things like "their views on slavery were irrational" because their being the founders and their original intent trumps everything. If it is NOT the be-all, end-all of everything, then the Supreme Court swearing Obama into office de-facto makes him qualified to hold the office and you lose your trump card. So either you need to agree with the founders that slavery, denying women and minorities the right to vote, etc. should be upheld because it was "original intent" or you need to accept that Obama is allowed to be president because the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution and they have spoken by swearing him in twice. Logically speaking, those are your two choices. Pick one. Do I expect you to pick one? No. No I do not. But rational people will know that this is the corner you are in.
#216 Posted by themajormayor (24471 posts) -
Maybe not but who cares?
#217 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -
I am so sick of hearing about Obama's motherfvcking birth certificate.
#218 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
I am so sick of hearing about Obama's motherfvcking birth certificate.22Toothpicks
The 11,391st time is the charm. THIS TIME, the American people will acknowledge the massive widespread conspiracy that has no actual evidence to support it and demand that the Kenyan twice elected, Muslim, black-ish usurper be recalled and a true conservatarian paradise shall emerge behind the benevolent leadership of a player to be named later. Nevermind that the opposition went through a hideously long and utterly hilarious Republican primary to come up with someone who best represented their views to oppose and replace Obama followed by several months, billions of dollars of advertisements and millions and millions of votes. The 11,391st time will magically convince everyone to subscribe to OP's beliefs and follow Ayn Rand to the promised land. Of course there also exists the possibility that people peddling this particular brand of utter bullsh1t will look like complete idiots for an 11,391st time. In which case, the 11,392nd time will be the charm.
#219 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -
[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]I am so sick of hearing about Obama's motherfvcking birth certificate.nocoolnamejim
The 11,391st time is the charm. THIS TIME, the American people will acknowledge the massive widespread conspiracy that has no actual evidence to support it and demand that the Kenyan twice elected, Muslim, black-ish usurper be recalled and a true conservatarian paradise shall emerge behind the benevolent leadership of a player to be named later. Nevermind that the opposition went through a hideously long and utterly hilarious Republican primary to come up with someone who best represented their views to oppose and replace Obama followed by several months, billions of dollars of advertisements and millions and millions of votes. The 11,391st time will magically convince everyone to subscribe to OP's beliefs and follow Ayn Rand to the promised land. Of course there also exists the possibility that people peddling this particular brand of utter bullsh1t will look like complete idiots for an 11,391st time. In which case, the 11,392nd time will be the charm.

The accusation not only lacks merit but distracts from real issues. Not to imply that the collective effort of our "leaders" on any matter would lead to results worth mentioning.
#220 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34367 posts) -

Of course not, Just because someone is a f*cking idiot doesn't mean they are always racist.

#221 Posted by osirisx3 (2039 posts) -

why does it matter if he is not from US?

#222 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

why does it matter if he is not from US?

osirisx3
From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution.
#223 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

why does it matter if he is not from US?

nocoolnamejim

From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution.

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

#224 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

I am not saying that he isn't American, I am just saying that it is a legitimate question to ask if he is really a natural born citizen. He was born with dual-citizenship to the UK and the US, and then became a legal citizen of Kenya after it became an independent country. This is due to his father who was never legally recognized as an American citizen. 

This is significant because if we use the definition of natural born citizen established by Emerich de Vattel in his The Law of Nations (a book known to have been read by Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, among other early US politicians) then we see that Obama is actually not a natural citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be president of the US. Since the term "natural citizen" is never explicitly defined in the constitution, we cannot actually know for sure what the founders meant by it, but it is not a stretch to consider that they had Vattel's definition in mind.

[quote="Emerich de Vattel"]The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.Laihendi

Obama's supporters are quick to accuse anyone bringing this up as being racist but this has nothing to do with race - it is a matter of interpreting the laws established by the founders.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#225 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Also, I thought the not being a citizen thing applied to Mexicans, not black people.

#226 Posted by lostrib (44046 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="osirisx3"]

why does it matter if he is not from US?

22Toothpicks

From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution.

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

it's america

#227 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution. lostrib

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

it's america

It sure is.
#228 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

It's not inherently racist, but it often is in practice. The issue would have never gained traction if it wasn't for Obama's "otherness."

#229 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

It's not racist, it's just downright stupid. He's a citizen of this country who's born in Hawaii and that's that. End of story. Kapeesh?

#230 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="osirisx3"]

why does it matter if he is not from US?

22Toothpicks

From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution.

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

But what if Obama's a British double agent who's secretly in cahoots with the British Empire!? :o

#231 Posted by J-man45 (11043 posts) -

Wait....this again? :?

#232 Posted by chaoscougar1 (37158 posts) -
It is if you don't shut up about it And continue to question no matter the evidence to the contrary
#233 Posted by thebest31406 (3638 posts) -
If he was born in the US, then that makes him a citizen. Really dude, your obsession with Obama is too much. And the things you obsess about. The guy is responsible for all sorts of havoc with the drones, the middle east, etc. and you pick this crap to fixate about?
#234 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="osirisx3"]

why does it matter if he is not from US?

22Toothpicks

From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution.

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

America is so messed up today largely because democrats since FDR have been incorporating European-style statist-socialism into the government. We were doing well back when we actually followed the constitution somewhat.
#235 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]I am so sick of hearing about Obama's motherfvcking birth certificate.nocoolnamejim
The 11,391st time is the charm. THIS TIME, the American people will acknowledge the massive widespread conspiracy that has no actual evidence to support it and demand that the Kenyan twice elected, Muslim, black-ish usurper be recalled and a true conservatarian paradise shall emerge behind the benevolent leadership of a player to be named later. Nevermind that the opposition went through a hideously long and utterly hilarious Republican primary to come up with someone who best represented their views to oppose and replace Obama followed by several months, billions of dollars of advertisements and millions and millions of votes. The 11,391st time will magically convince everyone to subscribe to OP's beliefs and follow Ayn Rand to the promised land. Of course there also exists the possibility that people peddling this particular brand of utter bullsh1t will look like complete idiots for an 11,391st time. In which case, the 11,392nd time will be the charm.

Great societies are the result of uninhibited individuals taking responsibility for their lives, not "benevolent leadership" from politicians. And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.
#236 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] It doesn't matter what nationality Emerich de Vattel was of, because the reason he is important is because he was a major influence on the founders. You can deny the possibility of ever understanding the founders' intentions and not even try, or you can look at history and make an educated guess. That is what I am doing.

I've seen more or less the same argument from people who tell me that it's bad that schools took prayer out because the founding fathers were influenced by Christianity. The founding fathers were influenced by sources as far-ranging as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Machiavelli. That doesn't mean I can say that laws as they stand are invalid because they contradict The Prince.

School prayer is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The requirement of being a natural-born citizen to be president is, and to understand what they meant by natural-born citizen we have to investigate their influences.

Oooooor we could just go by, y'know... the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Ipso facto, natural born. Even going by your logic, well, his mother was a US citizen. I don't see why it *has* to be the father, except that the dude you're quoting is an old patriarchal fart. So yeah. You really got nothing.
#238 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.Laihendi

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

#239 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I've seen more or less the same argument from people who tell me that it's bad that schools took prayer out because the founding fathers were influenced by Christianity. The founding fathers were influenced by sources as far-ranging as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Machiavelli. That doesn't mean I can say that laws as they stand are invalid because they contradict The Prince.

School prayer is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The requirement of being a natural-born citizen to be president is, and to understand what they meant by natural-born citizen we have to investigate their influences.

Oooooor we could just go by, y'know... the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Ipso facto, natural born. Even going by your logic, well, his mother was a US citizen. I don't see why it *has* to be the father, except that the dude you're quoting is an old patriarchal fart. So yeah. You really got nothing.

There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. According to de Vattel both of Obama's parents would have to be citizens for him to be classified as a natural-born citizen. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but the constitution explicitly states that he must be a natural-born citizen.
#240 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.worlock77

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

+1

#241 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]School prayer is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The requirement of being a natural-born citizen to be president is, and to understand what they meant by natural-born citizen we have to investigate their influences.Laihendi
Oooooor we could just go by, y'know... the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Ipso facto, natural born. Even going by your logic, well, his mother was a US citizen. I don't see why it *has* to be the father, except that the dude you're quoting is an old patriarchal fart. So yeah. You really got nothing.

There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. According to de Vattel both of Obama's parents would have to be citizens for him to be classified as a natural-born citizen. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but the constitution explicitly states that he must be a natural-born citizen.

No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

#242 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.worlock77

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

De Vattel is relevant here because he was a major influence on prominent US political figures from that time, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
#243 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -
[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] From a legal standpoint, it would disqualify him to be president if he was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" per the U.S. Constitution. Laihendi

Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...

America is so messed up today largely because democrats since FDR have been incorporating European-style statist-socialism into the government. We were doing well back when we actually followed the constitution somewhat.

No, America is messed up today because of this bipartisan BULLSH*T that leads to asshats like you falling into a pit of unrelenting, unwillingness to compromise. Take a look in the mirror; EVERYONE, both Republicans and Democrats, is/are (?) at fault for this mess.
#244 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.Laihendi

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

De Vattel is relevant here because he was a major influence on prominent US political figures from that time, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

No, he isn't. He really isn't.
#245 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Oooooor we could just go by, y'know... the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Ipso facto, natural born. Even going by your logic, well, his mother was a US citizen. I don't see why it *has* to be the father, except that the dude you're quoting is an old patriarchal fart. So yeah. You really got nothing.PannicAtack

There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. According to de Vattel both of Obama's parents would have to be citizens for him to be classified as a natural-born citizen. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but the constitution explicitly states that he must be a natural-born citizen.

No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.
#246 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. According to de Vattel both of Obama's parents would have to be citizens for him to be classified as a natural-born citizen. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but the constitution explicitly states that he must be a natural-born citizen.Laihendi

No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.

But our legal system has seen fit to define it as such. So no. Vattel isn't really relevant.
#247 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]And this isn't a matter of evidence or conspiracy. Obama is arguably not a natural born citizen, because a legitimate interpretation of natural-born citizen (with regards to American law) requires both parents to be citizens as well. Obama's father was never a US citizen.Laihendi

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

De Vattel is relevant here because he was a major influence on prominent US political figures from that time, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

No, he is not relevant. That he may have influenced Washington, Franklin or whoever else is not relevant. His words are not the law of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had intended that the father be a US citizen in order for a person to be a "Natural Born" citizen then they would have wrote such requirement into the Constitution.

#248 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Which is a crock IMO. We've never had anything but American born leaders attempting to institute their American ideas into our American brains and look at where it's gotten us; give someone else a whack at it...22Toothpicks
America is so messed up today largely because democrats since FDR have been incorporating European-style statist-socialism into the government. We were doing well back when we actually followed the constitution somewhat.

No, America is messed up today because of this bipartisan BULLSH*T that leads to asshats like you falling into a pit of unrelenting, unwillingness to compromise. Take a look in the mirror; EVERYONE, both Republicans and Democrats, is/are (?) at fault for this mess.

Democrats and republicans are, but libertarians are not. The libertarian party is the only significant party that is both (1) not implementing policies that are destroying this country, and (2) not advocating policies that will destroy this country if implemented. If you compromise your principles then you don't have any principles at all. Statism has been growing at a huge rate since FDR. Today this country is farther away from being free than it has ever been.
#249 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]There is a difference between being a citizen and a natural-born citizen. According to de Vattel both of Obama's parents would have to be citizens for him to be classified as a natural-born citizen. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but the constitution explicitly states that he must be a natural-born citizen.Laihendi

No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.

Yeah like we do on the whole 2nd amendment debate and that is going so swimmingly well...
#250 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

PannicAtack
The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.

But our legal system has seen fit to define it as such. So no. Vattel isn't really relevant.

A legal system is not legitimate if it doesn't even acknowledge the intentions of the people that created it.