It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

[QUOTE="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).

Nibroc420

conservativez are so desperate to hate on a black man they'll come up with the worst arguments.

This is one of the few political threads worth getting caught up with. So much good stuff.

Thanks, Lai. You'll be getting some awards next year.

By the way, nothing you have offered is significant evidence that Obama isn't a US Citizen. And you have stated that there are good parts and bad parts of the Consitution, and analyzing it should be subjective.

Thank you, take a bow.

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

I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen. The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.Laihendi

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen. The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.LostProphetFLCL

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen. The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.Laihendi

Again, Emerich de Vattel's book is not the law of the United States. And no, a few of the Founders reading his book does not make him an important figure in the development of the US government. Now go stand in the corner until your name is called.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen. The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.LostProphetFLCL

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

Laihendi's not even arguing about his birth cirtificate or his place of birth. At least try to understand what his argument actually is.

(And f*ck you for making me stick up for Laihendi).

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen. The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.Laihendi

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

What else do you need?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen.

The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.Abbeten

I recommend that you read Plato's Crito because he addresses this concept in it.

and since he was born just 2 years after Hawaii became a state they probably were not very organized with their record keeping at that point since it was all new.Laihendi

.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]you are beyond stupid.

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

LostProphetFLCL

What else do you need?

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am not saying Obama isn't a US citizen, I am saying that it is arguable that he is not a natural-born citizen. The constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen" which means external sources must be referred to in order to understand what it means. Emerich de Vattel is an important figure in the development of the US government, and by his definition a person's parents must both be citizens of that country for him to qualify as a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was never a US citizen.

The constitution explicitly states that a person must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for president.Laihendi

I recommend that you read Plato's Crito because he addresses this concept in it.

Their intentions were that blacks were not citizens and could be kept as property and that only white male landowners could vote. If we don't respect those two things then the Constitution is meaningless.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]you are beyond stupid.

Somebody posted a pic of his birth certificate last page.

LostProphetFLCL

What else do you need?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]
this is both extremely tenuous AND completely pointless because the intentions of the founders mean basically nothingworlock77

I recommend that you read Plato's Crito because he addresses this concept in it.

Their intentions were that blacks were not citizens and could be kept as property and that only white male landowners could vote. If we don't respect those two things then the Constitution is meaningless.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

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.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

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

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Whoever wrote that was either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring de Vattel's Law of Nations.Laihendi

The "born as a citizen = natural-born citizen" thing has precedent. It has been a precedent in our country for nearly one-hundred-seventy years. A line from a book that George Washington read does not trump one-hundred-seventy years of legal precedent.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]and since he was born just 2 years after Hawaii became a state they probably were not very organized with their record keeping at that point since it was all new.worlock77

.

@ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.Laihendi

I'm not making any claims to what they had in mind by "natural born citizen". You are. And you're making that claim without anything to substantiate it. The fact is all you're doing is speculating, nothing more. In regards to the law speculation doesn't amount to sh*t. No, that some of them may have read a book is not evidence that they had a certain definition in mind. If the Founders had a specific definition of "natural born citizen" in mind then they should have included it. They did not, thus they left it up to future generations of Americans to interpret what the phrase means. Future generations have.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] ... You have no idea how our legal system works, do you?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] You are completely missing what I am saying. I am not questioning that Obama was born in the United States. I am saying that him being born in the US does not necessarily make him a natural-born citizen since his father was not a US citizen. Even if his birth certificate was the issue, that wouldn't mean much a man with the networking necessary to become president could easily have a birth certificate forged, and since he was born just 2 years after Hawaii became a state they probably were not very organized with their record keeping at that point since it was all new. But that is not even the point I am making.Laihendi

What else do you need?

Court decision

god you're stupid. add racist to that now.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] You are completely missing what I am saying. I am not questioning that Obama was born in the United States. I am saying that him being born in the US does not necessarily make him a natural-born citizen since his father was not a US citizen. Even if his birth certificate was the issue, that wouldn't mean much a man with the networking necessary to become president could easily have a birth certificate forged, and since he was born just 2 years after Hawaii became a state they probably were not very organized with their record keeping at that point since it was all new. But that is not even the point I am making.Laihendi

What else do you need?

By that definition, you idiot, none of the founding fathers who later became presidents were in fact eligible to do so.  Almost all of them (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, (later): Quincy Adams, Jackson, Harrison etc) were NOT born in the United States.  They were born in British colonies, to BRITISH CITIZENS.  And even later presidents up through the MID 1850s were STILL being born from NATURAL-BORN BRITISH CITIZENS (that is people born in the colonies PRIOR to 1776).

Your entire argument is based on the fact that some founders had studied Vattel. Just because someone is a student of something doesn't make that their view you god damn f-cking idiot. 

It does not matter what the supreme court ruled if they were wrong.Laihendi

Yup. The Justices of the Supreme court, people who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding the law and the Constitution, who have decades of experience in legal practice have all got it wrong. You, a teenager still living off mom and dad, have got it right. I don't understand why we don't just scrap the SCOTUS and install you as the nation's ultimate legal arbitrator.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]@ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.worlock77

I'm not making any claims to what they had in mind by "natural born citizen". You are. And you're making that claim without anything to substantiate it. The fact is all you're doing is speculating, nothing more. In regards to the law speculation doesn't amount to sh*t. No, that some of them may have read a book is not evidence that they had a certain definition in mind. If the Founders had a specific definition of "natural born citizen" in mind then they should have included it. They did not, thus they left it up to future generations of Americans to interpret what the phrase means. Future generations have.

@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

The thing is, its not debatable.  Only to morons like you who use leaps of logic that defy common sense and rationality. 

The intentions of the founders mean everything.Laihendi

If we keep this thread going, Lai might actually catch his own tail.

Apart from reading, have you taken constitutional law classes, Lai?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Citing common law at the time the constitution was written is meaningless. Common law is established precedent within a legal institution. This legal institution did not even exist at that point. There was no common law at that point, there was only British law which they were rejecting.Laihendi

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]@ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.Laihendi

I'm not making any claims to what they had in mind by "natural born citizen". You are. And you're making that claim without anything to substantiate it. The fact is all you're doing is speculating, nothing more. In regards to the law speculation doesn't amount to sh*t. No, that some of them may have read a book is not evidence that they had a certain definition in mind. If the Founders had a specific definition of "natural born citizen" in mind then they should have included it. They did not, thus they left it up to future generations of Americans to interpret what the phrase means. Future generations have.

 - Whether that was their intenet or not that is the effect. They never defined what "natural born citizen" means, so that leaves it open to interpretation regardless of what they had in mind.

- How exactly am I contradicting myself? Really.

- "I admit I do not have proof that they had de Vattle in mind..." - Then you gotta admit that your entire argument is nothing but speculative bullsh*t.

Apart from reading, have you taken constitutional law classes, Lai?

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]being born in the us would make him a natural born citizen derp.

What else do you need?

MakeMeaSammitch

Court decision

god you're stupid. add racist to that now.

Oh and considering the early United States designed much of its government around the British system (fixing what they felt it lacked)... Why don't we look at the British ideals of a natural-born citizen of the day (something EXPONENTIALLY FAR AND BEYOND HOLY SH-T LAI YOU ARE RETARDED beyond what you have suggested influenced them (Vattel).

Let's see here (from Calvin's Case - 1608):

"A person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birtha person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."

But you seem to be of the retarded ideal that the founders took what they had known and accepted their entire lives, threw it out, and adopted a system from an obscure Swiss philosopher, a system which itself made ALL of them ineligible for the offices they were creating.

You, sir, are so far removed from reality that it is sad.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No it does not necessarily make him a natural born citizen. De Vattel explicitly states that a person must also be the child of two citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was not a US citizen. @ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.Laihendi

Court decision

god you're stupid. add racist to that now.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]being born in the us would make him a natural born citizen derp.

What else do you need?

Squeets

By that definition, you idiot, none of the founding fathers who later became presidents were in fact eligible to do so.  Almost all of them (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, (later): Quincy Adams, Jackson, Harrison etc) were NOT born in the United States.  They were born in British colonies, to BRITISH CITIZENS.  And even later presidents up through the MID 1850s were STILL being born from NATURAL-BORN BRITISH CITIZENS (that is people born in the colonies PRIOR to 1776).

Your entire argument is based on the fact that some founders had studied Vattel. Just because someone is a student of something doesn't make that their view you god damn f-cking idiot. 

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The intentions of the founders mean everything.SulIy

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No it does not necessarily make him a natural born citizen. De Vattel explicitly states that a person must also be the child of two citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was not a US citizen. @ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.Laihendi

By that definition, you idiot, none of the founding fathers who later became presidents were in fact eligible to do so.  Almost all of them (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, (later): Quincy Adams, Jackson, Harrison etc) were NOT born in the United States.  They were born in British colonies, to BRITISH CITIZENS.  And even later presidents up through the MID 1850s were STILL being born from NATURAL-BORN BRITISH CITIZENS (that is people born in the colonies PRIOR to 1776).

Your entire argument is based on the fact that some founders had studied Vattel. Just because someone is a student of something doesn't make that their view you god damn f-cking idiot. 

I have provided an alternative, BRITISH LAW.

[QUOTE="SulIy"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]The intentions of the founders mean everything.Laihendi

God, this thread sucks.

If you would actually read the constitution then you would see that they specifically said that those who were citizens at the time the constitution was adopted were eligible to be president in addition to native-born citizens. And if you have evidence of an alternative interpretation of natural-born citizen that they may have had then please present it.Laihendi

No, a natural born citizen does not require both parents to be natural born citizens.

Such a thing would result in zero "natural born citizens", because even the Native Americans living in North America immigrated there.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you would actually read the constitution then you would see that they specifically said that those who were citizens at the time the constitution was adopted were eligible to be president in addition to native-born citizens. And if you have evidence of an alternative interpretation of natural-born citizen that they may have had then please present it.Nibroc420

No, a natural born citizen does not require both parents to be natural born citizens.

Such a thing would result in zero "natural born citizens", because even the Native Americans living in North America immigrated there.

Anyway, Laihendi, just admit that you're wrong. It's what a rational person would do in this case.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you would actually read the constitution then you would see that they specifically said that those who were citizens at the time the constitution was adopted were eligible to be president in addition to native-born citizens. And if you have evidence of an alternative interpretation of natural-born citizen that they may have had then please present it.PannicAtack

No, a natural born citizen does not require both parents to be natural born citizens.

Such a thing would result in zero "natural born citizens", because even the Native Americans living in North America immigrated there.

Anyway, Laihendi, just admit that you're wrong. It's what a rational person would do in this case.

You know it won't happen.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No it does not necessarily make him a natural born citizen. De Vattel explicitly states that a person must also be the child of two citizens for him to be a natural-born citizen. Obama's father was not a US citizen. @ Warlock - Do you have evidence of a different interpretation of "natural-born citizen" that the founders had? They never explicitly stated what they meant by it, and since de Vattel was an influential figure that is evidence that they had his definition in mind. I would be interested to see evidence of an alternative interpretation that they may have had.Laihendi

Court decision

god you're stupid. add racist to that now.