Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: President Frauds court case
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 09:40 AM
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. children is plural, parents is plural I am a us citizen, therefore my child being born here can easily be interpreted as 'natural born' unless some clause says that one parents citizenship nullifies the others in the case of their childs citizenship Nothing in there says anyone isnt a citizen, I think what they are saying of parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens.......It depends on how the court sees a natural born citizen.....and by early definitions citizenship became different from natural born citizens in defining those able to run for President of the United States......The only job defined between the difference of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Whichever way its been determined, it needs to be defined going forward in order to put such matters to rest once and for all. Don't you think?? sadly , yes, although I would think it was common sense,,,but I know thats not so common anymore,,,, Do you think a child born in the US to two non citizens should be eligible to be president? they should be eligible in either of their parents 'homelands' with a focus placed upon which land they are raised up in for instance, if one is from france and the other is italy and they have and raise the child in italy,,that should imply natural born italian citizenship likewise, if one parent is american and the other is not, but the child is born on american soil and raised on american soil,,,that should imply natural born american citizenship,, and should not be voided because of ONE parent in lieu of the childs actual lifetime participation , birth, and contribution to America,,,, But by placing the Natural Born Citizen clause was to ensure that no foreign parent or government entity could influence the domestic happenings in the United States through the office of the Presidency. You do see the purpose of the differentiation? no, I have heard the assumption though but since the founders arent here, I guess we cant ask them why they put 'natural born' as opposed to just born in my opinion, a born citizen would sound just as ambigious because we all have to be BORN somewhere , so perhaps natural born was to distinguish those born here as opposed to those born elsewhere which is further clarified elsewhere,,, [edit] Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states: Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21 Again you have it here...... (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens) well, it wouldnt make sense to make a child born abroad in, say Italy, to Italian parents to be an american citizen of course A parent would have to be a us citizen, but it doesnt require BOTH parents be a citizen

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Mon 01/30/12 09:41 AM
6.2 Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned 6.2.1 Chester A. Arthur 6.2.2 Christopher Schürmann 6.2.3 Charles Evans Hughes 6.2.4 Barry Goldwater 6.2.5 George Romney 6.2.6 Lowell Weicker 6.2.7 Róger Calero 6.2.8 John McCain 6.2.9 Barack Obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 01/30/12 09:42 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 09:42 AM
6.2 Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned 6.2.1 Chester A. Arthur 6.2.2 Christopher Schürmann 6.2.3 Charles Evans Hughes 6.2.4 Barry Goldwater 6.2.5 George Romney 6.2.6 Lowell Weicker 6.2.7 Róger Calero 6.2.8 John McCain 6.2.9 Barack Obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States contested THIRTY TWO seperate times? I would doubt that,,,

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Mon 01/30/12 09:49 AM
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. children is plural, parents is plural I am a us citizen, therefore my child being born here can easily be interpreted as 'natural born' unless some clause says that one parents citizenship nullifies the others in the case of their childs citizenship Nothing in there says anyone isnt a citizen, I think what they are saying of parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens.......It depends on how the court sees a natural born citizen.....and by early definitions citizenship became different from natural born citizens in defining those able to run for President of the United States......The only job defined between the difference of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Whichever way its been determined, it needs to be defined going forward in order to put such matters to rest once and for all. Don't you think?? sadly , yes, although I would think it was common sense,,,but I know thats not so common anymore,,,, Do you think a child born in the US to two non citizens should be eligible to be president? they should be eligible in either of their parents 'homelands' with a focus placed upon which land they are raised up in for instance, if one is from france and the other is italy and they have and raise the child in italy,,that should imply natural born italian citizenship likewise, if one parent is american and the other is not, but the child is born on american soil and raised on american soil,,,that should imply natural born american citizenship,, and should not be voided because of ONE parent in lieu of the childs actual lifetime participation , birth, and contribution to America,,,, But by placing the Natural Born Citizen clause was to ensure that no foreign parent or government entity could influence the domestic happenings in the United States through the office of the Presidency. You do see the purpose of the differentiation? no, I have heard the assumption though but since the founders arent here, I guess we cant ask them why they put 'natural born' as opposed to just born in my opinion, a born citizen would sound just as ambigious because we all have to be BORN somewhere , so perhaps natural born was to distinguish those born here as opposed to those born elsewhere which is further clarified elsewhere,,, [edit] Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states: Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21 Again you have it here...... (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens) well, it wouldnt make sense to make a child born abroad in, say Italy, to Italian parents to be an american citizen of course A parent would have to be a us citizen, but it doesnt require BOTH parents be a citizen It does says parents who are United States Citizens implying both parents to be US citizens and not one an Italian citizen should it be in say Italy.

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Mon 01/30/12 09:53 AM
My mother wouldn't be eligible to run under this because even though my grandfather and grandmother were married on an American base in Korea and my mother was born on an American military base in Puson. My grandmother wasn't granted citizenship until after her birth. My mother was a citizen of the United States married to a Natural Born Citizen my father making me a Natural Born Citizen.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 09:55 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 09:57 AM
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. children is plural, parents is plural I am a us citizen, therefore my child being born here can easily be interpreted as 'natural born' unless some clause says that one parents citizenship nullifies the others in the case of their childs citizenship Nothing in there says anyone isnt a citizen, I think what they are saying of parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens.......It depends on how the court sees a natural born citizen.....and by early definitions citizenship became different from natural born citizens in defining those able to run for President of the United States......The only job defined between the difference of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Whichever way its been determined, it needs to be defined going forward in order to put such matters to rest once and for all. Don't you think?? sadly , yes, although I would think it was common sense,,,but I know thats not so common anymore,,,, Do you think a child born in the US to two non citizens should be eligible to be president? they should be eligible in either of their parents 'homelands' with a focus placed upon which land they are raised up in for instance, if one is from france and the other is italy and they have and raise the child in italy,,that should imply natural born italian citizenship likewise, if one parent is american and the other is not, but the child is born on american soil and raised on american soil,,,that should imply natural born american citizenship,, and should not be voided because of ONE parent in lieu of the childs actual lifetime participation , birth, and contribution to America,,,, But by placing the Natural Born Citizen clause was to ensure that no foreign parent or government entity could influence the domestic happenings in the United States through the office of the Presidency. You do see the purpose of the differentiation? no, I have heard the assumption though but since the founders arent here, I guess we cant ask them why they put 'natural born' as opposed to just born in my opinion, a born citizen would sound just as ambigious because we all have to be BORN somewhere , so perhaps natural born was to distinguish those born here as opposed to those born elsewhere which is further clarified elsewhere,,, [edit] Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states: Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21 Again you have it here...... (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens) well, it wouldnt make sense to make a child born abroad in, say Italy, to Italian parents to be an american citizen of course A parent would have to be a us citizen, but it doesnt require BOTH parents be a citizen It does says parents who are United States Citizens implying both parents to be US citizens and not one an Italian citizen should it be in say Italy. not really, it all depends upon interpretation and reading comprehension if I said children born to schizophrenic parents are likely to inherit traits,, would that mean that BOTH parents would have to be schizophrenic,,, or is it subject verb agreement because we are talking about more than one child ?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 01/30/12 09:57 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama It doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. John McCain's citizenship was challenged and had to be determined by the Senate? That's a "special consideration". Gee wiz, then why don't you want Obama to be given that "special consideration"?

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Mon 01/30/12 09:59 AM
Was barry born in the 1800's as his ssn states? We also have the matter of the fraudulent ssn that needs legal explinaton. Not uninformed guesses.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 10:01 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama It doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. John McCain's citizenship was challenged and had to be determined by the Senate? That's a "special consideration". Gee wiz, then why don't you want Obama to be given that "special consideration"? nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,,

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Mon 01/30/12 10:01 AM
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. children is plural, parents is plural I am a us citizen, therefore my child being born here can easily be interpreted as 'natural born' unless some clause says that one parents citizenship nullifies the others in the case of their childs citizenship Nothing in there says anyone isnt a citizen, I think what they are saying of parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens.......It depends on how the court sees a natural born citizen.....and by early definitions citizenship became different from natural born citizens in defining those able to run for President of the United States......The only job defined between the difference of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Whichever way its been determined, it needs to be defined going forward in order to put such matters to rest once and for all. Don't you think?? sadly , yes, although I would think it was common sense,,,but I know thats not so common anymore,,,, Do you think a child born in the US to two non citizens should be eligible to be president? they should be eligible in either of their parents 'homelands' with a focus placed upon which land they are raised up in for instance, if one is from france and the other is italy and they have and raise the child in italy,,that should imply natural born italian citizenship likewise, if one parent is american and the other is not, but the child is born on american soil and raised on american soil,,,that should imply natural born american citizenship,, and should not be voided because of ONE parent in lieu of the childs actual lifetime participation , birth, and contribution to America,,,, But by placing the Natural Born Citizen clause was to ensure that no foreign parent or government entity could influence the domestic happenings in the United States through the office of the Presidency. You do see the purpose of the differentiation? no, I have heard the assumption though but since the founders arent here, I guess we cant ask them why they put 'natural born' as opposed to just born in my opinion, a born citizen would sound just as ambigious because we all have to be BORN somewhere , so perhaps natural born was to distinguish those born here as opposed to those born elsewhere which is further clarified elsewhere,,, [edit] Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states: Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[21 Again you have it here...... (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens) well, it wouldnt make sense to make a child born abroad in, say Italy, to Italian parents to be an american citizen of course A parent would have to be a us citizen, but it doesnt require BOTH parents be a citizen It does says parents who are United States Citizens implying both parents to be US citizens and not one an Italian citizen should it be in say Italy. not really, it all depends upon interpretation and reading comprehension if I said children born to schizophrenic parents are likely to inherit traits,, would that mean that BOTH parents would have to be schizophrenic,,, or is it subject verb agreement because we are talking about more than one child ? In this case it isn't subject/verb agreement because it says a person as in singular.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 10:01 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama It doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. John McCain's citizenship was challenged and had to be determined by the Senate? That's a "special consideration". Gee wiz, then why don't you want Obama to be given that "special consideration"? nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,,

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Mon 01/30/12 10:03 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama It doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. John McCain's citizenship was challenged and had to be determined by the Senate? That's a "special consideration". Gee wiz, then why don't you want Obama to be given that "special consideration"? nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,, But if indeed, he had been elected to the Presidency, this could have been the same circumstance for him to be determined eligible in the aftermath.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 10:04 AM
Was barry born in the 1800's as his ssn states? We also have the matter of the fraudulent ssn that needs legal explinaton. Not uninformed guesses. thats true,,, it is ALLEGED that his ssn states he was born in the 1800s which is peculiar since Social Security numbers were first issued in November 1936. To date, 453.7 million different numbers have been issued. http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html as I said, I have no doubt the claims of fraud based upon ss number or bc will be deemed BULL CRAPOLA but,,,the issue of what is to be 'natural born' will be a hot button topic that many parents like me will be waiting to hear,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 10:08 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, Republicans won the house in 1994 because of HillaryCare. The people just didn't want it. So we get Obamacare and we're called racist for opposing it? A special session of the Senate was held to determine if John McCain could be on the ballot in 2008. No special session of the Senate ever determined if Obama was eligible. So Obama received special considerations that weren't extended to war hero John McCain. You value consistency, do you have a problem with the fact that the issue of Obama's eligibility was never determined? actually, its the other way around, the resolution was a special consideration that wasnt granted to Obama It doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. John McCain's citizenship was challenged and had to be determined by the Senate? That's a "special consideration". Gee wiz, then why don't you want Obama to be given that "special consideration"? nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,, But if indeed, he had been elected to the Presidency, this could have been the same circumstance for him to be determined eligible in the aftermath. could have been,, but then we have to deal with the question of how we , therefore, voted in a presidential election where NEITHER candidate was truly eligible,,, I dont think most would have risked the embarassment,,but I cant say it MIGHT not have happened to McCain this way,,,

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 01/30/12 10:18 AM
nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,, A law suit questioned John McCain's eligibility: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10006 The Senate researched the meaning of "natural born citizen" and passed Resolution 511, which gave their non-binding opinion that McCain should be considered a "natural born" citizen, because both of his parents were citizens. Obama would fail that simple bit of research and therefore doesn't come up to the level of SR 511.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/30/12 10:28 AM
nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,, A law suit questioned John McCain's eligibility: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10006 The Senate researched the meaning of "natural born citizen" and passed Resolution 511, which gave their non-binding opinion that McCain should be considered a "natural born" citizen, because both of his parents were citizens. Obama would fail that simple bit of research and therefore doesn't come up to the level of SR 511. why would he 'fail'?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Mon 01/30/12 10:31 AM
nope, it did not HAVE to be determined by senate as such a resolution is not LEGALLY BINDING,, it was the choice of his colleagues to put forth this opinion in his favor (including Obama) there was no REQUIREMENT for this action, it was indeed, a special consideration,,, A law suit questioned John McCain's eligibility: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10006 The Senate researched the meaning of "natural born citizen" and passed Resolution 511, which gave their non-binding opinion that McCain should be considered a "natural born" citizen, because both of his parents were citizens. Obama would fail that simple bit of research and therefore doesn't come up to the level of SR 511. why would he 'fail'? His father was not and never was a US citizen.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Mon 01/30/12 10:46 AM
,,sure seems bigoted to me,, a grandfather clause type of bigotry that keeps nothing but 'purebreds' in line to be president,,, Is there anything negative that could be said about Obama that wouldn't boil down to race in your mind? yes, if its consistently applied to non black presidents as well negative statements about his policies (when they arent policies that were followed by non white presidents as well or when they were the same policies and were similarly addressed under non white leadership) I have much respect for those who are consistent in their political stance , like Heavenly boy,, I know that if he doesnt like a policy, he will apply that dislike to ANY PRESIDENT under which the policy is followed others , however, seem to totally overlook and revere presidents who have done the same things they claim to despise this president for doing,,, that,,to me, is cause to consider what the difference might be,,,,that causes such disparate reaction,, I find just as many people that defend his policies when they decried another for doing something similar.. It goes both ways and has nothing to do with his race.