Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Must See

Login or register to post comments Last Post 32267 reads   229 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 161 through 170 (of 229 total)
  • Tue, Feb 24, 2009 - 04:42am

    #161
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

[quote=SamLinder]

Dogs,

I agree with your first and second paragraphs. However, the issue I have raised is that I cannot find anything in the Constitution (or the Amendments) that states only "natural born" citizens are eligible to be president. The wikipedia link I referenced earlier notes that the issue is still very unsettled. I tried doing a small amount of research into other references but found the same ambiguity as noted in the wikipedia link.

Therefore, I stand by my original assertion that there is no documentation that I am currently aware of that explicitly limits the office of the president and vice-president to "natural born" citizens.

If no one can prove otherwise, I’m running as an Independent in 2012!  Foot in mouth (Was born in the UK, don’t you know.)

[/quote]

Sam –

I still don’t see where you are train wrecking on this one. 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

"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."

The key element is as follows – read Article II like this:

"No person except a natural born citizen, [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution]" (this covers those born in the US, over the age of 35) "or a Citizen of the United States [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution]" (this covered those who became US citizens prior to or at the adoption of the Constitution but had been born in England or elsewhere) 

The first comma splits the citizenry into two distinct groups – natural born citizens and citizens who weren’t natural born.  The second comma delineates the two groups and applies the conditions of the third part of the first sentence ("at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") to both groups – up to "shall be eligible…." 

I think you are missing the key connection – "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".  It’s not a case of "ONLY natural born citizens", it’s a case of "natural born citizens" OR those who were citizens prior to or at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  The second element only applied to those who were considered citizens prior to adoption of the Constitution, but weren’t natural born citizens.  They cannot be separated.  There was also a requirement that youhad to have been a citizen for at least 14 years if you were in the latter group. 

Anyone who became a citizen AFTER the Constitution was adopted who was not natural born could not become President.  (Madeline Albright’s circumstance for why she was not in the succession of power)

At least that’s what they will tell you in 2012 when you file to run.

  • Tue, Feb 24, 2009 - 02:37pm

    #162
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

Dogs,

Yummy, I’ll go get a pork roast, thank you,

 Greg

  • Tue, Feb 24, 2009 - 09:04pm

    #163
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile][quote=SamLinder]

Dogs,

I agree with your first and second paragraphs. However, the issue I have raised is that I cannot find anything in the Constitution (or the Amendments) that states only "natural born" citizens are eligible to be president. The wikipedia link I referenced earlier notes that the issue is still very unsettled. I tried doing a small amount of research into other references but found the same ambiguity as noted in the wikipedia link.

Therefore, I stand by my original assertion that there is no documentation that I am currently aware of that explicitly limits the office of the president and vice-president to "natural born" citizens.

If no one can prove otherwise, I’m running as an Independent in 2012!  Foot in mouth (Was born in the UK, don’t you know.)

[/quote]

Sam –

I still don’t see where you are train wrecking on this one. 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

"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."

The key element is as follows – read Article II like this:

"No person except a natural born citizen, [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution]" (this covers those born in the US, over the age of 35) "or a Citizen of the United States [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution]" (this covered those who became US citizens prior to or at the adoption of the Constitution but had been born in England or elsewhere) 

The first comma splits the citizenry into two distinct groups – natural born citizens and citizens who weren’t natural born.  The second comma delineates the two groups and applies the conditions of the third part of the first sentence ("at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") to both groups – up to "shall be eligible…." 

I think you are missing the key connection – "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".  It’s not a case of "ONLY natural born citizens", it’s a case of "natural born citizens" OR those who were citizens prior to or at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  The second element only applied to those who were considered citizens prior to adoption of the Constitution, but weren’t natural born citizens.  They cannot be separated.  There was also a requirement that youhad to have been a citizen for at least 14 years if you were in the latter group. 

Anyone who became a citizen AFTER the Constitution was adopted who was not natural born could not become President.  (Madeline Albright’s circumstance for why she was not in the succession of power)

At least that’s what they will tell you in 2012 when you file to run.

[/quote]

 

Dogs,

We should almost do this live as it’s difficult to continue to discuss the fine points of a comma by this method. However, here I go.

Let’s start with the fact that the first sentence is a complete, standalone, thought since it is terminated by a semi-colon.

"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;"

The parts about age and residency are immaterial to this discussion.

Now let’s break it down even further:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

To me, this reads as: "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;"

If they had wanted to refer to ONLY natural born citizens in the future as being eligible, they would have said:

"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;"

Notice how I removed the comma after "United States". This then reads that {ONLY a natural born citizen} OR {someone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution} can be eligible – which is how it is currently interpreted today.

However, put that comma back in and you are saying either {a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the U.S}. "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President;"

If you want to continue this discussion off-line, pop me an email with your phone number and I’ll call you as we have free nationwide calling.

  • Tue, Feb 24, 2009 - 09:59pm

    #164
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

[quote=SamLinder]

However, put that comma back in and you are saying either {a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the U.S}. "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

If you want to continue this discussion off-line, pop me an email with your phone number and I’ll call you as we have free nationwide calling.

[/quote]

Exactly –

You are either a natural born citizen at the time of adoption or already citizen at the time of adoption.  If you are anything other than that you are not eligible.

Once the Constitution was adopted, the second part of the requirement (a citizen at the time of adoption….) was no longer in effect.  The only requirement remaining was "natural born citizen".

Definition and US Code:: 

Non-natural-born citizens are ineligible 

It has been a subject of controversy whether cabinet officers who are not natural-born citizens, such as Carlos Gutierrez (born in Cuba) or Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan), are constitutionally ineligible to be acting President, because Article Two establishes only eligibility requirements for the office of President. The same question exists for officers in the line of succession who are not at least 35 years old or have not resided in the United States for 14 years. To avoid a needless constitutional dispute at what would likely be a time of great crisis, the statute (3 U.S.C. § 19(e)) specifies that even the acting President must meet the constitutional requirements for the office of President. Thus, Secretary Gutierrez and Secretary Chao are ineligible to serve as Acting President since they are not "natural-born citizens" of the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/United-States-presidential-line-of-succession

This article is crystal clear – Jill Pryor’s Note in the Yale Law Journal examines the natural born definition and the power of Congress to confer Naturalized status (Naturalization Act of 1790) and the separation between the two regarding Presidential eligibility.

http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html  

Bottom Line – if you were not born in the US or born to US citizens you are not eligible. 

 

Precedent: 

When Madeleine Albright was confirmed as the 64th Secretary of State of the United States, she became the first female United States Secretary of State and the highest-ranking woman in the history of the United States government. Not being a natural born citizen of the United States, she was not eligible as Presidential Successor and was excluded from nuclear contingency plans. As Secretary, Dr. Albright reinforced America’s alliances, advocated democracy and human rights, and promoted American trade and business, labor and environmental standards abroad. The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. … The presidential line of succession defines who may become or act as President of the United States upon the incapacity, death, resignation, or removal from office (by impeachment and subsequent conviction) of a sitting president or a president-elect. …

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Madeleine-Albright 

  • Tue, Feb 24, 2009 - 10:23pm

    #165
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

Sam – More clarifying and supporting background here.  A lengthy read but thorough and conclusive.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

  • Wed, Feb 25, 2009 - 06:01pm

    #166
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

Greg – "One of the things I find strange is that he won’t release his Hawaiian birth certificate, and I don’t trust anyone with this many aliases,"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[quote]FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.[/quote]

[quote]Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.


The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp


 

The raised seal


 

Blowup of text


You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.[/quote]

Greg, you gotta stop hanging out at those right wing blogs.  There information is almost inherently unreliable.

  • Wed, Feb 25, 2009 - 06:16pm

    #167
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

Doug,

Nice to see you post! I was wondering what happened to you.

There are plenty of reasons to suspect foul-play in the Obama circle already, and I don’t think the country of his birth should raise questions as much as his education in Jakarta (known for the Wahabbist teachings of Islam) or his actual executive record, ie, his lack of experience.

All things being equal, I’m far less concerned about a figurehead than I am the devious little subversion experts who are pulling strings out of obvious sight.

It’s the pilots of the FED and UN I want out of our nation – to include its lackeys like the Bush cronies.

Cheers!

Aaron

  • Wed, Feb 25, 2009 - 06:35pm

    #168
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

Doug 

"Greg, you gotta stop hanging out at those right wing blogs.  There information is almost inherently unreliable."


Trying to spoil all my fun, huh?

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html

Phil Berg is a Democrat, would that be considered "right wing"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w

Certification of Live Birth Analysis

By Ron Polarik, PhD

http://www.obamacrimes.info/thebirthcertificate2.html

It would take some nads to try to pull something like this off, I’ll just wait and see.

Greg

  • Wed, Feb 25, 2009 - 08:16pm

    #169
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

[quote=gregroberts]

Doug 

"Greg, you gotta stop hanging out at those right wing blogs.  There information is almost inherently unreliable."


Trying to spoil all my fun, huh?

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html

Phil Berg is a Democrat, would that be considered "right wing"?

<snip>

Certification of Live Birth Analysis

By Ron Polarik, PhD

http://www.obamacrimes.info/thebirthcertificate2.html

It would take some nads to try to pull something like this off, I’ll just wait and see.

Greg


[/quote]

 

Greg,

While I must admit that the information you provided above is impressive, I still stand by my statements in my post #151 – to wit:

After all, if the Clinton’s had even the slightest notion that they
could derail him as not being a legitimate citizen, don’t you think
they would have jumped on that in a NY heartbeat? And you know the
McCain crowd would have been all over it. With the resources of the
Clinton’s and the Republicans unable to disprove Obama’s citizenship, I
cannot believe anyone else who claims otherwise.

If the Clinton folks (who are highly skilled infighters in the political arena) couldn’t disprove it and the Republicans (who would have definitely made it an issue) couldn’t disprove it, how can we put any faith in others who claim he is not a citizen? Sorry, but I just can’t reconcile that disconnect.

  • Wed, Feb 25, 2009 - 08:28pm

    #170
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See

[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile]

Sam – More clarifying and supporting background here.  A lengthy read but thorough and conclusive.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

 

[/quote]

 

Dogs,

While the links you have provided are interesting, they deal mostly with determining the validity of a "natural born" citizen. There is very little expounding on the issue of "naturalized" citizen. I notice that many references to "naturalized" dispense with that critical comma I spoke of earlier so that:

"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;" 

has been turned in to this:

"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;" 

However, the upshot is I can see that I’m swimming against the tide. I appreciate your cogent arguments so I will have to admit defeat on this particular issue. To paraphrase Colin Powell, "I don’t have the fire in my belly" so probably wouldn’t have run for President in 2012 anyway.  (Of course, I sometimes do have a fire in my belly but that’s usually because I’ve eaten something that I shouldn’t have! Wink

Viewing 10 posts - 161 through 170 (of 229 total)

Login or Register to post comments