[Vision2020] ON LIST

[No Weatherman]

ACS:

You've done a bang-up job impeaching my line of thought based on past
presidents and pics on US currency, which, by the way, makes you a
racist (just kidding but I hope you get the point), but you have not
answered the question. If we let currency interpret the US
Constitution then we have a real problem with separation of church and
state: "In God we trust." Plus the whole illuminati thing. So I'd
rather stay away from that line of thought.

What does Article II mean and why did the fathers insert it? The
citizen-status of past presidents may or may not shed light on the
correct answer to the question, but it does answer the question.

The simplest answer to the question is that the words "or a Citizen of
the United States" are an appositive defining the previous clause "No
person except a natural born Citizen." But not one social science
class I've ever had from my youth up ever held that view and we can
all think of good arguments against it.

Berg has strong bona fides, notwithstanding his loony 9-11 theory, but
that doesn't matter either. We must separate the merits of an argument
from the one making the argument lest we commit the ad hom.

I do not doubt that Obama meets the basic definition of "citizen" but
his dual status at birth, regardless of past presidents, does give
pause when you consider that he campaigned for Odinga last December.
This might not bother you but it terrifies me.

So, what does Article II mean and why did the fathers insert it?


On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> NW --
>
> Wong Kim Ark actually articulates the necessary conditions to possess
> citizenship from birth; conditions which Obama clearly meets. The
> argument you are trying to make is that "natural born citizen" does
> not mean "USC possessing citizenship from birth," which is the plain
> meaning of the text. You're reading a prohibition against ever having
> possessed citizenship of a different nation into a text which contains
> only affirmative language; a prohibition which, if applied, would
> disqualify anyone with a non-USC parent and our first seven
> Presidents.
>
> It's odd that this line of reasoning wasn't actually applied to the
> actual presidents whose faces are on our currency.
>
> -- ACS
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> There's an even more basic principle of lawyering that involves
>> reading the entire case and knowing it upside down and front side back
>> before you cite it, as opposed to quoting nine words from it mixed
>> with a few of your own.
>>
>> If you found a case addressing "natural born citizen" as it applies to
>> the presidency, I'm sure this forum would benefit if you posted it, ON
>> LIST. I know I would.
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>