Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Are you willfully ignorant, or just ignorant, or Article II of the US Constitution?

Jus how many people on here think any US Citizen is eligible to be president?

LOL, that's really stupid. Try reading the Constitution for a change...here's a link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

You guys think you're smarter than an army of conservative lawyers challenging eligibility?

Puh-leez.

Update:

Obama's father was NOT A US CITIZEN, HE WAS KENYAN.

A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN

is "jus soli jus sanguinus" meaning BOTH parents must be US citizens and the child born on US soil.

Obama concurs with this in his own writing in S.R. 511. Look it up. You don't want to defy your messiah!

Update 2:

John Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment about US Citizenship also concurs.

So does legal precedent at the Supreme Court:

Perkins v. Elg

US v. Wong Kim Ark

So does Sen. Leahy, Sec. Chertoff to name a few.

Update 3:

John Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment about US Citizenship also concurs.

So does legal precedent at the Supreme Court:

Perkins v. Elg

US v. Wong Kim Ark

So does Sen. Leahy, Sec. Chertoff to name a few.

Update 4:

*

*

*

Shine on, Don, you're just making up stuff again and believing yourself! Try linking to John Bingham's OWN WORDS, he wrote the definitions.

Update 5:

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided

Update 6:

loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only.

Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth.

Mr. Obama freely admits that he was both an American and Kenyan citizen at birth (see his official website called fightthesmears.com). This is no secret. Despite repeated requests for the media to cover this most important issue during the election, it was repeatedly ignored.

Update 7:

Tubby:

Natural Born Citizen is based on what the Constitution is based on :BRITISH NATURAL LAW where it is amply defined.

As far as your other ridiculus criteria....Lt. Quarles Harris was shot in the head as the key witness to the passport investigation for his Indonesian citizenship (yet another layer which disqualifies him), and Obama has spent over $1million in legal fees not to show his vault birth certificate. Very funny.

Update 8:

Don B: a "native born" citizen is one born on US soil, a "naturalized" citizen is born of at least one US citizen parent, and a natural borncitizen is born of both US citizen parents on US soil.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Liberals don't believe in the constitution.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    None of the issues that I'm willfully ignorant of would have the effect of upsetting me or disrupting my worldview. In terms of social, political, economic, philosophical, etc. kinds of issues, I love learning about new ideas - particularly ones I hate. For example, I can't stand the so-called "Libertarian Right:" that spectrum of thought that ranges from the US Libertarian Party to Objectivism to Minarchism to "Anarcho-capitalism." So, I've been reading some Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and I have plans to read some more stuff along those lines. I find it both irritating and fascinating. I can see clearly that I'll probably never agree with their views, but I have come across some interesting criticisms of my own views. I cannot answer all of those criticisms yet, but if it requires me to abandon a few beliefs of mine, oh well. Won't be the first time. But I am willfully ignorant of some really boring and math-intensive subjects. Fluid dynamics, for example.

  • Tubby
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Okay, no problem. I'll just need to see your proof. Of course, you don't have a clue what real proof is, so I'll help:

    Actual proof:

    Kenyan birth certificate

    Indonesian birth certificate

    Actual existence of "jus soli jus sanguinus" in the Constitution

    Not valid:

    Out-of-context quotes from Obama

    Mistranslated testimony of senile grandmother

    Appeal to authority (Look at all the lawyers on the case - it MUST be true!)

    Reference to a 19th-century case that has nothing to do with presidential requirement (US v. Wong Kim Ark)

    Of course, the "not valid" proof is jsut that because it doesn't logically prove your case; in most cases, your "proof" is in the form of a straw-man attack, which, as we all know, does nothing to prove your original point.

    EDIT - "the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth." That's funny, because according to the link you provided, it doesn't say anything about the president's father's nationality.

    "You guys think you're smarter than an army of conservative lawyers challenging eligibility?" I know I'm smarter than you. Or less gullible... whichever.

    EDIT:

    "Lt. Quarles Harris was shot in the head as the key witness to the passport investigation for his Indonesian citizenship (yet another layer which disqualifies him)" - so, there was only ONE witness that came forth on that one? I'd think that, with such damning evidence, that there would be more than one witness. Of course, without the actual piece of paper proving his Indonesian citizenship, this argument is circumstantial at best, and another straw-man at worst.

    "and Obama has spent over $1million in legal fees not to show his vault birth certificate." So what? You're begging the question "WHY WOULD HE DO THAT UNLESS HE WAS HIDING SOMETHING?" Yet you have nothing substantial, pointing to hidden information. All you have is circumstance, logical fallacy, horrible Constitutional background, and a gut feeling. Now do you see why every one of these cases has been thrown out of the Supreme Court?!

    And you STILL don't have a Kenyan or Indonesian birth certificate. Sad.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    And Obama's father isn't president so it has nothing to do with Obama's qualifications to be president. I'm sorry but anyone, even if both parents are not citizens and the baby was just born here on vacation, if you are born in the United States, you automatically have United States citizenship. Don't like it, take it up with congress

    failure on an epic level

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Even so - it has been grossly ignored. Why? People do not seem to care what the Constitution of the United States says and the securities that were placed in it says. It is a shame - the Constitution has been trampled on - Tyranny

  • 1 decade ago

    the fact is, if you are to be president of the united states, you CANNOT hide anything

    **this does beg that he must have something to hide.. the president of our nation must me TRANSPARENT. ESPECIALLY when it comes to his birth and parents nationalities regardless of which side of this argument you might be on

    THIS IS NOT TRANSPARENCY....didn't he promise this???

    why hide it? common sense people.. if he was not worried about backlash and really believed in transparency, why would he not disclose it?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A natural born citizen is one who was born on American soil. That question was settled 100 years ago. Idiot.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I believe in some way, i am ignorant so yes

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    stop with the facts, they get in the way of the lies..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.