Barack Obama's Legacy -- How strong of a President is he historically?

[Speaker to Animals]

We still do not have an original birth certificate. He has multiple social security numbers, the main one from Connecticut, not Hawaii. Then he really did present himself as a Kenyan exchange student all through college.

It's shady as fuck.

[C-Mag]

@ Monte
What actual crimes are they investigating Trump for ?

Our legal system says you have to have foundational evidence that specific crimes were likely to have occurred.


If you can't answer that, don't worry, you are not alone. No one can, not even Ooky(edit)

[nmoore63]

He actually did in fact attend college as Kenyan exchange student, though. I suppose he could have lied about it, but I cannot imagine why since he still got affirmative action assistance as a half black man.

Whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii (I suspect it was really Kenya), I still do not believe he was ever eligible to be a president since his father was a foreign national, and the Constitution was written with the assumption of coverture as the basis for its terms.

Altering the Constitution should require an amendment, not a redefinition of a word.

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

[Speaker to Animals]

He actually did in fact attend college as Kenyan exchange student, though. I suppose he could have lied about it, but I cannot imagine why since he still got affirmative action assistance as a half black man.

Whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii (I suspect it was really Kenya), I still do not believe he was ever eligible to be a president since his father was a foreign national, and the Constitution was written with the assumption of coverture as the basis for its terms.

Altering the Constitution should require an amendment, not a redefinition of a word.

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

Because the natural born citizenship clause 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.

When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

[GloryofGreece]

He actually did in fact attend college as Kenyan exchange student, though. I suppose he could have lied about it, but I cannot imagine why since he still got affirmative action assistance as a half black man.

Whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii (I suspect it was really Kenya), I still do not believe he was ever eligible to be a president since his father was a foreign national, and the Constitution was written with the assumption of coverture as the basis for its terms.

Altering the Constitution should require an amendment, not a redefinition of a word.

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

Because the natural born citizenship clause 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.

When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

Dammit one of the subjects I teach is Civics & Economics for Virginia and I didn't "know" the above...
I am very afraid among other things we as a society are changing too many word meanings too fast and too often.

[The Conservative]

Except there is more proof that Obama may not be a true US citizen vs what they have done to Trump.

Especially since every report has shown the only conclusion with Russians so far has been on Hillary’s doorstep.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

Because the natural born citizenship clause 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.

When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

Dammit one of the subjects I teach is Civics & Economics for Virginia and I didn't "know" the above...
I am very afraid among other things we as a society are changing too many word meanings too fast and too often.

The intent of the clause was to limit the presidency to men who were born to parents who were also citizens of the United States. Really, they meant the father. Common law had long held citizenship depended upon the father. I think it was a wise policy and the dumpster fire presidency of Barrack Obama fairly proved its wisdom.

More importantly, Congress changing immigration law does not legitimately alter the United States Constitution. That's the real problem here. The idea that we can just change the Constitution by changing definitions, or muddying the context of the words enough that you can pretend nobody knows the original intent.

[GloryofGreece]

Because the natural born citizenship clause states:



When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

Dammit one of the subjects I teach is Civics & Economics for Virginia and I didn't "know" the above...
I am very afraid among other things we as a society are changing too many word meanings too fast and too often.

The intent of the clause was to limit the presidency to men who were born to parents who were also citizens of the United States. Really, they meant the father. Common law had long held citizenship depended upon the father. I think it was a wise policy and the dumpster fire presidency of Barrack Obama fairly proved its wisdom.

More importantly, Congress changing immigration law does not legitimately alter the United States Constitution. That's the real problem here. The idea that we can just change the Constitution by changing definitions, or muddying the context of the words enough that you can pretend nobody knows the original intent.

Society has done quite a job muddying the context of many words unfortunately. Look at the "euphemism wheelhouse" explanation. And of course deconstruction, post colonialism, post modernism, critical "theory" and so on. Then add to it the incalculable pace of scientific and technological change we've seen since roughly the mid 1800s. I don't think we can as a people truly survive much less thrive in such a chaotic "progressive" world far into the future.

[nmoore63]

He actually did in fact attend college as Kenyan exchange student, though. I suppose he could have lied about it, but I cannot imagine why since he still got affirmative action assistance as a half black man.

Whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii (I suspect it was really Kenya), I still do not believe he was ever eligible to be a president since his father was a foreign national, and the Constitution was written with the assumption of coverture as the basis for its terms.

Altering the Constitution should require an amendment, not a redefinition of a word.

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

Because the natural born citizenship clause 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.

When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

Nope.

Coverture is not in the Constitution.

Article I of the Constitution clearly grants congress the power to define naturalization however it sees fit.

The Congress shall have Power.....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

No amendment necessary.

Congress clearly defined that under Obama's circumstances, if he was born in Hawaii he was born a US citizen, if he was born in Kenya he was not.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't follow.
Coverture is not specifically in the constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, why would he not be eligible?

Because the natural born citizenship clause 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.

When that was written, natural born citizen was understood within the context of common law, which was based at that time on coverture. Most of coverture had to do with women, how men were responsible for them, their ability to own property, etc. We threw all that shit out in the 20th century. It was pretty fucked up.

What was not fucked up about coverture was that citizenship was understood to flow from the father. If an Italian visited early United States and had a child, it was understood that the child should be Italian. We could make exceptions, but he then was not considered a natural born citizen in the context of the United States Constitution, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.

At no time did we ever amend the Constitution to change this. The idea that we can change the Constitution by changing the definitions of the words in which is was framed is dangerous and an anathema to the rule of law.

You might not think it fair or reasonable, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to violate the document without following the process outlined to amend it.

Nope.

Coverture is not in the Constitution.

Article I of the Constitution clearly grants congress the power to define naturalization however it sees fit.

The Congress shall have Power.....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

No amendment necessary.

Congress clearly defined that under Obama's circumstances, if he was born in Hawaii he was born a US citizen, if he was born in Kenya he was not.

You are not responding - again - to anything I posted. I did not argue coverture came from the Constitution. I argued the term natural born citizen came from common law tradition, and was clearly outlined by coverture.

You cannot change the Constitution by changing the meanings of words.

Further, naturalization is different from natural born citizen. A naturalized citizen is by definition not a natural born citizen. You do not even seem to understand the difference.