BeardofPants
New Member
*weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
- Thread starter Cerise
- Start date
- Status
.
randomJACKASS
Banned
*Smacks head*
I could have had a V8!!!
I could have had a V8!!!
BeardofPants
New Member
I've never been a big fan of the V8 juice. 
BeardofPants
New Member
I don't think I've seen that one. I've tried the original, and the fruit one; both were pretty ghastly.
BeardofPants
New Member
May as well, both probably have pretty similar calories.
pc_builder
New Member
Maybe what everyone needs is a little perspective. Some out-of-the-box thinking (even though I hate that term 
).
I did some research. I read Article II, Section 1, albeit an online copy from Cornell. Just to certify, I have not seen the original document, and I'm referring to the U.S. Constitution here.
But here is what I see.
IMHO, it seems that the constitution may have been misinterpreted for the past few centuries. It looks like anyone who is a U.S. citizen may become president. I don't see how it is exclusive to only natural born citizens.
I did search through the U.S. Code, or have been searching half the night, rather. I was trying to find a specific law that restricted the election of the president to only natural born citizens. Because the constitution doesn't.
I'm not defending Obama, here. But I am usually skeptical of what people tell me is true when they're trying to defend their side of an argument. So I researched, and read a part of the constitution, and several other parts while I was at it. And I thought it was interesting that no one here was raising the question about how the constitution was being interpreted. You know, just because 'everyone does it', doesn't mean it's right.
BTW, I only looked it up because Gonz posted a partial part of the paragraph about citizenship, and I was curious to find and read it myself.
And because he was defending that several-times-debated quote in this thread...
Against Spike's "That bit isn't actually true by the way."
If you read the constitution, it's a partially correct statement. 'The constitution bars those born outside US territory who are not U.S. citizens from becoming president' is how I would word it. But that's only according to my interpretation which I have put forth here... which is not the interpretation currently in use by the United States of America. I only post it so that all of you may take into consideration an alternative perspective.
And I guess that means, in a way, I'm defending Spike. So I hope he doesn't let it go to his head. But who knows. Maybe this is exactly what he was trying to get someone to think of without actually telling them. Seven pages later, I can see how that plan failed, if that was his intent.
).I did some research. I read Article II, Section 1, albeit an online copy from Cornell. Just to certify, I have not seen the original document, and I'm referring to the U.S. Constitution here.
But here is what I see.
IMHO, it seems that the constitution may have been misinterpreted for the past few centuries. It looks like anyone who is a U.S. citizen may become president. I don't see how it is exclusive to only natural born citizens.
I did search through the U.S. Code, or have been searching half the night, rather. I was trying to find a specific law that restricted the election of the president to only natural born citizens. Because the constitution doesn't.
I'm not defending Obama, here. But I am usually skeptical of what people tell me is true when they're trying to defend their side of an argument. So I researched, and read a part of the constitution, and several other parts while I was at it. And I thought it was interesting that no one here was raising the question about how the constitution was being interpreted. You know, just because 'everyone does it', doesn't mean it's right.
BTW, I only looked it up because Gonz posted a partial part of the paragraph about citizenship, and I was curious to find and read it myself.
And because he was defending that several-times-debated quote in this thread...
Against Spike's "That bit isn't actually true by the way."
If you read the constitution, it's a partially correct statement. 'The constitution bars those born outside US territory who are not U.S. citizens from becoming president' is how I would word it. But that's only according to my interpretation which I have put forth here... which is not the interpretation currently in use by the United States of America. I only post it so that all of you may take into consideration an alternative perspective.
And I guess that means, in a way, I'm defending Spike. So I hope he doesn't let it go to his head.
But who knows. Maybe this is exactly what he was trying to get someone to think of without actually telling them. Seven pages later, I can see how that plan failed, if that was his intent.
pc_builder
New Member
Just like real Karma
Actually, I think you bring real karma on yourself .. wouldn't it be great if you could have these 'karma kards', positive and negative, and pass them out randomly to people? Ohhhhh .. I'm gonna invent that .. 'karma kards' .. ok .. don't steal my idea or I'm gonna sick some seriously gnarly negative karma on you
Oh yeah, I wanted to post this.
Karma Ghost
Since the United States hadn't had any "natural born citizens" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (the US didn't exist prior to that) the clause
was added. To cover the first 35 or so years.
pc_builder
New Member
The US did exist before the constitution, under the Articles of Confederation. We had also been living here for at least a hundred years by 1787. Plenty of people were born who could be considered "natural born" citizens, to distinguish from the immigrants still coming to America, I'd guess.
Just means that after the constitution is adopted, non-citizens are excluded from becoming president.
Under law, and the newly written Constitution, the United States of America did not exist prior to 1776. Since George Washington was not a natural born citizen of the USA, he would have been ineligible. He may have been a native born Virginian but he was not a natural born citizen. Only those born after the ratification of the Constitution could be considered so. (legalese)
pc_builder
New Member
So that means none of our first nine presidents was legally eligible under the "natural born citizen" clause. John Tyler would be the first natural born citizen to take office, over fifty years later. That's pretty cool, though. It's not hard to learn something new from this forum. I don't know why some of the members here have such a hard time debating anything without it turning into a slap fight.
Edit: I found out about the early presidents because you prompted me to do more research, and hence, more learning.
I don't know why some of the members here have such a hard time debating anything without it turning into a slap fight.Edit: I found out about the early presidents because you prompted me to do more research, and hence, more learning.
pc_builder
New Member
Oh I get what they were trying to do now, with the "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" bit. Yeah it makes sense to me now.
Edit: And I'm reading that link you provided. It is interesting.
Edit: And I'm reading that link you provided. It is interesting.
- Status