1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

BC is NOT "proof" of "natural born" citizenship (too bad!)

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Kokomojojo, Feb 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]


    There is that ongoing fight between troughers and birthers about obamas qualifications.

    Do Harvard law degrees count for anything?



    explained here:



    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqeV0ZlZ1Cw"]Dr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen PT 1 - YouTube[/ame]


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuKuw-OWt0"]Dr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen PT 2 - YouTube[/ame]


    That said his mommy and daddy would both have to be sworn citizens of the united states and yes there is a paper trail for that.

    Seems to me daddy was a brit and mommy was not in the states for 5 full years prior to his birth!

    so whats the problem with our courts?????????????


    Too tough for them to figger out or to political?

    What the excuse for the american people party to this crime?
     
  2. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,157
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently the only acceptable proof of natural born citizenship is: not being Obama.
     
  3. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    33,788
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The above is an insane waste of time.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    when people make a statement like you just made it leaves me with no choice but to conclude that you have complete disregard for law.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0


    its even worse!

    Obama has some a degree in constitutional law!

    That said he knowingly and with clear intent defrauded this nation.

    Its a minimum of sedition against the united states.

    Worse the courts are protecting him legally and the troughers politically!!!!

    .
     
  6. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,157
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think it's possible that he just disagrees with the legal logic you're using? A lot of people seem to, I don't think they're all knowingly attempting sedition.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I suppose its one thing to disagree and entirely another to claim want for justice and adjudication that goes to the substance and merits is insane.

    I didnt see any "legal" disagreement in his statement.

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse? :)
     
  8. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    13,915
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Absolutely!

    Another crazy walking out of the birthers closet!

    It's laughable, really!
     
  9. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    13,915
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Dear, here has been at least 5 thread disproving all the silly birther conspiracy arguments.

    Enough time wasted. If you want to continue making a fool of yourself, be my guest, bu you won't waste anymore of my time.

    Have fun!
     
  10. ModerateG

    ModerateG New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you guys would get more support if anybody cared.

    I mean, worse case scenario: you're right. He doesn't have both parents as sworn citizens so isn't a natural born citizen.

    The vast majority of people recognize this term for what it is: an arbitrary, outdated and useless and historically ignored term.

    Several Presidents already would not fit under that definition. Also, few people actually care. If you haven't noticed our culture is one of individual responsibility. You're not guilty of your father's sins and won't be judged by them. This extends here where most US people don't care if you had one parent that wasn't a US citizen. It's just not something people find relevant.

    You can scream "but it's in the constitution!" all day long but it won't help because too few people care. People > Constitution.


    That all assumes you're right. The term is not specifically defined in just one way and even the FOUNDING FATHERS disagreed on what it meant.





    I mean, if you want to attack Obama this plan will just never work, that's why it won't work in the future and hasn't worked in the past. 90% of people do not care about what seems like an irrelevant issue.
     
    Sadanie and (deleted member) like this.
  11. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Not too tough- Herb Titus is the closest thing Birthers have found to a lawyer with some actual gravitas. He is the only lawyer from Harvard who happens to make this claim.

    It just happens the American people disagree with Herb Titus and the Birthers. As does Congress. As do the Courts.

    I could speak on about some peculiarities about Herb Titus but suffice it to say- he is the only Harvard law grad who makes this claim.

    And in contrast- Chief Justice Roberts swore Barack Obama into office.

    I give Chief Justice Roberts constitutional creds more consideration than Titus's.​
     
  12. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Titus has a theory- and has no authority at all.

    Judges have actual authority- and have ruled contrary to Titus's conclusion.

    Both the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Congressional Research Service provided detailed analysis of how they reached their conclusion contrary to Titus's conclusion.

    It is rather insane to conclude that everyone else in the U.S. is wrong, and chose to believe a theory being promoted by Birthers that no one had heard of before 2008.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    its been defined literally since the hunter gatherer era, just people seem to ignore it.

    The big question is why do people ignore the law?

    I do not see anything good coming out of that?
     
  14. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmmmm only in your and Herb Titus's mind.

    Only in your and Herb Titus's mind.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0


    There is a difference between joe the plumber (american people) and herb titus however.

    Have you even bothered to read or listen to the video? Can you speak to the points made therein or just in these general terms that you are using begging authority?
     
  16. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And there is a difference between Herb Titus and Chief Justice Roberts.

    And there is a difference between the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals and Herb Titus.

    And in all cases, they disagree with Herb Titus.
     
  17. ModerateG

    ModerateG New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It really hasn't because the definitions were different in different places. It had no SINGLE definition.

    But if you look at history as the Congressional Research Service has the weight of the history behind it is mostly pointing to something you don't like. Basically MOST definitions in the past point to this:
    A Natural Born citizen of the US is someone entitled under the constitution by birth INCLUDING any child born in the US (other than foreign diplomats), the children of US citizens born abroad, and those born to ONE parent that's a citizen of the US.

    Yes, your definition is true, but don't pretend it was the only one in history. In fact it's the rarer one. Which is just one reason why even the founders couldn't agree on the definition, because there were DIFFERENT definitions mattering on location (words weren't as set in stone back in the day).





    Even if your definition was the only one (it's not) the purpose of it was to keep the Presidency free of foreign influence. I think it's safe to say Obama isn't secretly working for the Illuminati of Kenya.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    All law is philosophically a "theory", so you throw it out in one clean sweep with that approach.

    Ugh he has bc so he citizen is not much detail or analysis. LOL

    they impasse superior law. I do not see any historic or legal incorrectness in his position.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0


    its not the law as it stands today its the law as it stood in 1963 or whenever he was born.

    both parents had to be lawful citizens, daddy was not.

    Mommy had to be resident for 5 years and mommy was not.

    Either we have law that everyone is subject to or we have a tryanny and despotism and only us little people are subject to.

    So if the people in their ignorance elected adolf hitler or osama bin laden that would be ok? No it wouldnt, everyone would be screaming for the law.

    I do not look to others to research "for" me much less believe them when they do. I do my own research and can unequivocally state titus has it correct.


    the question is why dont the courts see it historically under its common law orign?

    Why are they protecting him?

    Why are people scoffing titus?
     
  20. ModerateG

    ModerateG New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's simply NOT true.

    That wasn't the law when he was born. Otherwise there would be no issue here. The issue is that natural born has historically been defined differently in BOTH history and law. When he was born there was no SET definition, just as today there won't be until it goes to the Supreme Court (which they've historically refused to let happen).

    In 1963 BOTH parents did NOT have to be US citizens for you to be a natural born citizen. The mom DID meet the residency requirements of 1963 which were basically almost non-existent since she was born in the US and lived there for quite a while (residency requirements are stricter when they aren't born a citizen).



    EDIT: Forgot to say, I wasn't talking about how it is with the law today. I was talking historically.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page