Okay, I'm going to take that as a "no, I think this nonsense is silly."

Well, I can see why some were not satisfied by the Certificate of Live Birth that was released to refute the notion that he was not born in the USA. Even though it's an official and legal document there is nothing that screams "authenticity". When the notion that there is some sort of conspiracy a document like that just adds fuel to the fire. As I said, up until recently this worked to his favor. The real problem with the conspiracy is that it really just falls apart once you get back to birth announcements and such. Sure, if there hadn't have been such corroborating factors it would be more plausible. He came from nowhere, in a sense. I guess the very powerful could produce documentation maybe even up to a long form certificate but you can't so easily explain away the announcement in the paper.

My comments:

1. Yes, darth alran and saberopus, let's start another threesome thread! Remember Geb's proposed solution from the other one.

2. I was born in December 1982, and my folks got a birth certificate in 1985.

3. I personally don't care if a president is native-born or not. Often, immigrants - upon which this country is founded - have more patriotism than native born citizens.

4. I also, as a general rule, care about politics. The world is not going to change for the better until human nature changes for the better, and that's nit going to happen until the [ religious reference censored]. True, we need stopgap measures till then, but I'm not the one to develop them, so I keep my nose out of politics.

It still works to his favor.

Hard-core Republicans are the only people who believe this. Know why? Because hard-core Republicans are a bunch of fat white dropout baby boomer racists who don't think a darkie should be allowed to be president. The 'birthers' (and the 'tea partiers', they're really the same people) accomplish nothing but the discreditation of the party and the humiliation of the self-entitled old-money man-children you people figuratively (literally?) fellate on an hourly basis.

Did you know that, according to a new poll, only 33% of self-identified 'Republicans' believe Obama was born in the United States? This is down from the previous poll, which showed 42%. Exercise: is this because more Republicans have been convinced that Obama's BIRTH CERTIFICATE is fake, or is it because fewer people are willing to self-identify as literally retarded?

“Now we can talk about oil. We can talk about gasoline prices,” Trump said. “We can talk about China ripping off this country. We can talk about OPEC doing numbers on us like nobody has ever done before.”

Oh, Trump. You and your foreign agitators.

Low taxes, small government, laissez-faire, regulate all prices, ban all imports, hate browns. All the great Tea Party principles.

“China is raping this country" - Donald Trump, 2011

Donald Trump owns a self-branded men's clothing line - made in China, of course. If China is raping America, Donald Trump is holding her down.

"The point is that you can't be too greedy." --Donald Trump

Tea Partiers really know what the Framers inten...

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson

"**** this ****" - Thomas Jefferson

I saw the President today. That is all.

Do you generally just not care about legal, let alone constitutional, requirements? The constitution clearly states "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." There is actually a legitimate debate as to whether Obama is eligible regardless of his place of birth as the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as intended by the framers has never really been determined. Some argue that because he is the child of a foreign national father he is ineligible. Of course these things are (purposefully) left undefined or blatantly ignored. Hillary is constitutionally ineligible for the post she currently serves in.

No, there is no "legitimate" debate. You have no idea what you're talking about.

8 USC § 1401. Read it and get the **** out.

P.S.: What the framers intended means dick all. The constitution is a living document and was always meant to be changed to suit a changing world. People who don't adapt are food. You're food, Wookie06.

Nice troll post. That's what you revert to when your awesome intellect and persuasive arguments are unable to support the conclusion you prefer.

Unable to support the conclusion I prefer?

What do you call 8 USC § 1401?

Oh right. Confirmation bias. I guess the law that makes McCain a US citizen isn't good enough for Obama. Probably because McCain's white and Obama's black.

iirc, the constitution predates 8 USC § 1401. But, of course, the constitution is a "living document" so it's a useless document that should only be applied as convenient. Now that you mention it, I don't even know why they included that silly amendment process.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying: you have no idea what you're talking about. You never have any idea what you're talking about.

By the way, to expound on something I mentioned: by US law McCain wasn't a natural-born American citizen at the time of his birth. There is actual legitimate debate (between lawyers, who do know what they're talking about, unlike you) about whether or not 8 USC § 1401 applies retroactively. Legally speaking, McCain is less likely to satisfy the 'natural-born citizen' requirement than Obama is.

Doesn't stop you from blowing him like a champ, though.

Say hi to your friends on Stormfront for me.

Wow, so you do want to have a discussion on what the meaning of "natural born citizen" is? McCain was never my preferred candidate. I suppose you have that in your archives of my posts already, though. I was always concerned about whether or not his citizenship passed constitutional muster but it seems clear that if you're going to compare his to the equivalent of a border baby, his would be more likely to fit the definition.

Oh, and I should have added that, according to your citation:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ...

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

...

(g) 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 present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and "

So I guess you love your cite for Obama but not so much for McCain? Again, my concern is about the intended meaning of "natural born citizen" and I made no claims with regard to any candidate. Feel free to revel in your hypocrisy.

Because 8 USC § 1401 applies to Obama but possibly not to McCain, you illiterate.

I can't tell if Wookie is being sarcastic or not anymore. I suspect he writes his posts in an intentionally vague manner and then pretends you misinterpreted him in an attempt to make anyone responding look stupid.

Please clarify if you have a question. I have intended to be clear.

He's not being sarcastic, he just doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. Do you seriously think he's smart enough to do something like that?

Just look at his last couple of posts. Vacuous noise, meaningless rambling with exactly one thing worth responding to between both posts. He isn't even smart enough to fully read or understand a discussion before replying to it.

I can see why you say that but 8 USC § 1401, like any law, is not the end all be all. Ultimately, the constitution is. I'm supposing the argument you would make is that the code you reference covers Obama better than it does McCain. Of course you don't make plain English arguments in topics where you know you have little standing because you can hide behind the nuances of language rather than have a plain debate.

Says the guy that just posted that it is irrelevant what the law of our land means because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. It's a "living document" after all.

Again, please post what was intentionally vague so I can clarify. I've tried to be very clear so that the sort of trolling Jon`C is engaged in is minimized. I'm guessing he gets emotional when a boob like me makes better arguments than the basement recluse.

Until SCOTUS rules 8 USC § 1401 as unconstitutional you can shut the **** up. They know the constitution better than you do.

Is that clear enough for you? It's not hiding behind the "nuances" of Simple English, is it?

You're illiterate and a hypocrite. You are incapable of communicating effectively and you have the reading comprehension skills of a child.

Get out.

Failed, just like you failed at life.

Why would SCOTUS rule 8 USC § 1401 unconstitutional? Congress plainly has the authority to establish "uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is a separate provision of the constitution and the code does nothing to clarify "natural born citizen". Maybe MacFarlane will come in to back you up as your arguments continue to weaken.

Because 8 USC § 1401 is about citizenship at birth (natural-born citizenship.)

Naturalization is the process of granting citizenship to someone who was not born a citizen.

By your own admission, Congress is not expressly granted the authority to define natural-born citizenship by the constitution. Right?

lol, you are such a scrub.

This is actually pretty informative.

Correct. I don't believe that you can define constitutional intent by anything other than an amendment (when it is so unclear that one is warranted). At best a SCOTUS decision merely "interprets" it.



Don't worry. He'll probably find a way to [constitutionally] agree with you.

Cool. Just make sure that you make it clear that all of the informative parts are from Jon`C. I'm afraid that if he thinks others find me informative it could push him to the brink. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Or rules it invalid.

I'm sure. Reality, after all, has a liberal* bias.

* literate, educated, not-racist

Sorry. Even SCOTUS hasn't given itself the authority to rule the constitution invalid yet. Maybe in Obama's next term.

Self-deprication isn't your forte. You can be informative, regardless of whether or not you're correct (my opinion of such) because it could cause me to do independent fact-checking. Hell, you could both be wrong.

It's already happening! I learned that "forte" is correct, when here I had been thinking it was "forté." Wacky!

I'm talking about the law, wiseass.

Now we're in a circle because I already addressed that. The code does nothing to clarify the issue that was brought up. I wouldn't think that it could. What the code could do, if it actually pertained to the original topic, is outline the procedure to ensure that a candidate met the constitutional requirement. You're just trying to muddy the water by mixing two unrelated issues. Congress' authority to administer immigration policy and the constitutional requirement to be a "natural born citizen". And to think, I only ever said that there is a legitimate discussion to be had with regards to the meaning of "natural born citizen". I don't even know why you're continuing to embarrass yourself since you've essentially dismissed the constitution as a "living document".

This is all absolute nonsense. You really haven't been paying attention at all.



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." - Thomas Jefferson.

As in "you can change it" not as in "you can ignore or twist its meaning". Just thought I'd throw that in there. Not that I think this applies to your topic directly. Continue.

It doesn't apply at all, because it's the act of changing the constitution which Wookie06 finds so offensive.

Because he's a constitution-worshiper. It's set in stone, just like the 10 commandments and that part of the bible that says you need to kill jews and gays.