The "birther" issue during the Obama Presidency seem to me to be a glaring example of the media not performing the function they should in our society. Two things happen with this issue, paint conservatives as racist and dumb to boot. Then use this to obviate the meaning of Natural born, the real issue. They are still using it today as a negative for Trump. Not one main stream media network reconciled the meaning of Natural born Citizen with Obama. We only have one source for the meaning of this requirement in the Constitution for the President, and it is not defined in the Constitution. But it was well known at the time the Constitution was written. The media failed to perform and the vast majority of the public went along. This is just one.
yep. and there's not a damn thing we can do about it but sit back and watch the shit show. that's why i dont watch the news and drink copious amounts of alcohol
Kind of a poor example. The primary accusation (by your Mr. Trump) was not that Obama was not 'Natural born', but that his birth certificate was fake. So naturally that's what the media reported on. Secondly, questions of the proper interpretation of the constitution are not in the purview of the media so much as the judiciary. If anyone didn't think he was natural born, they should have filed a lawsuit alleging that. Oh wait, they did. In fact lots of suits got filed. Guess how that went? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation And yes, it sure did make certain conservatives look racist, and dumb to boot. Whose fault is that really? barfo
Ah! Says barfo! Now there is the word! But you did admit, the media followed the wrong trail. Thank you. Carry on! Oh! and bye the way, you nor anyone else in this form can say what Natural Born citizen means, hey? The usage in the Constitution is not superfluous. It like is intended to prevent exactly what we got.
Nope. Apparently, reporting on Trump's lies was in fact the right trail. Turns out his lies are what is important. Not your reading of the constitution, which the courts don't seem to think is valid. Although personally, I think we'd all be better off if they'd spent those years interviewing you rather than Trump. barfo
I've read enough of your posts on the subject to be familiar with your view. If time had stopped in the 1790s, your view might well win the day. But, lots of things have changed since then. Blacks are no longer slaves. Women are considered equal citizens. The 14th amendment passed. And Hawaii is now a state. There's no court in the land that is going to rule that someone born on US soil isn't qualified to be president just because his father wasn't from these parts. Your theory, while interesting from a historical point of view, is not the current state of law. barfo
Interesting view considering the term is in the Constitution as one of two requirements to be President.
As for what the current definition of natural born is, that's up to the courts to decide. They've thrown out every case based on your interpretation, which says that you are wrong, but it doesn't say what's right. My guess would be that if there was a definitive ruling today, the ruling would be that anyone born on US soil, or anyone born abroad to a US parent, would be eligible. barfo
It's only interesting if you don't realize that the constitution has been continually interpreted and re-interpreted by the courts for the last 240 years. If the founding fathers had wanted their special definition of natural born to survive, they should have been more explicit. And also probably they should have freed the slaves and given women the right to vote, etc. barfo
Neither one. I expect them to consider the constitution, but also all relevant amendments, decisions and interpretations since then. I also expect them to consider the real world in which they operate, not fantasize about living 300 years ago. barfo
We're in Day 8 of all Western MSM ignoring and refusing to report on the current Fukushima reactor meltdown, the worst man-made disaster in the history of the planet (roughly 7 times higher radiation than Chernobyl) and pretending it doesn't exist.
"Mis-Interpretations" should never be considered in rules of Constitutional Law, and anything that strays from the original founders' intent is a mis-interpretation. You need to pass an Amendment to change the meaning, or live by the original. As Kingspeed likes to say, "Learn the game, then post".
So you see it as logical, People born abroad of US Parents are still Citizens, and so do I. But the same hold true the other way around, children of French citizens are still French Citizens even though born in the US... The 14th amendment (which you seem to hold more dear than the Constitution) made that French kid ( or Kenyan) also a US citizen... Whether I like it or not, this is true. But it did not confer Natural born Citizen, just Citizen.
The constitution is like the Bible....it was written according to the status quo of the thirteen colonies...most of the language pertains to the culture of the times. .it's set up to be amended. It's not a finite entity and it wasn't signed by most of the country as it stands today...brilliant document..but it evolves as should we. I have a copy....fortunately for my wife....Asian women can now obtain citizenship...for a long time they weren't allowed in the country at all. Only their men. We have a checkered history behind our Constitution...according to the constitution....all men were created equal...didn't pan out quite that way though Marz....and that's not a guess..unfortunately our current president doesn't seem to understand the process though
I have another long standing story repeated by the media. Assad has to go! Why? How does the US gain the moral high ground to make these proclamations? Even if he is a bad dude, have we not learned to leave it alone? Must we repeat the error of taking out Saddam, and Gaddafi? Nothing good came of that very expensive do good work. What good will come of adding Assad to the list of mistakes?
