Originally posted by Bosse de NageAs far as I can tell, all you need are an one African polygamist, one crazy white woman who wants to push her father's buttons, some Affirmative Action, three years of Harvard Law School, some Saul Alinsky and a bunch of Michelle Robinson, mix together with corrupt Chicago politics, Louis Farrakahn, Rev. Wright, William Ayers and Tony Rezko, then season with Acorn, Big Labor, teachers unions, trial lawyers, George Soros, MoveOn.org and a whole host of left-wing hate groups and voila, Obama Surprise!
What are the ingredients of the soul-food dish 'Obama Surprise'?
Originally posted by CliffLandinguys, get the spelling right, the word is IDOL
McCain is a sleeper agent. Didn't you read the Manchurian Candidate?
Why do you think that he didn't come back in '67 when he was given the opportunity? He was brain washed.
Who do you think is funding his campaign? Viet Nam, of course.
As soon as he takes office he is going to turn us all into communists and pronounce Nguyen Minh Triet preside ...[text shortened]... ing aside, he didn't want the truth to be known.
Why don't you ask your idle about that?
🙄
Originally posted by NemesioA) The statute says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" Whether that equates to a "natural born citizen" is debatable;
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html
[/i][One is a natural citizen if s/he is] a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen
of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically ...[text shortened]... rica for
over five years (two of which were after 14), Obama is a natural citizen.
Nemesio
B) The statute was apparently enacted in the early 1930's. Therefore, it sheds little light on what the Framers intended when they required that the President must be a "natural born citizen". We know from the Constitutional debates that they did not want a situation like England where German princes (some who could not even speak English)became kings. This concern does not seem particularly relevant even in the highly unlikely event Obama was born in Kenya. A strict reading might disqualify him in that scenario, but it would also probably disqualify McCain as well (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone).
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's rich -- you quoting the Constitution -- when every chance you get, you bash America and celebrate detestable people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who mock basic freedoms.
A) The statute says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" Whether that equates to a "natural born citizen" is debatable;
B) The statute was apparently enacted in the early 1930's. Therefore, it sheds little light on what the Framers intended when they required that the President must be a "natural born citizen ...[text shortened]... it would also probably disqualify McCain as well (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone).
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI quote the Constitution all the time; unlike you I've actually read it. The Framers would punch a neo-Nazi like you in the mouth.
That's rich -- you quoting the Constitution -- when every chance you get, you bash America and celebrate detestable people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who mock basic freedoms.
Originally posted by no1marauder
A) The statute says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" Whether that equates to a "natural born citizen" is debatable;
This is very interesting. The way I understood the statute was that it was striving to define
the Constitution and Amendment 14 more clearly through its various examples. The relevant
portion of Amendment 14 is:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This only addresses the jure soli side of things. I took Title 8, Section 1401 to be a clarification
on the jure sanguinis side of things.
Are you saying that people have contested the statute on Constitutional grounds?
B) The statute was apparently enacted in the early 1930's. Therefore, it sheds little light on what the Framers intended when they required that the President must be a "natural born citizen". We know from the Constitutional debates that they did not want a situation like England where German princes (some who could not even speak English)became kings. This concern does not seem particularly relevant even in the highly unlikely event Obama was born in Kenya. A strict reading might disqualify him in that scenario, but it would also probably disqualify McCain as well (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone).
Right. On purely a Constitutional ground, jure sanguinis is not sufficient to establish a
natural-born citizenship (if I understand correctly). But this statute was meant to address the
increasing number of off-soil births to citizens. In McCain's case, both of his parents were
citizens, so he is covered under part 'C' of that statute, Obama under part 'G' (which I quoted
above).
Have I misunderstood this?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou understand the statute fine.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]A) The statute says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" Whether that equates to a "natural born citizen" is debatable;
This is very interesting. The way I understood the statute was that it was striving to define
the Constitution and Amendment 14 more clearly thr ...[text shortened]... ama under part 'G' (which I quoted
above).
Have I misunderstood this?
Nemesio[/b]
However, a statute passed 140 or so years after the Constitution is not determinative of what a provision in the Constitution means. It's not even really evidence.
For example, suppose the Congress passed a statute saying that the freedom of speech mentioned in the First Amendment means only verbal utterances. Do you think such a statute would be binding on Courts' interpretations of 1st Amendment law?
Originally posted by no1marauder
However, a statute passed 140 or so years after the Constitution is not determinative of what a provision in the Constitution means. It's not even really evidence.
Gotcha. So, how would a court go about interpreting cases like McCain's having been born in Panama
the hypothetical case of Obama's having been born in Kenya? Scalia, for example, says that he's
a rigorous literalist in interpreting the Constitution. Would he maintain that neither of them are
citizens because they weren't born on American soil?
For example, suppose the Congress passed a statute saying that the freedom of speech mentioned in the First Amendment means only verbal utterances. Do you think such a statute would be binding on Courts' interpretations of 1st Amendment law?
I suspect not. So what purpose do these statutes serve if they have the potential to not be
binding? How do statutes differ from laws?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioScalia would say that a hypothetical Kenyan born Obama is ineligible but a Panama Canal Zone McCain is eligible (assuming anyone would have standing to make a challenge which is another can of worms). His supposed "strict literalism" has its limits. But someone who actually applied "strict literalism" would disqualify both.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]However, a statute passed 140 or so years after the Constitution is not determinative of what a provision in the Constitution means. It's not even really evidence.
Gotcha. So, how would a court go about interpreting cases like McCain's having been born in Panama
the hypothetical case of Obama's having been ...[text shortened]... they have the potential to not be
binding? How do statutes differ from laws?
Nemesio[/b]
"Statute" is a term used to distinguish law passed by the legislature from law declared by the courts (i.e. "common law"😉. In common usage, a law IS a statute.
The statute quoted is binding as regards immigration and other matters; it just doesn't override the Constitution IF the Constitution has a specific provision that conflicts with it.