Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 06:37
    Here is an interesting letter to The Economist in the Sept 12th edition:

    There is a widespread misconception that America’s constitution requires a president to have been born in the United States, which forms the basis of the challenge from “birthers” to the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. The constitution requires only that the president is a citizen at birth: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…”

    One way to satisfy this requirement is to be born in the United States. Another way is to be born outside the United States to a parent who is a United States citizen and satisfies certain statutory requirements concerning prior residence in the United States.


    Does this point of view have merit? The writer is a Professor of Legal Science at Cambridge.
  2. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    18 Sep '09 06:46
    B... b... b... he's Muslim!

    A... a... a.. and... and they're black! And the White House is called "white" for sumthin' !!!!

    Oh geez, oh my... blasphemous! Die FMF! You communist enemy!
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 06:59
    Originally posted by Seitse
    Die FMF! You communist enemy!
    Maybe so. But right now I am looking at that mysterious comma between "States" and "at" and wondering whether that has anything to do with it.
  4. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    18 Sep '09 07:07
    Originally posted by FMF
    Maybe so. But right now I am looking at that mysterious comma between "States" and "at" and wondering whether that has anything to do with it.
    Read Joseph Raz on legal interpretation.

    Legal interpretation is far too complex to be just a partisan mud slinging contest in the debates forum of a chess website. Its biggest challenge lies in its dual nature: backwards and forward. The former aims at capturing faithfully the spirit of the law as it exists, while the latter implies a creative process through legal reasoning when materializing the content of the law to a decision.

    Dawkins also has a great deal to add here with his model of the ideal judge.
  5. 18 Sep '09 08:12
    who cares if he is born in the US or not. he was deemed worthy to be a US citizen was he not? i fail to see the problem.

    ahnuld is an american citizen and he is govner. yet he is not allowed to run for presidency. i fail to see the logic.

    but then again we are talking about slave owners writing in the constitution that all men are created equal so maybe we shouldn't look for much logic.
  6. 18 Sep '09 08:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    Here is an interesting letter to The Economist in the Sept 12th edition:

    [quote]There is a widespread misconception that America’s constitution requires a president to have been born in the United States, which forms the basis of the challenge from “birthers” to the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. The constitution requires only that the president is ...[text shortened]...

    Does this point of view have merit? The writer is a Professor of Legal Science at Cambridge.
    haven't we covered this on RHP Debates before? ....

    according to the law at the time, if obama was born outside the usa to a noncitizen father and a US-citizen mother who was both under a certain age and outside the country for more than a certain amount of time, obama was not a citizen.

    does this professor "at Cambridge" practice at the bar in the USA?

    if you want to allow such exceptions to law, let's start killing all those former death row inmates who had their sentences reduced while the Supreme Court was rethinking the DP, way back when. after all, they were all duly convicted and sentenced.
  7. 18 Sep '09 08:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    Maybe so. But right now I am looking at that mysterious comma between "States" and "at" and wondering whether that has anything to do with it.
    how were commas used back then?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 08:45
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    according to the law at the time, if obama was born outside the usa to a noncitizen father and a US-citizen mother who was both under a certain age and outside the country for more than a certain amount of time, obama was not a citizen.
    "...under a certain age" and "a certain amount of time". The devil is in the details, I suppose. Do you happen to know the details?
  9. 18 Sep '09 09:01
    http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

    Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad

    ...

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

    ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

    Born August 4, 1961
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 09:04
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

    Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad

    ...

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in ...[text shortened]... citizenship to the child.

    ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

    Born August 4, 1961
    So was the Cambridge guy right about the U.S. constitution?
  11. 18 Sep '09 09:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    So was the Cambridge guy right about the U.S. constitution?
    he is wrong, and either misinformed or intentionally misdirecting when he says:

    "There is a widespread misconception that America’s constitution requires a president to have been born in the United States, which forms the basis of the challenge from “birthers” to the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency."


    re "basis of the challenge".

    i just posted the State Dept.'s info on it!

    just as we can DISCOUNT those who think you have to be born in the US to be a citizen, we can DISCOUNT those (including professors from Cambridge) who try to posit that line as a cornerpiece of the opposition's argument.
  12. 18 Sep '09 09:13
    i guess i should cut you some slack.

    children who are born in the US of illegal aliens CAN gain citizenship automatically.

    maybe that's where your confusion comes from.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 09:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    he is wrong, and either misinformed or intentionally misdirecting when he says:

    "There is a widespread misconception that America’s constitution requires a president to have been born in the United States, which forms the basis of the challenge from “birthers” to the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency."


    re "basis of the challenge" from Cambridge) who try to posit that line as a cornerpiece of the opposition's argument.
    Does a president have to have been born in the U.S. or is it enough - as the Cambridge guy appears to be pointing out - for him or her to have been a U.S. citizen from birth?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Sep '09 09:16
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    maybe that's where your confusion comes from.
    I don't see myself as "confused" at all. I am simply asking if the guy who wrote to The Economist has a valid point.
  15. 18 Sep '09 09:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    Does a president have to have been born in the U.S. or is it enough - as the Cambridge guy appears to be pointing out - for him or her to have been a U.S. citizen from birth?
    what did you not understand about:

    just as we can DISCOUNT those who think you have to be born in the US to be a citizen ...