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.
too many words...can you just post a meme?Harvard Law Review Forum
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone( Anyone remember that idiot Republican candidate Juan McLame?) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]
Argue AGAINST the Harvard Law Review... that bastion of LIBERAL thought process!
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
the fact that the above drivel from the Harvard law review has to use "generally" shows its true colors.
Congress could not change presidential eligibility whether it wanted to or not.
Congress clarified the Constitution since 8 of the first Presidents were not US citizens when they were born, or was their mother or father.
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so. Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too.
because the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so. Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too.
because the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
We questioned his INDONESIAN citizenship!
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so. Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too.
because the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
someone must have aboveGrayson is certainly not corrupt.
Stop it. You're killing me. ROFLMAO!!!
The Constitution says only natural born citizens can run for POTUS
Why do you feel birth location is a disqualifier for a natural born citizen?
because the Constitution says so. Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too.
because the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
You have GOT to be a lawyer. Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words. The people that ratified the constitution and the vast majority of americans today would agree with the common sense understanding of the words.
too many words...can you just post a meme?Harvard Law Review Forum
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone( Anyone remember that idiot Republican candidate Juan McLame?) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]
Argue AGAINST the Harvard Law Review... that bastion of LIBERAL thought process!
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
the fact that the above drivel from the Harvard law review has to use "generally" shows its true colors.
Congress could not change presidential eligibility whether it wanted to or not.
Congress clarified the Constitution since 8 of the first Presidents were not US citizens when they were born, or was their mother or father.
no, the Constitution had a grandfather clause so to speak so that the first presidents didnt need to follow the rule.
Congress has no power to "clarify" no matter how much they may have wanted to. The Constitution would have to be amended....and it hasn't been in this regard.
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
and let me ask a third time....why did anyone care where Obama was born if it didnt matter?
someone must have above
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
You have GOT to be a lawyer. Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words. The people that ratified the constitution and the vast majority of americans today would agree with the common sense understanding of the words.
You have GOT to be a lawyer.
Nope.
Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words.
You made a claim. Then you posted a part of the Constitution that didn't prove your claim. Why?
The people that ratified the constitution....
Could have said Presidents had to be born in the US. They didn't.
So were you wrong, or were you lying?
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
You have GOT to be a lawyer. Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words. The people that ratified the constitution and the vast majority of americans today would agree with the common sense understanding of the words.
You have GOT to be a lawyer.
Nope.
Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words.
You made a claim. Then you posted a part of the Constitution that didn't prove your claim. Why?
The people that ratified the constitution....
Could have said Presidents had to be born in the US. They didn't.
So were you wrong, or were you lying?
"had to be born in the US."...........that is exactly what they said only in more exacting terms
no one is falling for your to slick twisted word games
someone must have abovebecause the Constitution says so. Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too.
because the Constitution says so.
Why don't you post the portion you feel makes your point?
but here it is again "
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."
Hmmmm.....that's weird. It doesn't mention birth location.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
Common sense tells you that a person born to a Mother who is an American citizen and meets the requirements of the US Code is an American Citizen at birth. The Obama fiasco was created because he refused to produce his birth certificate and I believe it was his Grandmother proclaimed that he was born in Kenya.
There are also questionable documents from his college days referring to his birthplace.
As long as his Mother was American, and she was, and she met the requirements of the US Code, Obama was a citizen at birth and it is apparent he was born in Hawaii.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
AGAIN, Why did anyone care about Obama's birthplace if it didnt matter? HIs mother was a US citizen too
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
You have GOT to be a lawyer. Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words. The people that ratified the constitution and the vast majority of americans today would agree with the common sense understanding of the words.
You have GOT to be a lawyer.
Nope.
Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words.
You made a claim. Then you posted a part of the Constitution that didn't prove your claim. Why?
The people that ratified the constitution....
Could have said Presidents had to be born in the US. They didn't.
So were you wrong, or were you lying?
"had to be born in the US."...........that is exactly what they said only in more exacting terms
no one is falling for your to slick twisted word games
"had to be born in the US."...........that is exactly what they said
No. They said natural born citizen.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
I addressed this above,,,...they use word "generally" which shows the flaw in their logic................also Congress did no such thing.....it passed rules of naturalization...which were the only things it could pass.
common sense should tell you that that means someone born on US soil.
I thought you were claiming your proof was in the Constitution?
Were you wrong? Were you lying?
You have GOT to be a lawyer. Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words. The people that ratified the constitution and the vast majority of americans today would agree with the common sense understanding of the words.
You have GOT to be a lawyer.
Nope.
Only such could demand twisted proof in place of the common sense understanding of the words.
You made a claim. Then you posted a part of the Constitution that didn't prove your claim. Why?
The people that ratified the constitution....
Could have said Presidents had to be born in the US. They didn't.
So were you wrong, or were you lying?
"had to be born in the US."...........that is exactly what they said only in more exacting terms
no one is falling for your to slick twisted word games
"had to be born in the US."...........that is exactly what they said
No. They said natural born citizen.
right, .......and answer the other question I posed 3 times.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
I addressed this above,,,...they use word "generally" which shows the flaw in their logic................also Congress did no such thing.....it passed rules of naturalization...which were the only things it could pass.
If McLame, born in the Canal Zone was OK to run, so is Cruz! It's simple logic, which you fail at!......And especially by now if he is UNCONTESTED by his own parties candidates, what's the problem?
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
I addressed this above,,,...they use word "generally" which shows the flaw in their logic................also Congress did no such thing.....it passed rules of naturalization...which were the only things it could pass.
If McLame, born in the Canal Zone was OK to run, so is Cruz! It's simple logic, which you fail at!......And especially by now if he is UNCONTESTED by his own parties candidates, what's the problem?
well most people dont give a shit......that explains his acceptance by party and even opposition...but Grayson does sound like he will challenge...then watch the "conservatives" on the court squirm and come up with some bullshit argument....probably along the lines of what your seeing on this board.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
I addressed this above,,,...they use word "generally" which shows the flaw in their logic................also Congress did no such thing.....it passed rules of naturalization...which were the only things it could pass.
If McLame, born in the Canal Zone was OK to run, so is Cruz! It's simple logic, which you fail at!......And especially by now if he is UNCONTESTED by his own parties candidates, what's the problem?
well most people dont give a shit......that explains his acceptance by party and even opposition...but Grayson does sound like he will challenge...then watch the "conservatives" on the court squirm and come up with some bullshit argument....probably along the lines of what your seeing on this board.
Court will immediately throw it out as Grayson has NO STANDING, as none of us do, as it does NOT DIRECTLY affect us!
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The HARVARD LAW REVIEW
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
I addressed this above,,,...they use word "generally" which shows the flaw in their logic................also Congress did no such thing.....it passed rules of naturalization...which were the only things it could pass.
If McLame, born in the Canal Zone was OK to run, so is Cruz! It's simple logic, which you fail at!......And especially by now if he is UNCONTESTED by his own parties candidates, what's the problem?
well most people dont give a shit......that explains his acceptance by party and even opposition...but Grayson does sound like he will challenge...then watch the "conservatives" on the court squirm and come up with some bullshit argument....probably along the lines of what your seeing on this board.
Court will immediately throw it out as Grayson has NO STANDING, as none of us do, as it does NOT DIRECTLY affect us!
YOU have GOT to be kidding.....the presidency doesn't affect us????.......but that may be one of the Bullshit tactics the "conservatives" take............it will show them for the corrupt tools they are.
