hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
I thought, as a businessman and an amateur economist, that there were some signs of a bottoming in the past few months. But now I am not at all sure about that.
there was a couple of months of increased optimism and spending by consumers, but this has gone away. There was never anything more solid than that, and now that almost all governments are racing to cut budgets look out.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:58 pm
@ican711nm,
No matter what kind of metric was used to determine support for a repeal of the health care bill - the current result confirms what has been said about the waning opposition to the bill: this is the lowest number of people favoring a repeal since Rasmussen started polling "Likely Voters" about this issue, right after the bill was signed.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:50 pm
I hate to bring up a dead topic, and I sure thought that this was settled, but I just saw this article...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=172889

Quote:
Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president and may not even be American.

The federal court case, brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of plaintiffs Charles Kerchner and others, had been dismissed at the district court level.

Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently canceled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.

A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, appointed by George W. Bush.


Now I thought this lunacy had been closed, and I know the birthers are a bunch of idiots.

But if this article is true, it would seem to lend some semblance of legitimacy to the birthers arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1948
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:08 pm
@mysteryman,
I liked the part in the link you cited where they start trying to sell their video. And then they make another pitch a bit later on.
Maybe we could make and sell some videos about A2K members.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:35 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
But if this article is true, it would seem to lend some semblance of legitimacy to the birthers arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1948

How?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:56 am
@joefromchicago,
It looks like this is their argument joe

Quote:
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.


I wonder how Scalia would rule on that one being an originalist.

But of course we can't forget this part -
Quote:
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because you know, I had to send all those in when I applied for my US passport.


I'm surprised they haven't noted that we have never seen Obama's green card.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 09:06 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

It looks like this is their argument joe

Quote:
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.


Ah, I see. But the notion of "dual citizenship" wasn't really well-developed in the 18th century -- indeed, the whole notion of "citizenship" was rather unsettled at that time. Nations, for instance, didn't start issuing passports until the late 19th century. The idea that the drafters of the constitution would have excluded someone with "dual citizenship" from being considered a "natural-born citizen" is, therefore, just another birther fantasy.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 09:28 am
@parados,
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-receives.html

Quote:
First, they argue that the Founders' and Framers' definition of a "natural born Citizen" may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. The Kerchner plaintiffs maintain that under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.

Second, they also argue that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and that even if he were born in the United States, at most he is a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" but not an Article II "natural born Citizen."


Just more Birther nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:58 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I hate to bring up a dead topic,

Sure you do Laughing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 11:03 am
@joefromchicago,
I believe the Marquis de Lafayette was accorded the citizenship of several of the United States, but not of the United States itself. Founding-era notions of nationality were as straightforward as a collateralized debt obligations are today.
Below viewing threshold (view)
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I'm surprised they haven't noted that we have never seen Obama's green card.

Maybe thats why he is opposing Arizona's efforts to enforce the law down there? Ha ha. I doubt Obama could even get a green card if he needed one.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:19 pm
@Thomas,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Quote:
The phrase "the United States" was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States".[15]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:33 pm
@Thomas,
Prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment, there really wasn't any "American citizenship." Instead, if you were a citizen of a state, then you were perforce a citizen of the United States. The only people who were "American citizens" were naturalized citizens. That actually was one of the issues in the Dred Scott case -- whether a slave, who couldn't be a state citizen, could nevertheless be a citizen of the US. Chief Justice Taney answered with a pretty definitive "no."

The 14th amendment, of course, changed all of that. Now, a person is a citizen of the US if they're born in the US. Furthermore, there's no rational distinction between the "natural born Citizen" in Art. II of the constitution and the "persons born ... in the United States" in Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment, and no one has, to my knowledge, attempted to make a distinction until now. Both clauses are referring to the same kind of "citizen."
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 03:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
The 14th Amendment was adopted 7/9/1868, 142 years ago.

The Constitution was instituted March 4, 1789, 221 years ago, and included
Quote:
Article II. Section 1., 5th paragraph
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.

Quote:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It took our evolving government 241- 142 = 99 years and a civil war to come up with the 14th Amendment.

Better late than never!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 03:23 pm
@joefromchicago,
My assumption has always that if a person didn't need to be naturalized to become a citizen, the were a natural born citizen. Is that approach too simple?
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 03:36 pm
@roger,
Not too simple, but too logical. Clearly, you wouldn't make a very good birther.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 04:04 pm
@mysteryman,
I don't know if there's any actual substance to the charges made about his birth, but I don't really care. He was fairly, though foolishly, elected, and if, by some strange circumstance he doesn't qualify as a natural born citizen, it's not that big of a deal.

If there is any proof that's he's not natural born, it will have to be absolutely rock solid in order for any action to even be considered.

I can hardly imagine the the state of things if some sort of serious action was taken.

I think it's probably all bunk, but if it's not, better it just stay buried.
okie
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 04:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know if there's any actual substance to the charges made about his birth, but I don't really care. He was fairly, though foolishly, elected, and if, by some strange circumstance he doesn't qualify as a natural born citizen, it's not that big of a deal.

If there is any proof that's he's not natural born, it will have to be absolutely rock solid in order for any action to even be considered.

I think that every American citizen should think its a big deal. After all, such may explain why Obama doesn't really act or talk like he is American, he is constantly apologizing for the country, and from the time he started campaigning, his entire mantra was wanting to change the country from what it was to some vague notion of what he wants it to be. So I think laws in regard to citizenship in order to run for president have very real and applicable reasons behind them.

But you are correct, if anything ever emerges that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama did not qualify to run for president, the Democrats and the press will go into full circle the wagons mode, and most of his voters or most avid supporters would probably go to the streets, so this issue is potentially a very dangerous issue for the country. And if such should ever happen, I think the blame falls squarely upon the liberal press that has not done its homework and continues not to do their homework in regard to Democrats.
parados
 
  7  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 04:34 pm
@okie,
Quote:
And if such should ever happen, I think the blame falls squarely upon the liberal press that has not done its homework and continues not to do their homework in regard to Democrats.

And if it doesn't happen, I am sure you will blame the liberal press and the Democrats for hiding something that no one can show exists.

The cognitive dissonance has to be making you sick okie.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1704
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2018 at 06:49:27