The "nbc" issue, and how wrong Mr. Goldberg is

A place to debate non-current political and media topics.

The "nbc" issue, and how wrong Mr. Goldberg is

Unread postby factsBstubbonTings » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:26 pm

Mr. Goldberg had something posted a while back that I just recently came across. In the post, Mr. Goldberg was going off on people that were against his pushing Marco Rubio for VP, saying that the Republicans would be out of their minds if they didn't draft him for that position. Mr. Goldberg, the truth is that anybody that thinks Mr. Rubio is eligible to the office is incredibly misinformed and constitutionally illiterate, which I guess means Mr. Goldberg himself.

At the beginning of his post Bernie, you don't mind if I call you Bernie do you, you can call me Clark, any way, Bernie starts out by saying that the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen". I got news for you, the Constitution does not define "Constitution" either. It does not need to. People that are speaking to people familiar with the meaning of the words they employ do not have to define every word they use in a sentence. There is no list of "definitions" in the Constitution because they understood what they were saying. Do you, Bernie, think that they, the Framers, would have been able to get anybody to sign a document that would bind them to absolute principals if they just wrote gibberish that no one but the drafter understood? You underestimate the wisdom of those great men.

Bernie, your attempt to quote the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.)in that little beginning, and be tricky, failed miserably. You stated that the SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to the Presidency. That is true, but they in fact did define it. They did tell you and the rest of America what the Framers understood it to mean. The SCOTUS does not have the duty nor authority to just sit around and define the words employed in the Constitution. Their job is to determine legislative intent of Law as it applies to given situations presented to them in the form of a legal action. Imagine if they had the authority to define every word in the Constitution, absent a list of definitions provided by the Framers, what a wacked out world it would be, Black is Red, up is down, free is enslaved.

Now, for the FACT of what the SCOTUS, said "natural born citizen" was originally intended to be defined as by the Framers themselves:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." (Emphasis added.) Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874).

There you go Bernie, is it intellectually honest to say that the SCOTUS has never told us what a "natural born citizen" is? Does it really matter whether they were in the process of deciding a case as to Presidential eligibilty or not?

Later in that post you, Bernie, cited some statement by Madison that dealt with citizen loyalty, not persons citizenship. What was the point of that, Bernie? You Sir, need to apologize for your sad attempt to make anyone believe that Sen. Rubio is Constitutionally eligible with two parents that were not Citizens at the time of his birth, in view of what the Constitution unambiguously states as law. I am posting the LAW after I say that you should not try this with Bobby Jindal either.

U.S. Const. art. VI, clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added).

U.S. Const. art. II, sect. 1, clause 5: "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (emphasis added).

U.S. Const. Amendment XII, last sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."(emphasis added).

Just be intellectually honest with us, that's all.
Clark Hamblin, Arizona
factsBstubbonTings
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:25 pm

The "nbc" issue, and how wrong Mr. Goldberg is

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: The "nbc" issue, and how wrong Mr. Goldberg is

Unread postby charlie johnson » Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:32 am

Our first president was not born in the USA.I think he was born in a colony of the British Crown.I think those who wrote the USA constitution was well aware of this fact. We turned the USA constitution over to ambulance chasers over the years. I remember somewhere in a document where it begins."We the people." Time has evolved to the point that we the people are the golfers who run the nation for whomever offers the highest bid.The golfing parrot told us he was going to change all that. He was from the same school of ambulance chasers who corrupted the original documents to serve their own little clique.
charlie johnson
Media analyst
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:06 am


Return to Historical Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron