Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!
Once again your comments:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..
Just like you can keep your doctor..
Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!
The part you highlighted was for naturalized citizens. The part highlighted by me....is for natural born. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. Naturalized citizens are citizens after birth. Your claim is that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
Um, so we agree?
If Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was too young to pass citizenship to him. She had to be 19. She was 18.
So you're not even going to touch the lies, inaccuracies and obtuse blunders in your Birther Report, are you? This is why you're just not taken seriously, Steve.....because even when you're proven wrong, you can't admit it.
You either knew of the inaccuracies and lies in the Birther Report....and didn't tell us. Rendering your assessments of accuracy unreliably dishonest. Or you never bothered to fact check the claims in the Birther Report. Rendering your assessments of accuracy unreliably incompetent.
Try again.
The far left posters here are the same way..
The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong!
\The reasons are very simple.
Read the article and pay attention using common sense.
Reality Check Constitutional Eligibility Divided Loyalties Need To Obey The Constitution - Birther Report Obama Release Your Records
/\ Stupid Mcmuddles waxing dull on concepts about which he has not the slightest clue.
Now that's entertainment.
Steven doesn't actually research...anything. He just apes whatever conspiracy websites tell him to think. Which is why his assessment of 'accuracy' is so worthless. He doesn't check.
For example, his source 'Birther Report' which he insisted was 'all true' insists that Vattel's Law of Nations was where the Foundres got their definition of natural born citizen. Problem is.....the first time an English translation of the Law of Nations even used the word 'natural born citizen' was in 1797.....10 years after the constitution was written. And the word that the 1797 edition translates as 'natural born citizen' is 'indigenes'. Which means indigenous. Not 'natural born citizen'. The 1797 was 10 years too late....and got the translation wrong.
Either Steve already knew that and lied about the content of Birther Report. Or he never bothered to check the accuracy of anything. Making his claim that it was 'all true' meaningless babble. Either way, wow.
If Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was too young to pass citizenship to him. She had to be 19. She was 18.
So you're not even going to touch the lies, inaccuracies and obtuse blunders in your Birther Report, are you? This is why you're just not taken seriously, Steve.....because even when you're proven wrong, you can't admit it.
You either knew of the inaccuracies and lies in the Birther Report....and didn't tell us. Rendering your assessments of accuracy unreliably dishonest. Or you never bothered to fact check the claims in the Birther Report. Rendering your assessments of accuracy unreliably incompetent.
Try again.
The far left posters here are the same way..
The far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong!
The difference between 'the far left' and the fringe right here- that what you call the 'far left' are ones who believe in rational thought and the evidence.
Birthers believe only in lies, speculaiton and innuendo.
Oh my the far left loves to post false information..
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
Oh my the far left loves to post false information..
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote.
Here's my quote with the link:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
Follow the link and read it directly from the Cornell law library online. My quote is 100% accurate. You've never actually checked the source, Kosh. I have.
So how is my quotation false...when its 100% accurate?
\
And the far left shows that just posting a link does not constitute that they are right! On the contrary it goes to show that they are wrong as always when put into the context of the Subject at hand. Even it contradicts their earlier comments..
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
\
And the far left shows that just posting a link does not constitute that they are right! On the contrary it goes to show that they are wrong as always when put into the context of the Subject at hand. Even it contradicts their earlier comments..
The context of the subject at hand is natural born citizenship. Which my quote addresses directly:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
Deny its from Minor v. Happersett all you like. Anyone can follow the link and determine you don't know what you're talking about.
\
And the far left shows that just posting a link does not constitute that they are right! On the contrary it goes to show that they are wrong as always when put into the context of the Subject at hand. Even it contradicts their earlier comments..
The context of the subject at hand is natural born citizenship. Which my quote addresses directly:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
Deny its from Minor v. Happersett all you like. Anyone can follow the link and determine you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes! Like I said the far left will spin it however they need to justify their posts no matter how wrong those posts are.
They saw certain keywords and used it. As they so nicely highlighted, yet the case was not about what is quoted.
Once again showing the deception of the far left..
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote.
What the case was truly about when put into context. Thus proving once again the far left is wrong!
Will they ever own up to be wrong?
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.
Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
\
And the far left shows that just posting a link does not constitute that they are right! On the contrary it goes to show that they are wrong as always when put into the context of the Subject at hand. Even it contradicts their earlier comments..
The context of the subject at hand is natural born citizenship. Which my quote addresses directly:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett LII Legal Information Institute
Deny its from Minor v. Happersett all you like. Anyone can follow the link and determine you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes! Like I said the far left will spin it however they need to justify their posts no matter how wrong those posts are.
They saw certain keywords and used it. As they so nicely highlighted, yet the case was not about what is quoted.
Once again showing the deception of the far left..
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote.
What the case was truly about when put into context. Thus proving once again the far left is wrong!
Will they ever own up to be wrong?
And here's your own source confirming that citizenship was an issue being addressed by the court in the Happerset case.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.
Citizenship was a key aspect of the case. So the court addressed it. I cited their discussion of the issue with 100% accuracy, including everything they had to say on natural born citizenship. You simply didn't read the case before you commented on it.
Goodnight, Kosh.....next time read the case before you try to correct me on it. It will help you avoid more embarrassing blunders like the one you just made.
[
You just have to face facts that the far left will be wrong over 90% when they post. You should be used to by now. Why deny it?
..
Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!
Once again your comments:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..
Just like you can keep your doctor..
Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!
The part you highlighted was for naturalized citizens. The part highlighted by me....is for natural born. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. Naturalized citizens are citizens after birth. Your claim is that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
Um, so we agree?
Ah now the far left spin to try and justify their incorrect comments! Instead of admitting they were wrong they just drone on trying to cover for the fact that they were wrong.
Also goes to show that the far left can not understand anything beyond their programming.
The reasons are very simple.
Read the article and pay attention using common sense.
Reality Check Constitutional Eligibility Divided Loyalties Need To Obey The Constitution - Birther Report Obama Release Your Records
Cruz is eligible.
It is up to the voters to decide whether or not his loyalties are in question.
I agree on Cruz's eligibility, as the US recognizes only citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. There is no third type. Since natural born citizens are clearly not naturalized, that leaves citizens at birth as the only possible category under which 'natural born' could fall.
Though in fairness, for those not born in the US the issue is at least debatable. Take a look at the debates on the eligibility of Mitt Romney's father when he considered a presidential run. The general consensus was that he was eligibile. But the debates appeared legit. They're summarized here:
Romney s birth certificate evokes his father s controversy - Chicago Tribune
[
You just have to face facts that the far left will be wrong over 90% when they post. You should be used to by now. Why deny it?
..
Clearly from that sentence alone you show that you have no regard for the truth.
Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!
Once again your comments:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..
Just like you can keep your doctor..
Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!
The part you highlighted was for naturalized citizens. The part highlighted by me....is for natural born. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. Naturalized citizens are citizens after birth. Your claim is that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
Um, so we agree?
Ah now the far left spin to try and justify their incorrect comments! Instead of admitting they were wrong they just drone on trying to cover for the fact that they were wrong.
Also goes to show that the far left can not understand anything beyond their programming.
Oh I am sorry.
I didn't realize you were just a troll.
And that your only purpose- and only content in this thread so far- is to attack people.
Not one post on topic. Just attacks.
Just a troll.
The reasons are very simple.
Read the article and pay attention using common sense.
Reality Check Constitutional Eligibility Divided Loyalties Need To Obey The Constitution - Birther Report Obama Release Your Records
Cruz is eligible.
It is up to the voters to decide whether or not his loyalties are in question.
I agree on Cruz's eligibility, as the US recognizes only citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. There is no third type. Since natural born citizens are clearly not naturalized, that leaves citizens at birth as the only possible category under which 'natural born' could fall.
Though in fairness, for those not born in the US the issue is at least debatable. Take a look at the debates on the eligibility of Mitt Romney's father when he considered a presidential run. The general consensus was that he was eligibile. But the debates appeared legit. They're summarized here:
Romney s birth certificate evokes his father s controversy - Chicago Tribune
Oh I agree that there is a potential real controversy for those not born in the United States.
But there will not be any real controversy- Congress would certify a Cruz election without a single dissent.
Kosh, I am being actually quite pleasant as I ask this, "What are you drinking tonight, because you are stranger than usual, and the usual is strange enough."
Yeah, he's telling me I'm wrong...and then posts my own argument to refute my argument.
Are you agreeing with me?
Showing the facts do not fit your comments..
The 'facts' that you posting say what I do. That natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. So we agree?
Oh my so wrong in just a few posts:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Again showing the facts to not fit your claims. Then you lie about what you posted.
Thus, proving my earlier comments..
Going to admit you are wrong?
Are you okay? The post you just quoted said 'natural born (citizen at birth). And you've attempted to correct me by telling me that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
We're agreeing, buddy. Are you alright?
Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!
Once again your comments:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..
Just like you can keep your doctor..
Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!
Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!
Once again your comments:
"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."
Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..
Just like you can keep your doctor..
Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!
The part you highlighted was for naturalized citizens. The part highlighted by me....is for natural born. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. Naturalized citizens are citizens after birth. Your claim is that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
Um, so we agree?
Ah now the far left spin to try and justify their incorrect comments! Instead of admitting they were wrong they just drone on trying to cover for the fact that they were wrong.
Also goes to show that the far left can not understand anything beyond their programming.
Oh I am sorry.
I didn't realize you were just a troll.
And that your only purpose- and only content in this thread so far- is to attack people.
Not one post on topic. Just attacks.
Just a troll.
Yes that is common comment from far left posters when they are proven to be wrong!
