See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is lucysmom As Gullible and Naive as her posts indicate? Could it be possible?
Source:
LP
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=257643#C32
Published: Mar 3, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-03-03 16:27:49 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 2076
Comments: 261
There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. This kind of abuse of the court system is rightly condemned by conservatives when the target of the suits are corporations but now applauded when the target is an individual. Any looney tune can file a suit and issue a subpoena requesting any personal information he desires (you don't even need a lawyer to do it) and the target is forced to respond. It could even happen to you. IMHO, there is something obscene about demanding the scope of personal information that these suits are after. The "birthers" demand the right to poke through the details of Obama's early life longing for anything to use against him. They are using the court system to harass and hound while wrapping them selves in the noble cloak of patriotism. They make the word dirty. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 10:40:46 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: The "birthers" are merely asking for actual PROOF that Obama is in fact an AMERICAN. His long form birth certificate, which could be produced at almost no cost, could confirm that he is or prove that he is not. Why is he and the DNC spending huge sums of money to keep it hidden if it actually proves that he is a citizen? I suspect that it proves the opposite for there would be no other reason not to disclose it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
The Savage brought this topic up this evening. He has a hard on about it and just won't quit. Thought that he had dropped this after the mis-Inauguration, but I really think that he's serious about his non- native birth. He spent a lot of time drawing parallels between O and Mussolini, and had the megaphone out (OBAMA HAS CREATED THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES). He also said tonight that 'Bama will create his own brownshirts, and that he and Emanuel will create a Reichtags fire offering them the opportunity to round up dissidents. Savage made a point of saying that you can bet your bottom dollar on it.
He has a hard on about it and just won't quit. Thought that he had dropped this after the mis- Inauguration, but I really think that he's serious about his non- native birth... Obama isn't eligible to be prez for one reason alone: he's not a natural born citizen due to his father's Kenyan/British citzenship. Anyone like Savage or Corsi that injects the "he wasn't born on American soil" is throwing a needless diversion into the mix. Philip Berg pushed the 'was he born in Hawaii?' case and utterly ignored Obama's dual citizenship. Berg, Savage and Corsi are all old-school Zionists that would love to bury any speculation about dual citizenship.
If he was born in Kenya, as his Kenyan grandmother and some of his other relatives there claim, that alone would disqualify him because his mother could not have passed on her American citizenship to him under the law as it existed at that time. Here is a "birth certificate" that is just as good as the one they Photoshopped and claimed that it proved he was born in Hawaii.
I believe that he was born in Hawaii. That being said, his father's foreign citizenship immediately makes him ineligible to be president as a natural born citizen is someone born on American soil of two citizen parents. Obama doesn't fit the bill and he knows it.
There is no such requirement to be natural born. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born.
I can only assume ignorance or trollery on your part. Either way, you're incorrect. You know full well that of two requirements to be president, one of them is that he be a natural born citzen. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born. Natural born citizens, according to the understanding of the men that wrote the Constitution, are those people born on US soil of two US citizen parents. That ain't Barack.
Nope.
Sorry to break it to you. Obama fooled ya. Here's the legal work that the Framers referenced when writing the Constitution, The Law Of Nations by Vattel:
BTW, you do understand that "Law of Nations" is, in fact, not law?
#91. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
I understand far more than you appear to understand the basic history of the formation of Consitutional thought. Vattel's definition of the term "natural born citizen" is the basis for the Framers' use of the phrase. They all knew what a natural born citizen is, which is why they felt no need to define it in the Constitution. They assumed that a literate population wouldn't need to have their hands held to define everything. I guess they assumed wrong. The Law of Nations and The Constitution ...Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions. To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by either the Parliament or the monarchy, or by the ``Venetian'' financiers who are the real power over the British Empire. Consequently, the British constitution remains to this day little more than a mask for the arbitrary power of the oligarchy. The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution. American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, ``The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,'' that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, ``Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' `that their authority does not extend so far,' and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.'" In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written, as we will see below.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: randge, James Deffenbach (#7)
(Edited)
The Savage brought this topic up this evening.
#30. To: bluegrass (#21)
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#30)
#59. To: bluegrass (#31)
That being said, his father's foreign citizenship immediately makes him ineligible to be president as a natural born citizen is someone born on American soil of two citizen parents. Obama doesn't fit the bill and he knows it.
#71. To: war, Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach, randge (#59)
There is no such requirement to be natural born.
#76. To: bluegrass (#71)
Natural born citizens, according to the understanding of the men that wrote the Constitution, are those people born on US soil of two US citizen parents.
#82. To: war (#76)
(Edited)
§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
If you prefer the Cult of Obama to the law, just say so. Bushbots always preferred the Cult of Bush to the law also. A pox on all of your houses.
#86. To: bluegrass (#82)
Replies to Comment # 86. BTW, you do understand that "Law of Nations" is, in fact, not law?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 86.