If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

Would y'all just stop on the birth certificate threads (except as suits a punchline)?

It's crushing to the ego to agree with RobertN, cb, PaulOfTroy, and GilWinant in the same ******* thread.

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

This.

(04-16-2010 11:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 09:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm surprised nobody mentioned how Michelle Obama said in a speech how "... [they went to Kenya], Barack's home country, ..."

You don't actually believe that is what she meant do you? She was obviously talking about where his ancesters came from(ie. his dad) not that he was actually born there. Of course, you birthers(I didn't think you were one of them) are not smart enough to understand.

You spend your life dizzy from all the spin. Spin. Spin, Spin....

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

But you admit that the law is unsettled on the subject. Making your opinion conjecture.

(04-16-2010 11:12 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Would y'all just stop on the birth certificate threads (except as suits a punchline)?

It's crushing to the ego to agree with RobertN, cb, PaulOfTroy, and GilWinant in the same ******* thread.

politics reality makes strange bedfellows....

(04-16-2010 11:12 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Would y'all just stop on the birth certificate threads (except as suits a punchline)?

It's crushing to the ego to agree with RobertN, cb, PaulOfTroy, and GilWinant in the same ******* thread.

If you don't like it, your choice is to STFU and ignore it.

(04-16-2010 11:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

This.

Owl's operative word here believe

(04-16-2010 11:49 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 09:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm surprised nobody mentioned how Michelle Obama said in a speech how "... [they went to Kenya], Barack's home country, ..."

You don't actually believe that is what she meant do you? She was obviously talking about where his ancesters came from(ie. his dad) not that he was actually born there. Of course, you birthers(I didn't think you were one of them) are not smart enough to understand.

You spend your life dizzy from all the spin. Spin. Spin, Spin....

Were you born brain-dead or did it occur later in life?

(04-16-2010 11:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:49 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 09:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm surprised nobody mentioned how Michelle Obama said in a speech how "... [they went to Kenya], Barack's home country, ..."

You don't actually believe that is what she meant do you? She was obviously talking about where his ancesters came from(ie. his dad) not that he was actually born there. Of course, you birthers(I didn't think you were one of them) are not smart enough to understand.

You spend your life dizzy from all the spin. Spin. Spin, Spin....

Were you born brain-dead or did it occur later in life?

The unabashed ObamaZombies (which you fit the definition of, to a tee) are the epitome of the brain-dead progressive movement.

(04-16-2010 11:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

But you admit that the law is unsettled on the subject. Making your opinion conjecture.

No, I actually think the law is pretty well settled, at least as far as the issues of substance.

There is the one issue that such a birth would not comply with rather strict statuory requirements then in effect. But I don't think that staute would pass constitutional muster, and there is at least dicta in support of that.

I am much more certain of the result here than I am, for example, of the result on the challenges to Obamacare.

(04-16-2010 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

But you admit that the law is unsettled on the subject. Making your opinion conjecture.

No, I actually think the law is pretty well settled, at least as far as the issues of substance.

There is the one issue that such a birth would not comply with rather strict statuory requirements then in effect. But I don't think that staute would pass constitutional muster, and there is at least dicta in support of that.

I am much more certain of the result here than I am, for example, of the result on the challenges to Obamacare.

Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.

"I don't think" yea, that just the same.

"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

(04-16-2010 12:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Barack Obama were born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then I believe that should be sufficient for him to meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, and I believe the supreme court would rule that way if it came to that.

But you admit that the law is unsettled on the subject. Making your opinion conjecture.

No, I actually think the law is pretty well settled, at least as far as the issues of substance.

There is the one issue that such a birth would not comply with rather strict statuory requirements then in effect. But I don't think that staute would pass constitutional muster, and there is at least dicta in support of that.

I am much more certain of the result here than I am, for example, of the result on the challenges to Obamacare.

Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.

"I don't think" yea, that just the same.

"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

Owl,

This is what I'm talking about. The GOP can't court voters who think like this. You made a very valid point that regardless of Obama's place of birth, pursuing the matter isn't worthwhile legally (and I would assume you would agree that it isn't worthwhile politically). Yet you get vitriol in return for your reasonable stance. If a GOP politician has to bend to accommodate such skewed views, then how does that politician even begin to operate in good faith with the President's party? Birther thought, truther thought, and all similarly flawed thought has to be expelled in order to move forward on issues of real substance.

(04-16-2010 12:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.
"I don't think" yea, that just the same.
"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

No crap. I'm hedging only because the court sometimes does things that surprise.

A person born in a foreign country, with at least one parent who is a US citizen, is a US citizen at birth by operation of lex sanguinis, and that is sufficient to make that person a "natual born citizen." There simply is no legal or constitutional question there; that is well settled law.

The only part of this that is not a lead-pipe cinch is the impact of the statute on the books at the time of Obama's birth that established minimum age/residency requirements for a US citizen parent in order to transfer US citizenship under lex sanguinis. That statue has been repealed, it is inconsistent with prior court decisions, and it is inconsistent with dicta in prior cases. The dicta would go even further (and this is the sole extent to which I am relying on dicta) to hold that even if the statue were upheld, it didn't impact the constitutional definition of "natural-born citizen." The fact that it would have been impossible for anyone the age of Obama's mother to have met the statutory standard is probably sufficient in and of itself to render the provision void. Given the weight of those factors, I am quite certain that the supreme court would overturn the provision, if it came to that.

If that issue were resolved as I believe it would be, then the rest of this hypothetical is a slam dunk.

(04-16-2010 11:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  If you don't like it, your choice is to STFU and ignore it.

He also has the choice of responding to it.

(04-16-2010 12:11 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Owl,
This is what I'm talking about. The GOP can't court voters who think like this. You made a very valid point that regardless of Obama's place of birth, pursuing the matter isn't worthwhile legally (and I would assume you would agree that it isn't worthwhile politically). Yet you get vitriol in return for your reasonable stance. If a GOP politician has to bend to accommodate such skewed views, then how does that politician even begin to operate in good faith with the President's party? Birther thought, truther thought, and all similarly flawed thought has to be expelled in order to move forward on issues of real substance.

Obviously, I agree here.

Where we may disagree is that I believe the other party is at least equally flawed on issues that have a much greater potential to harm me personally. My chances of wanting to marry another man are no greater than my chances of needing an abortion, so while I disagree with the religious right social agenda, it doesn't really affect me. I see Obama's approach to health care and fiscal issues as a direct threat to my future well-being, the future well-being of my family, and even the future well-being of the USA. That makes it more important for me to oppose the democrats than to oppose the republicans. And sufficiently so that I'm still willing to go with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

(04-16-2010 11:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:12 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Would y'all just stop on the birth certificate threads (except as suits a punchline)?

It's crushing to the ego to agree with RobertN, cb, PaulOfTroy, and GilWinant in the same ******* thread.

If you don't like it, your choice is to STFU and ignore it.

I get great satisfaction from the knowledge that every time I call you out for posting something stupid, it pushes you one step closer to a heart attack, thank you very much.

(04-16-2010 12:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 11:12 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Would y'all just stop on the birth certificate threads (except as suits a punchline)?

It's crushing to the ego to agree with RobertN, cb, PaulOfTroy, and GilWinant in the same ******* thread.

If you don't like it, your choice is to STFU and ignore it.

I get great satisfaction from the knowledge that every time I call you out for posting something stupid, it pushes you one step closer to a heart attack, thank you very much.

Heart attack? you know nothing about me. How dare you suggest that you want to push anyone one step closer to a heart attack.

Your narcissistic notion that YOU affect Anyone is astoundingly stupid and pathetic. Your posts continue to have NO WORTH TO ANY DECENT PERSON.

you'll do yourself in.

(04-16-2010 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.
"I don't think" yea, that just the same.
"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

No crap. I'm hedging only because the court sometimes does things that surprise.

A person born in a foreign country, with at least one parent who is a US citizen, is a US citizen at birth by operation of lex sanguinis, and that is sufficient to make that person a "natual born citizen." There simply is no legal or constitutional question there; that is well settled law.

The only part of this that is not a lead-pipe cinch is the impact of the statute on the books at the time of Obama's birth that established minimum age/residency requirements for a US citizen parent in order to transfer US citizenship under lex sanguinis. That statue has been repealed, it is inconsistent with prior court decisions, and it is inconsistent with dicta in prior cases. The dicta would go even further (and this is the sole extent to which I am relying on dicta) to hold that even if the statue were upheld, it didn't impact the constitutional definition of "natural-born citizen." The fact that it would have been impossible for anyone the age of Obama's mother to have met the statutory standard is probably sufficient in and of itself to render the provision void. Given the weight of those factors, I am quite certain that the supreme court would overturn the provision, if it came to that.

If that issue were resolved as I believe it would be, then the rest of this hypothetical is a slam dunk.

Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.