51% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in US

[OL FU]

I didn't know that Arnold's parents were American citizens

They're not...I was guessing who SH was referring to....

that was the first person I thought about too. And they could have been for all I know.

[Vidav]

here again... in the 4 years of his candidacy and the two years of his term... nobody CREDIBLE has been able to produce any ACTUAL EVIDENCE

Nobody also proved that unicorns don't exist.

Look, I'm far from a birther. All I'm saying is that it's possible he wasn't born in Hawaii.

The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Just because something hasn't been proven to not exist doesn't mean that it does exist.

[89Hen]

It's possible Reagan was born elsewhere....it's possible Ike was born elsewhere...alot of things are possible....

Except Obama being born elsewhere.

[89Hen]

Just because something hasn't been proven to not exist doesn't mean that it does exist.

I agree. Like I said, I'm not a birther, but to say it's not possible is folly.

[89Hen]

yet they seem to focus on his birth certificate....

They? You said the Right. Care to clarify?

[Appaholic]

It's possible Reagan was born elsewhere....it's possible Ike was born elsewhere...alot of things are possible....

Except Obama being born elsewhere.

I think I've already covered that...try to keep up....alot of thing's are possible (like unicorns), but you might not want to base your debate for regaining control of the free world with all of those possibilities..

[Appaholic]

yet they seem to focus on his birth certificate....

They? You said the Right. Care to clarify?

"They" refers to the folks who are making an issue of this President's legitimacy based upon the "missing" birth certificate....

[89Hen]

Except Obama being born elsewhere.

I think I've already covered that...try to keep up....alot of thing's are possible (like unicorns), but you might not want to base your debate for regaining control of the free world with all of those possibilities..

And I think I've already covered that... I don't see anyone asking for his resignation on this board and I RARELY see this even come up for discussion. You do realize it was a hard core Lib who started this thead?

[89Hen]

They? You said the Right. Care to clarify?

"They" refers to the folks who are making an issue of this President's legitimacy based upon the "missing" birth certificate....

OK, good. So nobody here.

[Appaholic]

"They" refers to the folks who are making an issue of this President's legitimacy based upon the "missing" birth certificate....

OK, good. So nobody here.

Superhornet, Blueballs....I'm sure there are others...

[Appaholic]

I think I've already covered that...try to keep up....alot of thing's are possible (like unicorns), but you might not want to base your debate for regaining control of the free world with all of those possibilities..

And I think I've already covered that... I don't see anyone asking for his resignation on this board and I RARELY see this even come up for discussion. You do realize it was a hard core Lib who started this thead?

Superhornet...Blueballs...I'm sure there are others....

What's the lib starting the thread have to do with it? He didn't make their statements supporting this asinine stand for them did he?

[89Hen]

OK, good. So nobody here.

Superhornet, Blueballs....I'm sure there are others...

You're reaching with bb. All he said was it should be easy to shut birthers up. SH? Well. He likes women's basketball, so how much do you really want to pile in that wagon?

[89Hen]

What's the lib starting the thread have to do with it? He didn't make their statements supporting this asinine stand for them did he?

Point was, to me it sounded like you were saying this is the only issue WE want to discuss when it comes to Obama. If that's not what you meant, then there's nothing left to discuss.

his actions / policies / etc. have given the right so many opportunities to legitimately challenge his decisions / values, yet they seem to focus on his birth certificate....engage the Dems in a debate of substance, not speculation reserved for the whacko-wing of the ultra-right.

[GannonFan]

I think you're jumping the gun there - I don't believe that question has ever been clearly ruled on. There's been no definitive ruling on that one way or the other. That's why birthers are still after Obama and why Democratic birthers were all ready to do the same against McCain. There's no clearly defined ruling of what "natural born" means.

Dred Scott decision defined "natural born" as place of birth:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 93_ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But you're quoting from Curtis's dissent in the Dred Scott case, not the majority opinion. And much of Dred Scott was later overturned, for lack of a better word, by the 14th ammendment and the Slaughterhouse cases. With that being the case, again, there is no clear ruling by the Supreme Court, nor anything clear in the Constitution, that really defines "natural born". You'll have to do better than a dissent in a largely vacated ruling.

[SuperHornet]

I didn't know that Arnold's parents were American citizens

They're not...I was guessing who SH was referring to....

I see Appa's the one with brains around here....

[Appaholic]

Superhornet, Blueballs....I'm sure there are others...

You're reaching with bb. All he said was it should be easy to shut birthers up. SH? Well. He likes women's basketball, so how much do you really want to pile in that wagon?

Fair enough...

[Appaholic]

What's the lib starting the thread have to do with it? He didn't make their statements supporting this asinine stand for them did he?

Point was, to me it sounded like you were saying this is the only issue WE want to discuss when it comes to Obama. If that's not what you meant, then there's nothing left to discuss.

his actions / policies / etc. have given the right so many opportunities to legitimately challenge his decisions / values, yet they seem to focus on his birth certificate....engage the Dems in a debate of substance, not speculation reserved for the whacko-wing of the ultra-right.

I didn't mean that was the ONLY thing they discuss, but it's a non-starter IMO & discussing it as a legit bullet point against Obama reflects more poorly on the right than it does Obama...IMO, anyone who even brings this up as a legit argument invalidates any other legit argument they could make thereby lowering the collective level of respectable political discourse....but my opinion & $.50 might get you a cup of coffee.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Point was, to me it sounded like you were saying this is the only issue WE want to discuss when it comes to Obama. If that's not what you meant, then there's nothing left to discuss.

I didn't mean that was the ONLY thing they discuss, but it's a non-starter IMO & discussing it as a legit bullet point against Obama reflects more poorly on the right than it does Obama...IMO, anyone who even brings this up as a legit argument invalidates any other legit argument they could make thereby lowering the collective level of respectable political discourse....but my opinion & $.50 might get you a cup of coffee.

exactly

it falls in the "supersecret Muslim" category. professing such nonsense eviscerates your credibility on anything else (even if a birther said "water is wet" - I'd seek independent verification)

[SuperHornet]

Appa: That's not an original birth certificate signed by the doctor. It's dated 2007.

Besides, I've already agreed that nothing can/should be done about it now. We conservatives should just focus on blocking his Commie policies and voting him out in 2012. Nothing can be done about his fraudulent election now, so just dump him through the normal process. There have been one-and-done presidents before, and there's nothing wrong with dropkicking Obama as a one-and-done. We don't have a recall process for the President, so that's what we're left with and what we should focus on.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Appa: That's not an original birth certificate signed by the doctor. It's dated 2007.

Besides, I've already agreed that nothing can/should be done about it now. We conservatives should just focus on blocking his Commie policies and voting him out in 2012. Nothing can be done about his fraudulent election now, so just dump him through the normal process. There have been one-and-done presidents before, and there's nothing wrong with dropkicking Obama as a one-and-done. We don't have a recall process for the President, so that's what we're left with and what we should focus on.

and based on this post alone - i'm now convinced that the pic in your avatar does in fact have and adam's apple. your disconnect from reality is truly remarkable.

[89Hen]

his actions / policies / etc. have given the right so many opportunities to legitimately challenge his decisions / values, yet they seem to focus on his birth certificate....engage the Dems in a debate of substance, not speculation reserved for the whacko-wing of the ultra-right.

I didn't mean that was the ONLY thing they discuss

Maybe I took your statement too literally.

[Appaholic]

I didn't mean that was the ONLY thing they discuss

Maybe I took your statement too literally.

Haven't you learned to NEVER take me too literally...c'mon, man...

[Appaholic]

Appa: That's not an original birth certificate signed by the doctor. It's dated 2007.

Besides, I've already agreed that nothing can/should be done about it now. We Conservatives should just focus on blocking his Commie policies and voting him out in 2012.......

fify....I consider myself a small "c" conservative (fiscal conservative, social MYOB) not a Conservative (Palinite / Birther / Religious Right)...there is a difference & the two should never be confused....

[Skjellyfetti]

But you're quoting from Curtis's dissent in the Dred Scott case, not the majority opinion.

Um, no.... That is Chief Justice Taney's MAJORITY opinion.

[GannonFan]

But you're quoting from Curtis's dissent in the Dred Scott case, not the majority opinion.

Um, no.... That is Chief Justice Taney's MAJORITY opinion.

Come on, man, did you even read your own link? Again, using the link you provided...

CURTIS, J., Dissenting Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60 U.S. 393

Scott v. Sandford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argued: --- Decided:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Justice CURTIS dissenting.

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The passage above comes about 1/4 of the way into his dissent on this link. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 3_ZD1.html

Even Wiki confirms this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_bo ... ted_States

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote, (Note: this does not mention "Natural Born" in a legal context)

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [9][italics in original]

However, this opinion pre-dates the Fourteenth amendment, which added to the constitution an explicit description of who shall be citizens, "making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States".[10]

To quote Matt Damon..."how about dem apples?"