Birthers still dispute he is a natural-born citizen because
1) they don't believe in the 14th Amendment and Mrs. Dunham wasn't old enough to confer citizenship to Obama
2) that since his father held citizenship in Kenya, thus making Obama also a British subject during his childhood and "the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292165)
#2 is really BS since the founding fathers were dual citizens when America declared its independence
What do you think of this birther hoopla?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 27, 2011, 09:09:23 AM
#2 is really BS since the founding fathers were dual citizens when America declared its independence
Do you really need to review the constitutional requirements for being the president of the United States?
Also, didn't the founding fathers renounce their British citizenship when they founded the country and signed the Declaration of Independence (and won the Revolutionary War)?
Quote from: _you_ on April 27, 2011, 09:51:05 PM
Do you really need to review the constitutional requirements for being the president of the United States?
I'm merely quoting WND verbatim.
Quote from: _you_ on April 27, 2011, 09:51:05 PM
Also, didn't the founding fathers renounce their British citizenship [blah blah blah]?
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law#Early_English_and_British_nationality_law) Renunciation was a concept originated in the 1870 British nationality law. Though, citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were also classified as natural born citizens, the so-called "grandfather provision".
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 11:42:18 AM
I'm merely quoting WND verbatim.
wat (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292205)
Also, what part of that came from WND verbatim?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 11:42:18 AM
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law#Early_English_and_British_nationality_law) Renunciation was a concept originated in the 1870 British nationality law.
And somehow Americans are subject to British law? goonish
If we say we're no longer British citizens, and we have the power to kick their asses (again and again, at that point), then who are they to claim that we are British citizens?
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
wat (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292205)
Also, what part of that came from WND verbatim?
learn to read quotation marks
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
And somehow Americans are subject to British law?
No. The point is the founding fathers were dual citizens since they were born during British jurisdiction and British nationality at the time could not be renounced. That's why the founding fathers included the grandfather provision.
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
If we say we're no longer British citizens, and we have the power to kick their asses (again and again, at that point), then who are they to claim that we are British citizens?
I hereby renounce my obligations to the United States of America as an American citizen.
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
learn to read quotation marks
awdood;
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
No. The point is the founding fathers were dual citizens since they were born during British jurisdiction and British nationality at the time could not be renounced.
Says who, our guns or their words? If the colonies could (and have) ganged up on the British Empire, win, and form a new country, why couldn't they renounce their British citizenship?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
That's why the founding fathers included the grandfather provision.
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
I hereby renounce my obligations to the United States of America as an American citizen.
Why should I care? Go talk to the American government. And bring guns n_u
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:03:47 PM
If the colonies could (and have) ganged up on the British Empire, win, and form a new country, why couldn't they renounce their British citizenship?
Entirely irrelevant. British nationality is under the jurisdiction of Britain and the laws codifing renounciation weren't in the nationality law used at that time.
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:03:47 PM
Why should I care? Go talk to the American government. And bring guns n_u
However, my invalid renunciation of my citizenship is relevant. You can't renounce your citizenship while you are still residing in the country in question. And America officially seceded from Britain after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:19:57 PM
Entirely irrelevant. British nationality is under the jurisdiction of Britain and the laws codifing renounciation weren't in the nationality law used at that time.
Say that to my face Q('_' Q)
Seriously though, if the founding fathers considered themselves Americans, and renounced their British citizenship, who's to stop them? Some piece of parchment in Britain that American forces could rip up, should they decide to invade Britain one day?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:19:57 PM
However, my invalid renunciation of my citizenship is relevant. You can't renounce your citizenship while you are still residing in the country in question.
What if you were in the process of packing up when you renounce your citizenship? Doesn't it take some time for the American government to process your renunciation?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:19:57 PM
And America officially seceded from Britain after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
But even behind the realities of war (who's idea was it to generate a treaty?), the American forces were able to secure their freedom; and at that point, they were not only able to call themselves Americans, but also able to renounce their British citizenship (again, who's gonna stop them?).
i9 was reading this newspaper and it was about if obama has renounced his citizenship or something. i dunno.
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Say that to my face Q('_' Q)
Seriously though, if the founding fathers considered themselves Americans, and renounced their British citizenship, who's to stop them? Some piece of parchment in Britain that American forces could rip up, should they decide to invade Britain one day?
I don't think some of the founding fathers (e.g. Alexander Hamilton) would be so quick to renounce their citizenship since they had trade interests in Britain
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
What if you were in the process of packing up when you renounce your citizenship? Doesn't it take some time for the American government to process your renunciation?
Say that to the US Consulate in whatever country you resettled in's face Q('_' Q)
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
But even behind the realities of war (who's idea was it to generate a treaty?), the American forces were able to secure their freedom; and at that point, they were not only able to call themselves Americans
very loosely
Quote from: villinman666 on April 28, 2011, 02:34:26 PM
i9 was reading this newspaper and it was about if obama has renounced his citizenship or something. i dunno.
lol what newspaper is this
it is local newspaper but this guy had been to tea party press thigns and followed the whole thing and he is basically saying that they are going to say stupid shit on it forever
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:43:13 PM
I don't think some of the founding fathers (e.g. Alexander Hamilton) would be so quick to renounce their citizenship since they had trade interests in Britain
Unless the British placed a trade embargo, how would their renunciation ruin their trade interests?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:43:13 PM
Say that to the US Consolate in whatever country you resettled in's face Q('_' Q)
So is that a yes or a no? I'd hate to insult a US Consulate, but what if he or she really is slow?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:43:13 PM
very loosely
Elaborate.
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:50:33 PM
Elaborate.
notice in the declaration of independence, the deemphasis on united:
QuoteWe, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America...
states wanted to be sovereign entities after the war
and you can see under the articles of confederation government formed after the war, the federal government was very weak
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 02:50:33 PM
So is that a yes or a no? I'd hate to insult a US Consulate, but what if he or she really is slow?
I'm so flattered by the name-calling.
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:56:53 PM
notice in the declaration of independence, the deemphasis on united:states wanted to be sovereign entities after the war
That's entirely argument. How did you reach that conclusion from only the words "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America..."? It'd be more useful if you quoted the whole thing.
Or do you not consider citizenship to be a political tie?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:56:53 PM
and you can see under the articles of confederation government formed after the war, the federal government was very weak
And how are the Articles of Confederation relevant?
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 02:56:53 PM
I'm so flattered by the name-calling.
Excuse me? goonish
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 03:17:52 PM
And how are the Articles of Confederation relevant?
Because they were the articles under the government at the time of the official secession from Britain and formed the first notion of an
United States of America?
And doesn't the term for our major subdivision, "state", have a connotation to you?
this might be the first boyah debate in history where i've not been compelled to read a single post from either party. congratulations on that
Quote from: Travis on April 28, 2011, 03:33:06 PM
this might be the first boyah debate in history where i've not been compelled to read a single post from either party
or maybe it was the first one you've ever read
I feel ashamed that my hometown is responsible for the Articles of Confederation
ypr locked this
Don't tell me what to do nigga
I don't think I can lock it before the other party has had a chance to respond anyway
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Because they were the articles under the government at the time of the official secession from Britain and formed the first notion of an United States of America?
All we're concerned about is the disassociation from the British, and the dissolution of the political ties thereof (such ties including citizenship).
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
And doesn't the term for our major subdivision, "state", have a connotation to you?
Of course it does, but why would the British try to enforce citizenship on states that have already claimed independence, when trying to do so would get their asses kicked again? Between the Revolutionary War and the 1870 British nationality law, we've kicked their asses in the Battle of New Orleans. That's the battle that pretty much made us the country we are today. Interestingly enough, that's a decent amount of time since we've dissolved our political ties to Britain (or does citizenship not count?). So then how does the 1870 British nationality law apply to the US, 55 years after the Battle of New Orleans, and 83 years after the establishment of the US Constitution?
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 03:47:59 PM
So then how does the 1870 British nationality law apply to the US?
It doesn't, only to its respective citizens. Eight of our first nine presidents were dual citizens, full-stop.
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 03:57:51 PM
It doesn't, only to its respective citizens. Eight of our first nine presidents were dual citizens, full-stop.
Is that even constitutional? I mean, they were at least American citizens at the time of the Constitution's establishment, but you still haven't properly established why they couldn't renounce their British citizenship, when they obviously had the power to do so (let's see how words hold up against guns).
Quote from: _you_ on April 28, 2011, 04:01:17 PM
Is that even constitutional? I mean, they were at least American citizens at the time of the Constitution's establishment, but you still haven't properly established why they couldn't renounce their British citizenship, when they obviously had the power to do so (let's see how words hold up against guns).
i think you've established they were traitors to the british crown and british subjects not in good standing, but strictly speaking they are british subjects nevertheless
this is why you see the british trying to impress british-born us citizens. the notion of renunciation and expatriation started after the war of 1812
Quote from: Quis sum? on April 28, 2011, 04:03:25 PM
i think you've established they were traitors to the british crown and british subjects not in good standing, but strictly speaking they are british subjects nevertheless
If a British ambassador were to say that to a current (at the time) American citizen, who used to be a British subject, that ambassador would surely die. Get the picture?
and those american colonists were tax cheats too and were taxed less than the british mainland
our aversion to taxes dates back to colonial times
That's good to know, but also irrelevant.