Yeah, I said start reading on page 44. You might have to read more than one page. The paper is pretty clear that it is talking about the definition of natural born citizen. Yes, I'm aware of who wrote the paper. The important part is not who wrote it but the court decisions it cited. Although, of course, the author has one more law degree than you do. Perhaps you'd be more interested in the opinions of the esteemed legal scholar here. barfo
Ha! That will win every time. Man, that is lefty attempt to intimidate. Where do you guys learn this small shit? Tell you what you do, instead of finding sources to support a meaning that you want, Try finding the source of the usage in the Constitution. I can tell you prefer to belittle the Constitution, but try it. Given the context of the day, you can be pretty sure they were not going to let another Englishman get his foot in the door, himself or an offspring that he contrived to have born here. They slammed that door shut, except for themselves. Another clue is in the Smithsonian (I think this is were I saw it) among the collection of James Madison things. His copy of the Law of Nations, with his notes penned in the margins of the pages. His reference book is my take. You can refer all you wish to this or that subsequent to the creation of the Constitution such as the 14th amendment and cases leading to that amendment, but even you must realize that has nothing to do with the requirement written into the Constitution for the holder of the office of President. You may not like it, but it is there. An amendment can remove it, wishing it away probably won't do.
It's not intimidation. It's just fact, and a relevant fact. Every lawyer has one more law degree than you. Or I. You are opining on the law; it makes sense to point out that people trained to do that pretty much all disagree with you. That doesn't make you wrong, of course. But it is a cautionary note for those that might be tempted to believe you. Yes, if you ignore everything that has happened since the constitution was written, you might have a case. And some slaves, and a wife who can't vote. Trouble is, no one agrees with your interpretation except crackpots and birthers. barfo
You do sound like a man that can not find any other source other than the one I point out to you. Damn that hurts, hey? Oh, It seems the Harvard Law review agrees, you do remember this part, "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ." Your lesson is complete.
Ok, so you like the Harvard Law Review article, do you? Do you think that Obama needed to go through naturalization proceedings in order to become a citizen? If so, reality disagrees with you. If not, then the Harvard Law Review article says that he's a natural born citizen. As for sources, I provided you a rather lengthy analysis of the subject. I can't help the fact that you only read one page of it. barfo
You have provided nothing prior to the Constitution that could possibly be the source of the term. You keep trying to equate Natural Born as the same as Citizen. You ought to know better, that would make the term in the Constitution superfluous. Nothing in the Constitution is superfluous. You don't really believe the framer would leave it so and English citizen (British Citizen)could come here and produce a child eligible to be President, do you? If so, you should study some more American history. Look at the wording in the Constitution they chose. Why hey? To slam the door on that shit. The 14th amendment did indeed make it so that any kid dropped here becomes a citizen, rather a dumb idea, but it happen. However, it did not touch upon (change) the meaning of Natural born. Find every lawyer you want that disagrees, it means nothing unless a court issues an opinion, and I sure don't see the court ruling the term Natural Born Citizen is the same as Citizen dropped in the US by any pass through. Since you like lawyer opinions, here is a pub by some pointing out cases where judges loath to find words superfluous. There are many more. I can't see Natural Born becoming meaningless no matter how many liberals would approve. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=_GMgCw-Qy0UWaZwYPtDO0A&bvm=bv.89381419,d.cGU
Nor have I attempted to, since it would be irrelevant, unless you've invented a time machine to take us back to the 1700s. No, I haven't done that, not even once. I have no doubt you are correct insofar as what the framers thought. I just don't find it all that compelling. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, the constitution is subject to interpretation and change, with and without amendments. Uhm... courts have issued opinions. That was in the link I sent you that you have ignored (along with the rest of the last 200+ years of history). Because you have your hands over your ears and are shouting "LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" barfo
As you no doubt know, corporate bylaws can be amended or replaced altogether. In addition they can be nullified in part by changes in laws and regulations. barfo
But not by the president by fiat because he thinks the by laws are antiquated. Surely the shareholders don't.
Nobody is talking here about changing anything by fiat. Unless, of course, we are talking about the bylaws of the Chrysler Corporation. barfo
You've won the battle that I wasn't contesting (framer's intent) and lost the war (reality). Congratulations! barfo
Yep. I don't worship old documents, be they the bible or the constitution or corporate bylaws. Historically interesting, yes, definitely. Rules according to which modern man must live life, without question or alteration? Sorry, no. barfo
