My post has everything to do with truth and how it gets or doesn't get covered....as I said...I am the media...it's a fragile thread if you think thoughts hijack it...I rarely start threads. You can't just block posts you don't want to acknowledge.....I asked you twice about paternal and maternal differences in the constitutions interpretation of equality......strangely, you didn't answer either but mention Trump....I get an answer....selective discourse? Answer this...would you prefer a paternally dominant government?
Well, sorry I do not get what you are after. Here is Obama's BC, As you can see, it says he was born in Honolulu. It also says his father is a Kenyan. So that means he is not a Natural born Citizen, proved by the BC. Hawaii is his place of birth and that makes him a Citizen as per the 14th amendment, but it does not make him a Natural born Citizen.
...no it's not first you use the word "examples" as if this thread actually contains multiple examples of the "media not seeking truth". Clickbait tactics I guess. Reading the OP title one would think this would be about "examples of media not seeking the truth", but you provide none. The OP is just one half-assed babbling about your so called assertion that the media didn't cover the meaning of Natural Born Citizen during the birther movement. But you provide no proof beyond your claim. You say there is one source for the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, but again provide none. I get it though, nowadays that is the Trump way so I understand why you would spew nonsense like that without actually backing it up with anything credible. They even coined a phrase for this, what was it? #AlternativeFacts
There were more examples and probably more to come. But here is the section of historical reference Madison used in Stating the requirement of Natural Born. Law of Nation 212 Book 1 "Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." And so it was, until the 14th amendment which broadened whom would be a citizen. It did not however change whom would be a Natural born Citizen.
If your argument had any merit, an attorney for an Obama hating citizen or organization would have taken up the cause and pushed the issue with the courts. They either did, and were completely unsuccessful, or they didn't because they knew the argument was frivolous and they would likely be sanctioned by the court. Either way, it is lunacy to expect for the media to pick up the ravings of a madman like Mr. Strunk.
Now it is your turn. What does the requirement Natural Born mean in your understanding? Or is this just to be ignored?
And this all means to your that the requirement has no meaning? Well it is working out that way, since the media does not seek the truth. You nor I probably have standing to do shit about it.
