Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2004: GOP attempts to get "natural born" clause OUT of the Constitution!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:06 PM
Original message
2004: GOP attempts to get "natural born" clause OUT of the Constitution!
It is totally amazing to me that these same assholes who are OBSESSED with Obama's baby footprints or whatever, a couple of years ago were trying to strike that clause so my DISASTER OF A GOVERNATOR Ahnuld could be the Great White Hope of the Republican Party!

Come on -- their obsession with this has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with racism.

Hatch Pushing "Arnold Bill."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,595096558,00.html

Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets the criteria for who can be president. It specifically requires a president to have been born in the United States.

And under that clause, none of the 20 million Americans who became naturalized since 1907 is eligible, no matter their qualifications or patriotism.

"That does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said.

Several constitutional experts agreed, testifying that the "natural born" requirement is an anachronism carried over from old English law, but never fully embraced by the Founding Fathers who penned the Constitution. Seven of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution were born in other countries

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. The cognitive dissonance of the GOP is truly staggering
It's amazing to me that they think they can float this crap. Even more, they don't seem to realize that some of us remember what they were doing five short years ago, or even last week. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well, they don't remember... so how could it ever dawn on their tiny little minds
that anyone else might?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. It's the same with this sudden freakout re: "putting our children in debt"
HELLLOOOOOOO!!!!!! BushCo tax cuts to the wealthy and dumbass wars already DID that way before last year's election! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. "cognitive dissonace" requires cognition
GOPers don't think as we think of thinking. They memorize talking points and slogans and string them together in a stream of consciousness blather of non-sequiters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. The GOP doesn't do irony.
They are totally immune to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Immune to seeing it, maybe...
but they are hardly immune from creating it.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. I can see their logic. If CA was stupid enough to vote for Ahnuld...
no reason to think the rest of the country wouldn't be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. But but but Ahnuld was going to "OPEN UP THE BOOKS"
And you know "run CA like a business!" :eyes: Completely humiliating that they were able to pull off that fraudulent recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. IMO what's humiliating is that he was re-elected.
Texans take a whole lot of bashing... but at least it's an overwhelmingly red state, so it's an uphill battle.

But CA? Re-electing Arnie? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes......completely humiliating.
Agreed, and duly humiliated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. But...but...but...He's the Governator!
We used to show our two Maine Coons. One of the other denizens of the e-mail loop we were on (breeders and show cat owners,) made the mistake of posting a .sig file with "Home of the Governator". I think she's still smarting from the reaction -- in other words, most greeted it with "Why would you brag about something like that?" There is a small segment of the population who thinks it's just soooo cool, and unfortunately for the rest of us, they vote.

In unrelated news, I hope that his reign of terror in California comes to an end. He wasn't well-liked before his "I'll be in the Jacuzzi with a stogie" comment, and now I'm betting there are people who'd like nothing more than to see him resume his failed acting career. I don't even live there, and I know I would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Hah... well they're not too small...
or they weren't during the last election.

What a mess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. ALL of the signers were not born in the United States
There was no United States when they were born. The colonies were considered part of Great Britain before the Revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. Won't the birthers have a conniption?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I don't recall them minding it at the time other than
A couple of freepers afraid a Mexican could run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm sure Hatch meant "born where ever but with out Mark of Cain"
Being a good LDS and all....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. Technically, all 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution were born in other countries
Since the United States didn't exist at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I read recently that Goldwater was born in AZ when it was a territory
Don't recall any freakouts over it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. And John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone
Edited on Tue Jul-21-09 02:42 PM by Xipe Totec
go figure...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:47 PM
Original message
but most of them were still "natural born citizens"
"natural born citizen" does not mean you were a citizen at the time of your birth.
rather, it means that you are now a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of your birth.

most of the signers became natural born citizens when the first laws granted united states citizenship to anyone who had been born within the borders of what had become one of the states in the union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
18. So, is a naturalized citizen the same as a natural born citizen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. no, because they became citizens by virtue of actions they took later in life
rather than by virtue of the circumstances of their birth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. That's not necessarily true
A person born to a US parent outside the United States for example is a natural born citizen, so long as that citizenship is claimed prior to the 18th birthday. However, once claimed, that citizenship becomes retroactive to date of birth.

After the 18th birthday, that person can no longer claim citizenship, but must apply for residence and then become a citizen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. but most of them were still "natural born citizens"
"natural born citizen" does not mean you were a citizen at the time of your birth.
rather, it means that you are now a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of your birth.

most of the signers became natural born citizens when the first laws granted united states citizenship to anyone who had been born within the borders of what had become one of the states in the union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. Um, yeah.
Two-thirds of the House, Two-thirds of the Senate, then ratified by three-fourths of the states?




Do they have any other brilliant ideas? :rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC