It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages is your justification? There is no supporting evidence for you in our Constitution. I am sure they would of made to clear as its the highest position a single person can get within our nation (but apparently despite them being so thorough, they decided to leave it out).

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.Laihendi

And I didn't say he didn't agree with any of it (reading comprehension is key). Neither of us knows the extent to which he agreed with it, so the point is boot. 

No, it is not debatable. You have no evidence that Vattel's views of natural born citizenship had any bearing on our constitution/laws.

He might have taken Vattel's ideas seriously, but there is no evidence that he intended for Vattel's idea about natural born citizenship to inform our constitution/laws. Also, taking one's ideas seriously doesn't=agreeing with all of them. It is perfectly possible for one to take an idea seriously, but still disagree with it. Not to mention that there is no evidence that he took every single one of this ideas seriously anyway.

You are merely speculating with zero evidence.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?NEWMAHAY

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

Laihendi

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

You are quite literally the stupidest person.

He came out of a vagina in a state within the United States of America.

Just shut the f-ck up.  I mean honestly... Are you retarded?

Want to talk about citizenship in regards to running for president?  John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008.  He was born in Panama.  Military bases are NOT US soil.  Status of Forces Agreements determine the jurisdiction of US military abroad.  Well McCain was born in 1936.  Not only was there no status of forces agreement, there was no Panama.  It was an unorganized territory, meaning it was clearly defined as NOT part of the United States.  And he was born there.  Does that sound like natural born US-Citizen?  Born in a territory specifically designated by the government as NOT part of the US.

Now you turn around with your retarded idiocy and tell me that because his white American parents had him, he is a natural born citizen.

Thanks Laihendi, also f-ck you, you are an idiot.

You are merely speculating with zero evidence.

GreySeal9

you still havent said what is to gain form this debate

you still havent said what is to gain form this debate

lostrib

Laihendi went full retard What a character

Yes, the only people who question it are racist.

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

 

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages are your justification?

 

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

NEWMAHAY

Even if you could (and you can't) prove that that's what the founding fathers actually meant, it wouldn't matter, because (fun fact!) our legal system is based around precedence as much as statutes.

In other words: a court ruling? That is applicable to interpreting the law.

and since one of the ideas is a definition for natural-born citizenship that Obama does not match, that is why the legitimacy of his presidency is debatable.Laihendi

There is no supporting evidence for you in our Constitution. I am sure they would of made to clear as its the highest position a single person can get within our nation (but apparently despite them being so thorough, they decided to leave it out).

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

Squeets

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

You are quite literally the stupidest person.

He came out of a vagina in a state within the United States of America.

Just shut the f-ck up.  I mean honestly... Are you retarded?

Want to talk about citizenship in regards to running for president?  John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008.  He was born in Panama.  Military bases are NOT US soil.  Status of Forces Agreements determine the jurisdiction of US military abroad.  Well McCain was born in 1936.  Not only was there no status of forces agreement, there was no Panama.  It was an unorganized territory, meaning it was clearly defined as NOT part of the United States.  And he was born there.  Does that sound like natural born US-Citizen?  Born in a territory specifically designated by the government as NOT part of the US.

Now you turn around with your retarded idiocy and tell me that because his white American parents had him, he is a natural born citizen.

Thanks Laihendi, also f-ck you, you are an idiot.

[QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

 

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages are your justification?

 

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

Laihendi

That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

Laihendi

You are quite literally the stupidest person.

He came out of a vagina in a state within the United States of America.

Just shut the f-ck up.  I mean honestly... Are you retarded?

Want to talk about citizenship in regards to running for president?  John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008.  He was born in Panama.  Military bases are NOT US soil.  Status of Forces Agreements determine the jurisdiction of US military abroad.  Well McCain was born in 1936.  Not only was there no status of forces agreement, there was no Panama.  It was an unorganized territory, meaning it was clearly defined as NOT part of the United States.  And he was born there.  Does that sound like natural born US-Citizen?  Born in a territory specifically designated by the government as NOT part of the US.

Now you turn around with your retarded idiocy and tell me that because his white American parents had him, he is a natural born citizen.

Thanks Laihendi, also f-ck you, you are an idiot.

Okay, but what is the use of debating his legitimacy, which has already been settled by the courts of course

[QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

 

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages are your justification?

 

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Squeets"]

You are quite literally the stupidest person.

He came out of a vagina in a state within the United States of America.

Just shut the f-ck up.  I mean honestly... Are you retarded?

Want to talk about citizenship in regards to running for president?  John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008.  He was born in Panama.  Military bases are NOT US soil.  Status of Forces Agreements determine the jurisdiction of US military abroad.  Well McCain was born in 1936.  Not only was there no status of forces agreement, there was no Panama.  It was an unorganized territory, meaning it was clearly defined as NOT part of the United States.  And he was born there.  Does that sound like natural born US-Citizen?  Born in a territory specifically designated by the government as NOT part of the US.

Now you turn around with your retarded idiocy and tell me that because his white American parents had him, he is a natural born citizen.

Thanks Laihendi, also f-ck you, you are an idiot.

lostrib

Okay, but what is the use of debating his legitimacy, which has already been settled by the courts of course

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

 

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages are your justification?

 

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] McCain is not an issue because he is not president and he will never be president. @lostrib - The purpose is to explain why the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is debatable and to clarify that it has nothing to do with racism.Laihendi

Okay, but what is the use of debating his legitimacy, which has already been settled by the courts of course

Okay, still what is the point of debating the legitimacy

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

So by this logical, since George Washington went to church and read the bible, he completely agrees with every passage?

 

The book was 900 pages and covered so many topics within it. You claim that a few sentences for the hundreds in pages are your justification?

 

You have level of the intellegence that Banjo did when he was here. You're making me miss his stupidity.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I doubt Washington agreed with everything in the bible, but it would be foolish to believe that he didn't agree with anything considering he made the effort to go to church and read the bible, just as he made the effort to read de Vattel's Law of Nations during his first day as president. It would be foolish to assume he didn't agree with anything in that book. We can reasonably assume that he agreed with some ideas in the books, and since one of the ideas is a definition for natural-born citizenship that Obama does not match, that is why the legitimacy of his presidency is debatable.Laihendi

That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I doubt Washington agreed with everything in the bible, but it would be foolish to believe that he didn't agree with anything considering he made the effort to go to church and read the bible, just as he made the effort to read de Vattel's Law of Nations during his first day as president. It would be foolish to assume he didn't agree with anything in that book. We can reasonably assume that he agreed with some ideas in the books, and since one of the ideas is a definition for natural-born citizenship that Obama does not match, that is why the legitimacy of his presidency is debatable.Laihendi

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

Laihendi

Lots of things are possible. "Possible" does not an argument make.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I doubt Washington agreed with everything in the bible, but it would be foolish to believe that he didn't agree with anything considering he made the effort to go to church and read the bible, just as he made the effort to read de Vattel's Law of Nations during his first day as president. It would be foolish to assume he didn't agree with anything in that book. We can reasonably assume that he agreed with some ideas in the books, and since one of the ideas is a definition for natural-born citizenship that Obama does not match, that is why the legitimacy of his presidency is debatable.Laihendi

That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

Laihendi

Him reading it doesnt prove anything. Perhaps he didnt agree with any of it, who knows if he even finished it

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] George Washington believes stoning women who were raped who refuse to marry their rapist is the right thing to do. We know he read the bible. If he read it then he must agree with some parts of it. As he agrees with some parts of it we know George Washington supported the systematic murder of victims of rape. This is why your argument is retarded. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]That logic is dumb.

You need to provide evidence that the founding fathers intended for Vattel's idea to inform our laws/constitution. If you cannot, then you have no argument, and this issue being debatable neccesitates that you have a sound argument.

GreySeal9

Lots of things are possible. "Possible" does not an argument make.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] McCain is not an issue because he is not president and he will never be president. @lostrib - The purpose is to explain why the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is debatable and to clarify that it has nothing to do with racism.Laihendi

Okay, but what is the use of debating his legitimacy, which has already been settled by the courts of course

What is it that your retarded self is looking for here?  What is it that your sub-human brain has trouble comprehending?

He was both born to an American citizen (Ann Dunham) and born in a state of the United States of America?

WHAT ABOUT THIS CAUSES YOUR FEEBLE LITTLE MIND TO NOT COMPREHEND THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN?

I mean honestly, my not-friend, your lack of intelligence is quite literally baffling.

How many people were involved in making the constitution? Please tell me.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]You are just making stuff up. I never said that Washington agreed with de Vattel's definition of natural-born citizen, I am just saying that we have to consider the possibility that he did.Laihendi

Once again, what help is it debating the legitimacy of obama's presidency?

Did a bit of research and found this: Lynch vs Clarke, 1844.

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]You are just making stuff up. I never said that Washington agreed with de Vattel's definition of natural-born citizen, I am just saying that we have to consider the possibility that he did.Laihendi

Now was Hawaii a U.S state on August 4, 1961 at 7:24pm? Yes...

 Stop being an idiot

I like how somehow you think you know better than the Supreme Court, who are literally experts on the Constitution

Did a bit of research and found this: Lynch vs Clarke, 1844.

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.PannicAtack

how is lai so stupid?

Stay in school TC.

Did a bit of research and found this: Lynch vs Clarke, 1844.

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.PannicAtack

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

But the TC will just attack the constitution and the power of the judicial branch based on a baseless accusation.

Though some people would have you believe otherwise, it is not racist to question Obama at all (good thing, because there's plenty to question).

Though some people would have you believe otherwise, it is not racist to question Obama at all (good thing, because there's plenty to question).

MathMattS

Though some people would have you believe otherwise, it is not racist to question Obama at all (good thing, because there's plenty to question).MathMattS

Questioning is fine, within reason. It's one of the cornerstones of good governance, and all that.

Even so...this particular issue was resolved a while ago (was it not?), and it only seems to be wasting everyone's time. Perhaps the nation would be better off if people start discussing his policies once again, rather than attempting to refute the evidence in his birth certificate?

Also, I wouldn't call it inherently racist to question anything about Obama's presidency, but it should be absolutely clear that at least some of these complaints are actuated by racism.

For that matter...I'm betting that none of the 'Constitutional purists' here would be bringing up the natural born citizen complaint, had Obama been on their side of the political spectrum. People only seem to care about such things when it benefits themselves.

Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born. gamerguru100

I demand Obama show his real birth certificate!!

[spoiler] Its a joke [/spoiler]