Can we keep this one? PLEEEEEEZE? Marley23 tried shutting him down before and I thought the lawyers would take over the thread again. :eek:
Those are running words, not fighting words. If that is all that stands between freedom and tyranny, I’m betting on tyranny.
50 quatloos on freedom!
(Just 50. I ain’t gonna go all-out on this one.)
sigh
…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…
That’s not necessarily a problem. Consider for the moment (don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this…don’t make me do this) that the [del]Analytically Challenged, Mentally Disturbed and Racist Conglomerate[/del]Birthers’ case that “natural born” means you have two citizen parents. They are, as mentioned upthread, creating a third class of citizen: naturalized; natural born; and demented (for lack of a better term). In the [del]Detached from Reality, Unable to Follow Primary-School Logic, and Tyrant-Craving Coalition’s[/del]Birthers’ view, your grandmother would be a demented citizen, ineligible for the presidency. However, your mother, born to two citizen parents (natural born and demented) and having no claim to citizenship (or claim to citizenship but not having taken any steps towards dual citizenship/allegiance) will now have been a ‘natural born citizen’ and she (and you) are now eligible to run for the presidency (provided you’re not black. Or Hispanic. Or have a funny name. Or disagree with the politics of the [del]Jingoistic Constitutional Misinterpreters Association[/del]Birthers).
The unfortunate (unfortunate in a ‘wouldn’t it be nice if there were anti-stupid pills’) thing is that had this argument been taking place a couple hundred years ago, and not stemming from such blatant racist/political ideology, there would have been interesting arguments on both sides. The ‘natural born’ qualification has/had significant and (particularly at the time) important roots. In many ways it still does–don’t forget a *lot *of the current nonsense in American politics is the result of an Australian (or is Murdoch Austrian? Which has the backwards-flushing toilets again?). So if it were 1786 and someone piped up “hey, about this natural born citizen thing, should we be explicit and say that both parents must be citizens” wouldn’t necessarily have resulted in the mocking jeers that the question raises today. Had someone posted this question to GD in 2000 (going back before 9/11 to avoid as much falderal as possible), it wouldn’t have been a completely dead thread.
With the benefit of hindsight it’s understandable to think of it as a moot question or one that has an obvious answer, but at the time there may have been significant discussion, if for anything to hash out the pros and cons of codifying the definition.
Of course, at the time all the uppity black folk would be subject to lynching, not primarying, so that’s kind of moot too, isn’t it?
Oh, and now that there’s been ample precedent and established custom, it’s so far beyond moot as to make a *tooooooommmmmm *sound. I have no idea what that means either; work with me here.
sigh
I think, after that, you need a drink.
They (Republicans) learned all the wrong lessons of the cold war, and are now competent to rule the USSR. I think it has to do with dreams of potency.
No, but the response might have been, “Why?” 
The natural-citizen clause was put in only to forestall the possibility of some rich Euro prince taking over the fragile new republic. None such had even one American parent.
Thanks. Actually, I’ll be up most of the night working; sipping Oban 18 at the moment.
Don’t worry. There will be another one along soon.
Well, it’s crazy, but it’s not actually that crazy. The birthers are inventing a third category of citizenship–‘natural-born citizen’ means someone who was born to two citizen parents. The other categories are citizen by birth (someone born to U.S. citizens or born on U.S. soil), and naturalized citizens (someone born a non-citizen and made into one later). So you can be a natural-born citizen, under this theory, even if your parents were immigrants, as long as they were naturalized before you were born. (Or maybe conceived, if they’re pro-lifers too. :D) But since Barack Obama’s father was never granted citizenship, he is not a natural-born citizen (although he is a citizen by birth, per the 14th Amendment, unless he really was born in Kenya or Malaysia or Mars or wherever they decide tomorrow he’s actually from) and is not eligible for the presidency. His kids would be, as long as he was legally a citizen when they were born, though he probably wasn’t. Or something.
See, it all makes sense now. Aside from the fact that there’s no evidence that this third category was ever intended or reasonably able to be inferred from the text of the Constitution. And the other fact that it’s all batshit insane.
thank you
Remember that saying about be careful about what you wish for?
Still, this one was fun.
What about a guy who doesn’t even know who his father was? Should he be ineligible for the presidency?
But if they assumed they were natural-born by virtue of jus solis, they would have no reason to seek naturalization. So if the birthers get their way, they could disenfranchise millions of people.
<Mr. Burns> Disenfranchise, eh? Excellent! </MB>
Seems like win-win for them then!
You know, it’s odd, but I have never seen a single birther who actually supports the President and his politics. You’d think that there would be a principled few who would say, “Oh, I think he’s been a terrific President. The economy is turning around, we’ve made a start at health care reform, and he even got bin Laden! But gosh darn it, he’s just not eligible for the office.”
I’ll take the birthers an extremely tiny bit more seriously when I hear that from some of them.
No it doesn’t, and I note that you have conveniently ignored the fact that some of those bills were Republican-sponsored, that at least one was entirely irrelevant to Obama and that Hillary was supposed to be the Democratic heir-designate until quite late in the game. But don’t let facts get in the way of your frothing.
In fact, as already pointed out, in pre-Obama times there was serious discussion over whether the “natural-born citizen” requirement should be changed to allow Ahnold to ascend to the Presidency, back when he was popular and California hadn’t yet entirely sunk into the economic tarpits. That may well have been what was driving the Republican bills in that list (I’d go back and check but seriously, you’re gone so why bother?)
Translation: how dare you actually fact-check my arguments and point out their obvious flaws rather than just accepting everything I tell you? Screw you guys - I’m-a going home.
Or the same one with new footwear.
I do love me some stockings.
I always laugh when I see those comments about “He’s not my president!” Of course, in the 90s, it was “My president is Charlton Heston.” Who’s now a corpse in the ground… But Clinton WAS your president, so long as you’re a US citizen. Bush WAS my president, no matter how much I disliked him. And Obama IS my president. Nitpick, but annoying. Maybe these people are just trying to publicly denounce their citizenship status, which would be nice.
If we require that both parents have to be US citizens, then won’t we have to do a DNA test of every candidate to prove paternity (or maternity, for that matter)?
Gerald Ford - real name Leslie King - was adopted. They say his birth parents were American, but do real Americans have names like King? The constitution forbids foreign royalty but he was made President without anybody electing him! How was it done? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? The Babylon Brotherhood? They say that he’s dead, but is he, really? Are you sure? How do you know? And why can’t he be put in place as a zombie if elections don’t matter?
I have here in my talons a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit zombie lizard people from being president. That’s the real menace we need to face up to.