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

[nmoore63]

I just quoted the damned thing. It explicitly states only natural born citizens. If magic soil was not even a God damned thing until a judge invented it more than a century later, how the fuck are you going to argue they meant "born here" and why the fuck would they not use the more commonly understood "native born" to describe that?

Do you even think this through? Seriously. Libertarianism is NPC liberalism at its worst.

Natural born citizen means citizen at birth. It doesn't mean corverture.

OMFG

How do you think they determined citizenship at birth, genius?

As defined by congress, as empowered by the constitution.

[Speaker to Animals]

No. You are once again confusing naturalization with natural born.

[heydaralon]

coverture is nice, particularly in the posterior region. I'm an ass man as you can probably surmise. What does this have to do with illegals and citizenship? Well, Latinas generally do have nice coverture around the buttocks, but I'm not sure by coverture if this is what the founding fathers meant.

[nmoore63]

No. You are once again confusing naturalization with natural born.

Nope.
Coverture was a congressional prerogative not a constitutional mandate.

[Montegriffo]

@ 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)

You tell me, what crime committed by Trump or his team would be too big to ignore?
I ask because none of the successful prosecutions so far seem to have dented the faith of his base.
You all wanted more scrutiny into the dodgy dealings of government, well you got what you wanted now suck it up...

[The Conservative]

So you don’t think the constitution granted Congress the power to determine who is a citizen at birth?

The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

[Speaker to Animals]

So you don’t think the constitution granted Congress the power to determine who is a citizen at birth?

The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

Negative. The Supreme Court never ruled on that. It was invented by a judge and went as far, I think, as a circuit court, but not the Supreme Court. I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold that interpretation of the Constitution or the 14th amendment, as it clearly was not the intent.

The 14th amendment was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves. That's it. It really has no other use today since all the people who were once slaves have died. Nobody can argue otherwise with a straight face. The man who actually wrote and sponsored the 14th amendment explicitly denied that it was the intent to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals born in the United States. It's historical record.

The Constitution nowhere grants citizenship simply because somebody was born here. It's really a ridiculous assertion. In 1789, citizenship passed from one's father. If your father was an American citizen, then so were you. If your father was a subject of the English monarch, then you were considered an Englishman. You could become an American, but you would never be considered a "natural born citizen" since your father was not a citizen at the time of your birth. The purpose of the natural born citizenship clause was to preclude candidates with dual allegiances, which is exactly what happens with bozos like Ted Cruz. The guy had dual citizenship until he decided he wanted to run for president. He damned well knew he was ineligible, which is why he renounced his Canadian citizenship. If it wasn't a problem, he'd not have done this in the first place.

The magic soil farce is perhaps one of the biggest violations of the Constitution out there. It's certainly the most pernicious and pervasive lie I have encountered regarding the document. At least with the gun grabbers, I am convinced they damned well know they want to violate the Constitution. The cognitive dissonance of the libertarians on this matter of citizenship, however, really is beyond the pale. It proves that libertarians really are just liberals. They talk about strict interpretation of the Constitution in it's original intent when that suits them politically, but when not, they act just like every other liberal does and happily violate the Constitution.

[The Conservative]

So you don’t think the constitution granted Congress the power to determine who is a citizen at birth?

The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

Negative. The Supreme Court never ruled on that. It was invented by a judge and went as far, I think, as a circuit court, but not the Supreme Court. I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold that interpretation of the Constitution or the 14th amendment, as it clearly was not the intent.

The 14th amendment was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves. That's it. It really has no other use today since all the people who were once slaves have died. Nobody can argue otherwise with a straight face. The man who actually wrote and sponsored the 14th amendment explicitly denied that it was the intent to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals born in the United States. It's historical record.

The Constitution nowhere grants citizenship simply because somebody was born here. It's really a ridiculous assertion. In 1789, citizenship passed from one's father. If your father was an American citizen, then so were you. If your father was a subject of the English monarch, then you were considered an Englishman. You could become an American, but you would never be considered a "natural born citizen" since your father was not a citizen at the time of your birth. The purpose of the natural born citizenship clause was to preclude candidates with dual allegiances, which is exactly what happens with bozos like Ted Cruz. The guy had dual citizenship until he decided he wanted to run for president. He damned well knew he was ineligible, which is why he renounced his Canadian citizenship. If it wasn't a problem, he'd not have done this in the first place.

The magic soil farce is perhaps one of the biggest violations of the Constitution out there. It's certainly the most pernicious and pervasive lie I have encountered regarding the document. At least with the gun grabbers, I am convinced they damned well know they want to violate the Constitution. The cognitive dissonance of the libertarians on this matter of citizenship, however, really is beyond the pale. It proves that libertarians really are just liberals. They talk about strict interpretation of the Constitution in it's original intent when that suits them politically, but when not, they act just like every other liberal does and happily violate the Constitution.

Really?
US vs Kim Wong Ark.

[nmoore63]

The complete list of every reference to Coverture in the constitution:

“Natural born” doesn’t mean “coverture.” If it did you could tell by them using the word “coverture.” “Natural born” means natural born. You can tell by their use of the words “natural” and “born.”

[Speaker to Animals]

The Supreme Court held in a 6-2 decision that a child born in the United States to parents of foreign decent is a citizen of the United States unless the parents are: 1) foreign diplomats, or 2) the child was born to parents who are nationals of an enemy nation that is engaged in a hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

Negative. The Supreme Court never ruled on that. It was invented by a judge and went as far, I think, as a circuit court, but not the Supreme Court. I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold that interpretation of the Constitution or the 14th amendment, as it clearly was not the intent.

The 14th amendment was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves. That's it. It really has no other use today since all the people who were once slaves have died. Nobody can argue otherwise with a straight face. The man who actually wrote and sponsored the 14th amendment explicitly denied that it was the intent to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals born in the United States. It's historical record.

The Constitution nowhere grants citizenship simply because somebody was born here. It's really a ridiculous assertion. In 1789, citizenship passed from one's father. If your father was an American citizen, then so were you. If your father was a subject of the English monarch, then you were considered an Englishman. You could become an American, but you would never be considered a "natural born citizen" since your father was not a citizen at the time of your birth. The purpose of the natural born citizenship clause was to preclude candidates with dual allegiances, which is exactly what happens with bozos like Ted Cruz. The guy had dual citizenship until he decided he wanted to run for president. He damned well knew he was ineligible, which is why he renounced his Canadian citizenship. If it wasn't a problem, he'd not have done this in the first place.

The magic soil farce is perhaps one of the biggest violations of the Constitution out there. It's certainly the most pernicious and pervasive lie I have encountered regarding the document. At least with the gun grabbers, I am convinced they damned well know they want to violate the Constitution. The cognitive dissonance of the libertarians on this matter of citizenship, however, really is beyond the pale. It proves that libertarians really are just liberals. They talk about strict interpretation of the Constitution in it's original intent when that suits them politically, but when not, they act just like every other liberal does and happily violate the Constitution.

Really?
US vs Kim Wong Ark.

Take a gander at what court decided it.