SOme of What Obama is hiding

major bean wrote: And obviously you did not read the 14th ammendment in its entirety.

I did read the 14th Amendment that you posted. My interpretation of the natural born portion is obviously different than yours. I'm just trying to understand how you came to your conclusions.

major bean wrote:

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: That reminds me that a "natural born" citizen is a child born to 2 natural or naturalized U.S. citizens.

That you believe this statement to be true, shows your complete lack of understanding when it comes to matters such as this.

That was my feeling concerning your understanding of the law. My view of your understanding was reinforced by your misuse of the Declaration of Independence. That was a stark display of ignorance.

My statement about the Declaration of Independence was factual.

Amendments made to the Constitution are for specific purposes at the time and remain in force and a matter of law until they are superseded.

You maintain the 14th amendment was enacted specifically for the Civil War and should not be interpreted in today's events. But the 13th Amendment was also enacted specifically for the Civil War and it still bans slavery even in the modern-day United States.

Since the 14th Amendment has not been struck down, its remains in force and yes -- no matter how much you claim it's not true -- it means any person born on U.S. soil is automatically and U.S. citizen. For further reference, look up the term "anchor baby." The 14th Amendment is the reason pregnant women try to enter the U.S. from underdeveloped countries.

Obama was both born on U.S. soil and had a U.S. mother, so he qualified as a natural born citizen under two requirements. In fact, effective February 27, 2001, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 provided that a non-U.S. citizen child (aged under 18) with a U.S. citizen parent, and in the custody of that parent, automatically acquired U.S. citizenship. That means children who were aren't U.S. citizens become U.S. citizens if one of their parents is a U.S. citizen.

Kate, my conclusions are basic traditional interpretation of the Constitution. There are very few cases based upon the 14th ammendment and this ammendment will be revisited by the Supreme Court concerning this matter. There is very wide difference of opinion concerning this application of the 14th.

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: Here is the text of the 14th ammendment. Read it in its entirety. It deals strictly with the civil war.

The Declaration of Independence dealt strictly with our break from England, if you take it literally.

The inference that you posted was that the Declaration of Independence did not strictly deal with our break from England.
Now you want to go back and state that you were not being facecious in your post? That is rather slimy of you.

major bean wrote:

kresspin wrote: The Declaration of Independence dealt strictly with our break from England, if you take it literally.

The inference that you posted was that the Declaration of Independence did not strictly deal with our break from England.
Now you want to go back and state that you were not being facecious in your post? That is rather slimy of you.

How in the world did you interpret "The Declaration of Independence dealt strictly with our break from England, if you take it literally." with "the Declaration of Independence did not strictly deal with our break from England."

That kind of fractured interpretation is that?

major bean wrote: Kate, my conclusions are basic traditional interpretation of the Constitution. There are very few cases based upon the 14th ammendment and this ammendment will be revisited by the Supreme Court concerning this matter. There is very wide difference of opinion concerning this application of the 14th.

This is very frustrating! What traditional interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the 14th Amendment? Give me something to read that shows me this! I'm completely in the dark.

From everything I have read, the traditional interpretation of that amendment is that if you are born on US soil, you're a citizen.

Come on, help me out here. I can't understand your reasoning and you're not giving me anything. Pretend I'm a complete moron and explain it very slowly.


(Please view this post in a non-threatening manner, Major Bean. I'm trying really hard to understand.)

Apparently he reads the opposite of what someone posts...

Kate wrote: [I'm sorry, Major Bean, if you think I am bullying you. That is not my intention. I'm just engaging in a discussion here.

Kate, just to let you know, this is how Major Bean operates.

He'll cut and paste a long section of law to make himself look knowledgeable, and he'll tell you the law is clear and obvious.

Then if you tell him you've read the law but don't see his point and request he be more specific, he'll just blow you off implying you are just to dumb to see it.

The fact is he has no arguement and can only cut and paste long sections of law to obfuscate.

If you want to see a classic "Mr. Bean" at work, check out this thread (beginning on page 3) where I very nicely asked him to clarify what part of the law he was referring to.

He started out with this reply, and it just got crazier and crazier as it went on.

Twist, wring, spin, wrangle, warp. Nice try. No matter how badly you want a thing, you cannot change what the law says and its purpose and intent.

It depends upon what your definition if "is" is. Ha, ha, ha, ha! You liberals, there is no end to your disingenuousness.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9520&start=20

But feel free to keep trying if you wish. If you can actually get him to be specific about any long cut and paste he makes, I'll be impressed!

Okay, I'll withdraw from this discussion.

Have a good night, everyone.

It reminds me of "Alice in Wonderland"...It means what he says it means...no more no less... Of course there's about 140+ years of case-law that have further defined it, and the original Civil War intent is by no means all that it is limited to...But don't burst his bubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:U ... t_case_law

He just goes further and further off the deep end...