(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

Nice job as you have destroyed your argument. ROTFLMAO!!! Leftists ought not try and use the teachings in the Bible, or from Jesus to make their dishonest points. Below I have the entire paragraph of which you quote. (Bold for emphasis).

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as had need.​

Jesus never FORCED anyone to do anything unlike Democrats!

Jesus understood people had the unalienable right of personal and individual LIBERTY. Democrats reject unalienable Liberty, just as they reject natural law, or God's law as they view themselves superior to God!

 

Not according to Minor v. Happersett (1875). Again, you should learn history.

"...the Court confirmed that an Article II "natural-born citizen" is a person born to parents who are citizens of the United States. "​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett

 

That ruling didn't produce an exclusive definition; it mentioned that anyone born to US citizens is a natural born citizen and didn't elaborate much beyond that. An obiter dicta observation in the later United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly stated that under the Citizenship Clause, anyone born in the USA is also a natural born citizen.

 

hmmm what a waste time it was to even read a thread so full of the usual Lib Babble B.S.

 

We are not talking about "the Citizenship Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are talking about Article 2 Section 1, Paragraph 6 below, which states the requirements to be President.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.​

You should try reading the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874) as it disproves your "point." (Bold for emphasis)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html​

Now according to the Supreme Court "there have been doubts" to your assertion. Please DISPROVE any doubts, or admit that Obama is most probably not eligible to be President according to history, and the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," or their shared understood reality.

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark says the Citizenship Clause partially clarifies the natural-born-citizen clause.

The quoted passage does not go into whether "children born within the jurisdiction" are natural-born citizens; indeed, "for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." Even if that case did say that this class is not natural-born, it would be superseded by the later United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

 

1: I'm not a leftist.

2: I was showing that fundamentally the Bible shows that you owe your life to God and that you should give away your possessions. That's incompatible with capitalism.

 

Please cite something in United States v. Wong Kim Ark which you think proves your point, that a "natural born citizen" as discussed in Article 2, 1 is something other than a child born in the US of TWO citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment does not address "natural born citizen" as does Article 2,1. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment states the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."​

Obviously there is a difference between "citizen," and "natural born citizen." Even the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has historical meaning. The very case you cite (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) states the following (bold for emphasis).

The words 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange, and as the equivalent of the words 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and the converse of the words 'out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word 'jurisdiction,' in the last clause of the same section of the fourteenth amendment, which forbids any state to 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction'​

sub•ject   /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ Show Spelled
[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt]

–noun

7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign.
8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection: four subjects of Sweden.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir​

I just don’t see ANY historical evidence for your “point” even from your OWN court citation. Please clarify your argument, and make a “point.”

 

Neither the Bible, nor Christ ever FORCED unwilling people to obey as that would violate the concept of free will of the unalienable right of Liberty. Democrats do so violate such rights and concepts. Democrats (Leftists, Anti-Constitutionalists, Liberals, Traitors, whatever you would like to call them) believe themselves to be above the law, above Natural Law, and believe themselves to be superior to God.

 

Valid point. Still the OP apparently doesn't think the Constitution should be followed.

Did we ever figure out why that is?

 

The greatness of the constitution is it's fluidity.

 

Nice principle:

Profits above all.

Discover what implies that.

 

Is this Apuzzo??

 

"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States,' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States.' "

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' "

This is in line with the dictionary definition of natural-born citizen: someone who was born a citizen.

 

I don't know what you mean by implies, but I know the foundation of it: man's right to exist for himself, his being an end to himself simply by the fundamental nature of his existence.

 

You're right. But we have a war to fight. You're going to have to take the stand, whether it's at a table at a restaurant or at a public meeting and defend your children's right to exist.

The Bible creates a wishy washy watered down defense for capitalism. God gives us everything and supplies all our needs (that's from the Bible), yet there is suffering in the world. So it must mean that he gave it to certain people. You would argue he gave it to certain people due to his better plan and reasons we can't see.

Then again, as I've clearly illustrated the Christian morality says that you should share with others and give away your wealth.

So the Bible would have us take the stand and say the following, as a moral defense for capitalism:

God gave these people these things for reasons that are beyong our comprehension. Even though these men should share this wealth, we have no right to take it.

I'm sorry, but that's not going to cut it, as is clearly illustrated with the young population who is being most screwed over and by this, and your exploding debt.

A much better moral defense is available:

There is objective metaphysical reality. Reality cannot be changed my wishing it so or believing it so. Reality is something that is concrete, and unchanging.

In this metaphysical reality, you are not given the means to your survival. Your food is not cooked, your meat is not cleaned, your shelters are not built. Life, we establish, is not meant to be taken for granted. It's something to be valued, sustained, and furthered.

Life is the highest value, because without life you will hold no values.

How does man survive? Reason. He uses reason by the rules of logic to identify and integrate in a non-contradictory fashion. It is by the understanding that reality is objective that man can do this. Computers and rail systems do not appear out of the blue, they must be created by men using reason, armed with nothing but their own vision, based on the unchanging laws of reality to create them.

Additionally, man must be self-interested to survive. If man is not selfish, then he would simply lie there and rot. He must be concerned about his own interests to survive, even to breathe.

How do you negate reason, destroy life, and deny man's right to exist for himself? Force. Force is the negation of the mind.

Consider this: would you force someone if they were behaving in ways you find favorable? Of course not. It is when they are not fulfilling your whims that you must force them. Men decide their conduct based on their mind, or reason. In this way, force is targeted against reason, therefore, life, and therefore is evil.

Capitalism is founded upon life, reason; an unchanging, concrete reality, men pursuing their self-interest, and the non-aggression principle.

This philosophy, Objectivism, integrates every political issue into the nature of man's survival and his existence. Your Bible sells capitalism short, as can be clearly evidenced by modern politics.

 

The greatness of (constitutional) Rights is their permanence.

You don't believe human rights are fluid, do you? You do don't believe the Government is above the Law, do you?

 

Nor did blacks, who not only could not vote, but could not hold public office either, and wow gee look at that, doesn't seem to have stopped Barack Hussein Obama...

Which just goes to show, how asinine an argument the "good point" you liberals are sitting in here patting each other on the backs over, really is. l

 

Odd you should say that, given liberal ideology in practice does precisely that.

From re-writing historical fact to suit themselves too out and out fabrications to smear their political opponents, to lying about their own associations and who it is that mentored them and has a shared ideology.

The liberal left, not only tells itself that one can just wish it were so, and voila, it will be thus.

But they tell everyone else around them as well, that very thing.

 

Insofar as the "Free Market" involves free choice and free will, it is technically compatible. The Bible doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head. It simply allows those with faith to practice it willingly. Unlike authoritarian-socialism... which does use the force of government to rob the rich and control market interactions.

 

Get out of my state commie.

 

Not true. Some women could and did vote.

Here's some more info

Here's a timeline of voting:

 

It's actually a well established concept in law. In an enumeration, if it's not there it was intentionally left out. So you're flat out wrong, no ifs ands or buts. Sorry dude. Your premise is bogus from the start.

 

You have offered no evidence at all. I know the Constitution "uses the words 'citizen of the United States,' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States." That is not in question, but the terms are different and mean different things.

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words" which is why history must be consulted, which is exactly what the Supreme Court did in Minor v. Happersett by stating "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

The term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean born in the United States. Indians "born in the United States" were not considered citizens until 1924, plus the whole term “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" clearly shows there is s difference between being born in the united States, and being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Again you have provided no evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen qualified to be President.

 

...except insofar as the Citizenship Clause.

As I've previously stated, this is not an exclusive definition, and if it were, it would have been overturned by United States v. Wong Kim Ark.