T1B

Rooster wrote:
And Marty, I've already gone through all the pockets of nearby dead Afghanis and they are fresh out of ears, gold teeth, and easily pilferable war trophies. Perhaps I might steal yours?

Your job is equivalent to stealing shoes from corpses.

I pity your neighbours back home that have to live beside a tax-draining lowlife such as yourself.

I can almost see your chin quivering with poutrage.

mvscal wrote:Did Billigula's acquittal by Senate mean that he was factually innocent of lying under oath?

nope....but honestly, do you expect me to believe the republicans would go after Clinton for lying about a blowjob, yet they'll sit on their hands when there is clear evidence (according to you) that Obama engaged the United States illegally in a war....is that what you're trying to pawn off?

you might be able to peddle that load of horseshit to some mook on the street (s'up AP)...I'm going to be a little tougher sell.....

Felix wrote:the republicans would go after Clinton for lying about a blowjob, yet they'll sit on their hands when there is clear evidence (according to you) that Obama engaged the United States illegally in a war....is that what you're trying to pawn off?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. The most basic reason is that they don't control the Senate so it would be a moot point. The second reason is that a good number of them want to reserve "the right" to blow off Congressional war making authority for their party.

Your "according to you," implication that there is no clear evidence of illegality is easily dispatched by an honest answer to these questions three:

Was there a Congressional Declaration of War against Libya?

Was the President granted, by Act of Congress, specific stautory authority to use military force against Libya?

Was there a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

If no, then the President plainly exceeded his authority as Commander in Chief and his actions were illegal.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

mvscal wrote:

I can almost see your chin quivering with poutrage.

Calm down, Susan.

Rooster wrote:Goober, it is germaine to this discussion. Waterboarding is to some as pepper spray is to others-- torture. Another group likely finds either or both to be uncomfortable, but knowing the outcome, tolerable, if not pleasant. What I am trying to get across is that there is no definitive line by which we can measure what is or is not torture. If the Geneva Conventions are the standard by which we will measure torture or legal act of warfare, fine.

You’re going to equate waterboarding a POW with some protester getting pepper-sprayed? Weak. And yeah, I’ll go along with the Geneva Conventions for now, seeing as we did sign on. In the course of doing your job, try not to forcibly remove anyone’s fingernails.

Felix wrote:maybe you could give me list of the things you believe he's done that fly in the face of "liberty"

His unconstitutional move of sending the U.S. military into action in Libya flies HARD in the face of liberty, Felix.

It's actually quite stunning that you would ask that question and then shortly later say this about Libya...

I really couldn't care less, but it obviously has upset you a lot

The Libya move is a slap in the face of all Americans - and a very hard slap in the face of the military.

The military is not the president's toy, which he can send out on his own command, for his own reasons.

The move was hard core anti-liberty - and it's a fucking joke that anyone would take a "I couldn't care less" attitude about it.

Wow.

okee dokey, I can see this is now deteriorating into a combination of over dramatization with a liberal dose of buzz words, with a heaping helping of cliches on the side....

let the hyperbole begin....

poptart wrote:
His unconstitutional move of sending the U.S. military into action in Libya flies HARD in the face of liberty

yep you're right that's pretty serious...our FREEDOMS are in danger....quick, grab the torches and pitchforks, we're storming the castle....

The Libya move is a slap in the face of all Americans

more like a chuck norris roundhouse to the nuts of Uncle Sam if you ask me....

The military is not the president's toy, which he can send out on his own command, for his own reasons

yeah, he's pretty much used the military like so many barbie dolls...toys to play with and nothing more....I'm outraged, outraged I say....it's pretty much the equivalent of dropping a MOAB right on top of the Liberty Bell

The move was hard core anti-liberty

no doubt, it's like he broke into National Archives, dropped a deuce on the Constitution and wiped his ass with the Declaration of Independence....

and it's a fucking joke that anyone would take a "I couldn't care less" attitude about it.
Wow.

wow is right....

congrats on being able to shoehorn the word "liberty" twice into your feigned indignation....I noted that you had somehow omitted the word "freedom" from your diatribe.....

I'll assume that was simply an omission or error on your part....we'll let it slide this time.....

Goober,
Yes, we, the United States, are a signator of the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. What you are ignoring is that torture is not specifically defined in any of those documents to which we have signed, thus freeing us from others' version of what constitutes severe pain both physical and psychological. One man's waterboarding is another man's pepper spray. Every person has different limits on what discomfort he can handle.

Man up, dude, and stop letting faggots and discomfort adverse liberals determine what is pain. So yeah, get outside and play a little football-- the tackle kind not flag. Experience a little pain of a variety other than the type you gotten from your mani-pedis, Nancy.

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote:
His unconstitutional move of sending the U.S. military into action in Libya flies HARD in the face of liberty

yep you're right that's pretty serious...our FREEDOMS are in danger....quick, grab the torches and pitchforks, we're storming the castle....

Foolix, there are countless ways to approach your stupidity here, but let's just try this one.

If you have a son in the military, are you good with a president being able to go solo - against the laws of our nation - to send him into action?

Y or N will do.


Mvscal clearly outlined the war powers act.
Libya posed NO threat to us whatsoever, and Congress absolutely never gave authorization for our action there.

One man simply had some motivation for the action - so he made the order to move our military.

That's not freedom, dumb@ss.

poptart wrote: [

Mvscal clearly outlined the war powers act.
Libya posed NO threat to us whatsoever, and Congress absolutely never gave authorization for our action there.

and I'll ask you the same question I asked him: if this is a grievous breach of the constitution, that represents fucking treason...pure and simple...why don't you send one of those douchenozzle congress people a letter and ask them why they haven't brought him up on charges...what you're implying is not talking just about over stepping his bounds, we're talking an impeachable offense clear and simple....no ifs, no ands, and no buts....so what's the story morning glory....

One man simply had some motivation for the action - so he made the order to move our military.

okay, lets talk about this....give me a specific count of how many ground forces landed in Libya....how many bombing missions did we operate....and last but not least, what was the motivation behind this apparent reckless behavior....and if you tell me it was to score some kind of political points, I'm going to say your a drooling halfwit...

go....

That's not freedom, dumb@ss.

look, you seem to be operating under the false assumption that I'm some big obama supporter....I'm not...he's casper milquetoast that hasn't demonstrated any leadership ability in the least...but I don't find this to be nearly as significant as you seemingly do....so when we flew helicopters into another countries sovereign airspace to kill bin laden, that clearly could have been considered an act of war....so what was your stance of that action back then? I pretty much put this action into the same category, but you're going to draw your line in the sand here I guess...

and where was your outrage when bush was stripping the constitution under the guise of protecting FREEDOM.....seriously, take your crocodile tears and go sell them to the fucking idiots you must be hanging around....

Felix wrote:I'm going to say your a drooling halfwit

Where's Dinsdale when you need him?


First, you didn't answer my simple question.

Second, mvscal already answered for you why impeachment proceedings have not begun.

1. Most of Congress is nearly as fucked up as Barry is, and they care only slightly more about the Constitution than he does.
2. The Dems control the Senate.
3. The Repugs like the idea of Presidental over-reach - so that their future guy can use it.
Neither party gives half a shit about the Constitution.
You've seen our 15 trillion dollar debt, right?


As for needing to explain the specifics of our military operations in Libya, it doesn't matter how complex they were.
Barry simply had no authority to put our military into action in Libya at any level because war powers conditions were not present.

And also, Mr. Arrogant American, your attitude sucks horsecock.
The "Oh, we're not really doing all that much... just dropping some bombs around" attitude.

What the hell are you going to be saying if some country decides they need to drop some bombs around on YOU?
Not war, mind you.
No, just bombs raining down.

lol


Why are you talking about Bush?

Oh... you have nothing else.

Bush at least went to Congress - and got their authority for action in Iraq.
He at least played the game.

Not only that, but Bush could throw a baseball without looking like a fucking PANSY.

poptart wrote: First, you didn't answer my simple question.

in answer to your question, it depends...lets say I was the father of one of the members of Seal Team 6 which flew into the sovereign airspace of Pakistan without permission, which by the way constitutes an act of war...I would have no problem in that instance of my son engaging in such a mission....but there's a problem here......by ordering that operation to be carried out, Obama clearly violated the same exact law that you're now so adamantly defending....so, where was your outrage the first time Obama violated this law?

Second, mvscal already answered for you why impeachment proceedings have not begun.

which of course is complete and utter horseshit....remember the whole "birther movement" and how many reps. were calling into question whether obama was a natural born citizen....seems pretty fucking stupid when you look back on it, but some reps were pursuing it like blood hounds....and you seriously expect me to believe that given the chance to discredit obama by accusing him of violating his oath of office they wouldn't take it....if you actually believe that, then you're a fucking fool....

1. Most of Congress is nearly as fucked up as Barry is, and they care only slightly more about the Constitution than he does.
2. The Dems control the Senate.
3. The Repugs like the idea of Presidental over-reach - so that their future guy can use it.

1. I'd say congress is a lot more fucked up than obama, and 3/4 of them know less about the constitution than I do....
2. Impeachment proceedings are initiated by the House, which is controlled by the republican party
3 oh so their saving this little tidbit for some future "hey he did it so we can do it" moment in the future dude, do you know how fucking stupid that sounds....but given the republicans history, that's not as far fetched as it sounds.

Neither party gives half a shit about the Constitution.
You've seen our 15 trillion dollar debt, right?

couldn't agree more...hence my "I'm not voting", because why would I vote for somebody that puts their own self interest above what is best for our country.....

As for needing to explain the specifics of our military operations in Libya, it doesn't matter how complex they were.
Barry simply had no authority to put our military into action in Libya at any level because war powers conditions were not present.

and he had no congressional authority to send military aircraft into the airspace of Pakistan which again, constitutes an ACT OF WAR yet I'm pretty sure you were supportive of that operation....look dude, you can't be okay with the same act one time, then be outraged at the same thing later on....be consistent

And also, Mr. Arrogant American, your attitude sucks horsecock.
The "Oh, we're not really doing all that much... just dropping some bombs around" attitude.

actually what we were doing is giving assistance in deposing a dictatorship of a fucking maniac that was directly involved in acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States and our allies....so, if my son were asked to serve in that operation, no I wouldn't have any qualms about it....

What the hell are you going to be saying if some country decides they need to drop some bombs around on YOU? Not war, mind you. No, just bombs raining down.

you're making this sound like NATO was carpet bombing Tripoli and killing thousands of innocent people...that's not what happened and it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply that it did.....insofar as "some country raining bombs" down on me? I want to wish whatever country decides to undertake that adventure the best of luck....because they'll need it...

Felix, there's no comparison between the Seal Team 6 action in Pakistan and running bombing sorties in Libya. We are at war against the terrorist organization whose leader was targeted in Pakistan. Bin Laden was not off-limits anywhere on this or any other planet. Libya no longer posed any threat whatsoever to U.S. security, and we were not at war with them, declared or otherwise.

Apples and oranges.

Van wrote:Felix, there's no comparison between the Seal Team 6 action in Pakistan and running bombing sorties in Libya.

there most certainly is....obama ordered military aircraft into the sovereign airspace of a country without the authorization of that country.....by definition, that constitutes an act of war and he did this without formal authorization from congress....so in fact, we're talking about the SAME EXACT THING....

who we were after is irrelevant to the point....

my biggest heartburn with the libya excursion is this:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

this was a direct quote from Obama when he was running in 2007, and his actions in Libya contradict what he said....so, he's an asshat of the highest order.....

oh and btw, one of the idiots that engineered the invasion of Iraq is highly critical of obama's actions in libya....not for why you think, he believes obama didn't do enough....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 65512.html

insert giant fucking rolleyes here....

Actually, Felix, there is plenty of evidence we DO have the authority to fly in Pakistan's airspace-- their protests notwithstanding. We have been operating overhead for years with their blessing in multiple ways from resupply to drone attacks, but it appears it was the embarrassment of having been caught with OBL inside their borders right next to a large training facility which caused the ruckus. Now, not having the status of forces agreement or treaty before me prevents me from saying definitively, but it certainly looks like the US has been given carte blanche to operate aircraft in and around Pakistan for years.

First off Felix, Bin Laden was a "police action," targeting the leader of an enemy force, and the "invasion" lasted less than 90 days.

Barry was within his powers to do that.

In regards to Libya, he violated so many of the War Powers, it's not even worth discussing.

Apples and watermelons.

As far as impeachment -- Ron Paul filed for impeachment. The rest of the mamby-pambies didn't want to deal with it... but Paul took steps towards impeachment. The rest of the Rs are beholden to the same bunch of tards the Ds are, so nothing came of it.

And like mv said, the autocrats rarely do anything but celebrate one more set of laws they don't have to follow, regardless which arm of the Republocrat party they're in.

Rooster wrote:Actually, Felix, there is plenty of evidence we DO have the authority to fly in Pakistan's airspace-- their protests notwithstanding. We have been operating overhead for years with their blessing in multiple ways from resupply to drone attacks, but it appears it was the embarrassment of having been caught with OBL inside their borders right next to a large training facility which caused the ruckus. Now, not having the status of forces agreement or treaty before me prevents me from saying definitively, but it certainly looks like the US has been given carte blanche to operate aircraft in and around Pakistan for years.

look you know a lot more about this than I do, so I wouldn't attempt to contradict you.....with that said, I saw a National Geographic special on the operation and universally the military people they interviewed said that the biggest threat to the mission and the greatest fear of those planning the mission was that the Pakistan government would become aware of our helicopters in their airspace....to a man (all of the military people they interviewed) they all indicated that if they had been discovered, the Pakistani's would have shot them down....

that doesn't sound like carte blanche to me....

Felix wrote:...obama ordered military aircraft into the sovereign airspace of a country without the authorization of that country.....by definition, that constitutes an act of war and he did this without formal authorization from congress....so in fact, we're talking about the SAME EXACT THING....

who we were after is irrelevant to the point....

Actually he did have formal authorization from Congress to attack bin Laden, so you're wrong again as usual.

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):

Felix, that's the point. Bin Ladin was a named enemy combatant of the United States. Pakistan was aiding and harboring an enemy combatant, thus forfeiting their right of sovereignty against U.S. military actions aimed at eliminating said enemy combatant.

No similar situation existed with Libya.

mvscal wrote:

Actually he did have formal authorization from Congress to attack bin Laden, so you're wrong again as usual.

buy not from the Paki's to fly into their airspace...why else would our military people be so concerned about the Paki airforce shooting them down? look, he sent military aircraft into a country without their authorization....we aren't at war with Pakistan, so we need that permission from them, otherwise it's an act of war....

Feelsdicks, just STFU. A high school buddy that also graduated from the Naval Academy (he's a Navy Captain now) tells me what's going on as he's actually in the region on the LPD-5 USS Bataan right now and e-mailed me yesterday.

Also, water boarding is not torture as some of us endured it at Warner Springs, CA outside San Diego during Navy SERE school. SEALS and Navy and Marine Corps combat aircrew have to go through it. There is medical staff around in case something goes wrong. Same at Gitmo.

Being locked in a small box where you can't move for an hour is much worse as the Vietnamese did that to some of our pilots back in the day. I found that much worse than water boarding.

Feelsdicks, let me ask you something... have you ever served in the military? If not, then STFU.

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Actually he did have formal authorization from Congress to attack bin Laden, so you're wrong again as usual.

buy not from the Paki's to fly into their airspace...

Not required and totally irrelevant. Of course it's an act of war, you fucking idiot. If Pakistan is harboring those people, then Pakistan is a potential target in that war.

the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

You're a mess, Felix, and just wandering all over the place with your posts.

Felix wrote:remember the whole "birther movement" and how many reps. were calling into question whether obama was a natural born citizen....seems pretty fucking stupid when you look back on it, but some reps were pursuing it like blood hounds

Link?


Overwhelmingly, representatives have been SILENT on Obama's eligibility.

Hell, Barry admitted, by showing on the form he released on April 27th, that he is not a natural born citizen - by virtue of that form showing his father not to have been a U.S. citizen.
Yet none of our representatives seem much interested.

poptart wrote:Overwhelmingly, representatives have been SILENT on Obama's eligibility.

Hell, Barry admitted, by showing on the form he released on April 27th, that he is not a natural born citizen - by virtue of that form showing his father not to have been a U.S. citizen.
Yet none of our representatives seem much interested.

Are you a natural born idiot? Or were you shipped here to play the part of an idiot?

Obama was born in Hawaii. Even Donald Trump now understands this.

Being born in Hawaii doesn't make a person a... natural born citizen.

poptart wrote:Being born in Hawaii doesn't make a person a... natural born citizen.

It does. And if you can't understand that, you are a weapons grade tard. I bet even Herman Cain could debate circles around you. And Rick Perry could debate you to a draw.

poptart wrote:Being born in Hawaii doesn't make a person a... natural born citizen.

Actually, it does.

poptart wrote:Being born in Hawaii doesn't make a person a... natural born citizen.

If you honestly don't believe this, then I am speechless.

Uh, tart...

there's two types of US citizens...

Natural-born, and naturalized.

If you're born in the US, you're a "natural born citizen," with the exception of those who are born to foreign diplomats. Also, if a person is born in a foreign nation and one of their parents is a US citizen, they're also a natural-born citizen.

There's no question that Barry was born in Hawaii in 1961. Last I checked, Hawaii was a state of the USA in 1961.

While he's certainly unfit for office, it has nothing to do with not meeting citizenship requirements.

But this would be a good one for you to tuck tail on.

Dins, because it's you and I know how it would gall you to realize that you're making this same grammatical error over and over, allow me to remind you of the correct applications of 'there's' and 'there are.' You keep using the singular 'there's' ("there's two types of US citizens") with the plural when it should only be used with the singular. ("There's only one type of US citizen.") What you want is "There are only two types of US citizens."



Carry on.

Got me there's.

Not the way I would formally write it, but it's the way I would say it in conversation.

Dinsdale wrote:If you're born in the US, you're a "natural born citizen"

You're talking about a person who would then be a... citizen.


Article II Section I - requirements for presidential eligibility:

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


If, according the founders intent, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, what is your explanation for the distinction made between citizen and natural born citizen?

Why didn't they say, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a natural born Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption...

Or simply, No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible...


What's your answer?


There is certainly a distinction they are making between citizen and natural born citizen.




http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

Long read, much interesting discussion on the topic.

Look it over sometime when you've got a few minut... err... days to spare.



Barry posted what he says is his COLB before the '08 election, but that image did not provide information as to his father's nationality.
Maybe Barry -- kinda, sorta -- wanted to hide that info on purpose?

At the very least, the natural born citizen requirement should have been addressed and resolved prior to that election.

poptart wrote:If, according the founders intent, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, what is your explanation for the distinction made between citizen and natural born citizen?

Why didn't they say, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a natural born Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption...

Or simply, No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible...


What's your answer?

You are to civics tests what smackoholic is to punctuation.

I have a sibling that was born in another country, to my non-American parents. She completed the requirements, took the test, and became a naturalized Citizen.

I, on the other hand, was born to the same parents in Portland, Oregon. I am a natural born Citizen. My legal shortcomings and overall retardation aside, I'm perfectly eligible to be President, regardless where my parents were or were not from. My sister is not, nor will she ever be.


Light coming on yet?

If, according the founders intent, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, what is your explanation for the distinction made between citizen and natural born citizen?

Do you suppose it had something to do with the fact that many of the "citizens" in the newly formed U.S.A. were born in England or the British Isles? Obama is a natural born citizen...period.

That's what anyone with a hint of reading comp would have gathered from that, Mace. Pops must be hitting the sake a little hard tonight errrrr i mean this morning. Or do those zipperheads drink sake?

smackaholic wrote: Or do those zipperheads drink sake?

Koreans drink soju.

Dinsdale wrote:I have a sibling that was born in another country, to my non-American parents. She completed the requirements, took the test, and became a naturalized Citizen.

I, on the other hand, was born to the same parents in Portland, Oregon. I am a natural born Citizen. My legal shortcomings and overall retardation aside, I'm perfectly eligible to be President, regardless where my parents were or were not from. My sister is not, nor will she ever be.

Again...

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm



What is a natural born citizen? Even if President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth, is he a U.S. natural born citizen?

According to an article which appeared in the Michigan Law Review in 2008, we know two things for sure about the meaning of "natural born citizen":

•Anyone who is born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens, is definitely, without doubt, a natural born citizen.

•Anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship through naturalization, after his or her birth, is definitely not a natural born citizen [03].
But what about a child born overseas to U.S.-citizen parents? And what about a U.S.-born child of an alien parent? These children are U.S. citizens by modern-day law. But are they natural born citizens? So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not answered these questions.

In 2004, Senator Don Nickles predicted that, if these questions remain unanswered, they will someday become "a real issue":

The definition of this term ["natural born citizen"] is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. (Nickles)
Senator Nickles' prediction has come true.

Barack Obama -- regardless of where he was born -- acquired British/Kenyan citizenship (in addition to U.S. citizenship) at birth. His citizenship status, at birth, was "governed" by the British Nationality Act of 1948 (see Barack Obama's "fight the smears" website). In light of these facts, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that President Obama might not be a "natural born citizen" and therefore might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as president [04].

Members of the mainstream news media generally believe that all persons born in the United States are "natural born citizens", regardless of their parents' citizenship. Although this belief is widely held, the Supreme Court has never accepted it. On the contrary, our nation's highest court has consistently used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.




You should read a lot more from the link I posted.
Doubt that you will.
Surely doubt Mace ever would.

I mean, he already placed a -- period -- behind his ignorant declaration. lolz


The term "natural born" which the founders used didn't mean what the people TODAY have generally been told it means.

You're one stupid sonofabitch, tart. Stick to reading your Bible.

poptart wrote:You should read a lot more from the link I posted.
Doubt that you will.

HMMMM.... let's see -- a magazine article from academics, or centuries of case law?



Tough call.