So by your rationale an American mother who gives birth on a plane flying from Hawaii to California but giving birth over international waters/airspace, her child isn't a natural born citizen. What about people born in Puerto Rico? Guam? Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany? Saying somewhere is "illegally occupied" is political language, not legal. "Natural-born" is a legal term, not political.
When I start seeing flags like "CFR", "Bilderberg", "Trilateral Commission", "Rockefeller", I know not to take it seriously. Do you even know what the Trilateral Commission is? What the CFR is? Who the Bilderbergs and Rockefellers are? I don't think so. The Trilateral Commission is run by an executive committee, not Rockefellers.
You should be more concerned with the facts. They are more scary than your theories.
I like Ron Paul for President. What I don't like, and what scares me, is that there are far too many people following Mr. Paul who are, in their understanding of the law, worse and more ignorant than Barack H. Obama. Not only that, but because Mr. Paul is the most conservative he suffers the insult of being followed by every anarchist, theorist, and conspiracy nutjob crawling out of the woodwork.
The Panama Canal was a military base by treaty, and therefore, US Territory.
• Thank you for this video and the work you do spreading the truth. Within American government lies another government in control, orchestrating war, lies, and human sacrifice to their cabalist leaders and the military industrial complex. These people's names can be found on the following membership lists, none of which are official US government organizations: The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission run by the Rockefeller family, The Bilderberg Group. They run the world.
@NocredRS Actually RP4409 is wrong. You are the NEGATIVE scum of the earth. A WASP. A Jewish Anglo-Protestant scumbag. Youre deplorable. And worthy of Aushwitz concentration camp extermination. Youre trash. the consensus is in: youre deplorable. alway remeber that when you look at your children and put them to bed. always remember that when you go to work and brind back food. Because you'll wake up late realizing.
Damn, I always knew McCain(Keating 5 Crook)and Lieberman were Nazi's, Lieberman will be another George Soros-selling his own people into Nazi-FEMA Death camps. McCain has always been a Gangland hustler. Any Congressman/women that votes for this Nazi Legislation will be UTTERLY SINGLED OUT and DEFEATED in next ELECTION! American Communism is Courtesy of the Vatican"the whore of Babylon clothed in Scarlet,Purple sitting on top of beast with 10 horns/kings"
hahaha more like extremists like YOU fuck this world up.
OMG Noriega is declaring war.....run for our lives....he may shoot a fire cracker or throw some cocaine on us....We must invade to stop this man.....LMFAO
He declared a state of war because we were fucking invading his country and infiltrating it just like we do every fucking sovereign nation you blind fucking idiot.
1 marine dies and we have to invade a sovereign nation? You're a typical fucking stupid ass brainwashed parrot American. You have no fucking clue how this rogue government even works and support their tyranny at all costs. You have no empathy for anyone.
@NocredRS ....so are telling me that any land, any where in the world is ours "legally" and it is considered constitutionally US soil even though we illegally invaded that land unconstitutionally and set up a make shift "base" by force for occupation?
I see your point, but i disagree
Just because I could invade your home by force and occupy a portion there of does not legally, morally, or constitutionally make it mine. This is why McCain had to go beg congress to write a resolution.
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents in wedlock acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided that one of the parents resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such residence is required. At the time McCain was born in Panama, it was under US control, and no, they weren't there by force.
The intent of the natural born clause was to prevent those with split allegiances from being president. Not to mention that court rulings on the issue, as well as amendments since makes McCain qualified. The constitution allows for McCain, but not Obama.
It really drives me nuts when conservatives act like liberals, if this guy is conservative. :( McCain was born to two Citizens..... Just because they happened to be "traveling" at the time, no matter if they were on occupied U.S. soil or not, doesn't somehow NOT make him a natural born citizen. Anyone with a brain can understand that McCain's situation would make him WITHIN the "intent" of the Natural Born clause of the Constitution.
Could you be a bigger douchebag? If you don't know enough to shut your mouth than please consider the REAL facts. His mother and father were Americans. You are a simpleton. And Your understanding of politics is a joke. And I'm a Democrat for Christ's sake. Jesus wept. How do you get through a day without somebody not beating the snot out of you? This guy spent Five and a half years at the Hanoi Hilton. Are you fucking brain damaged? And I am a Democrat. You people are nuts.
@cjgerber19621 ....you fail to understand the laws and what qualifies someone to be "naturally born" You are in fact a uninformed simpleton.
If there was not a problem with his eligibility then why did he run and beg (bribe) congress in 2007 having them draft a resolution giving him the ok to run?
He is naturalized...not naturally born and there is a difference grasshopper!
@RP4409 "beg (bribe) congress in 2007 having them draft a resolution giving him the ok to run?"......1st he the senate drafted the res, on their own accord, not all of congress. 2nd it was non-bidding i.e. it has no legal power, it was merely a dog and pony show.
he never had to naturalize since he was born a US nationals, and congress grandfather him and many other people into NBC status. don't let the facts hit you on your ass on your way out
I see from another post that you are associated with the convicted felon Manning who conducted a circus in Harlem this year. You people need to quit sniffing those vapor trails and using the fluoride toothpaste.
There is another person quoting the law against obama and it says that if both your parents are natural American citizens it does not matter where they have thier child, it is American, however the point he makes is if only one parent is naturalized, the other must have spent 14 years in america before they can have a baby outside the USA and cosider the child a natural citizen
Wrong on this account. McCain was born to US Citizens on a US Military base inside a US Terrirory. Although I think McCain is a rather large douch bag. The original naturalization act (not immigration act) ws passed with Article 1 Section 8 authority. This act defined instances where US Citizenship was automatic (natural born) not in the context of our modern naturalized citizen. Puerto Ricans are US Citizens but Puerto Rico is not a state. Guam is the same case.
..The Panama Canal was a US protected administration zone under complete US jurisdiction between Nov. 18th 1903 and Dec. 31st 1999.
You claim it was illegally occupied by force. That may be, but as soon as Panama agreed to the terms of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (for a lump sum 10M$ payment and resumption of the yearly 250k$ lease payments), the zone became US soil for the duration of the lease.
I think you're grasping at straws on this issue - what you're saying is children born of American parents serving overseas (whether they be military or diplomatic personnell) are not to be considered "natural citizens"?
Just to be clear, US Embassy’s, Consulates and military establishments for the purpose of international law are US protected territories (unless otherwise stipulated in the treaty arrangment of the host nation).
Against your point, and I'm sure this has been said, even if his parents were on the moon and he had been born on the moon he's still a natural born citizen because his parents were also. In favor of your point, I agree Obama is naturalized, and agree that Ron Paul was the best choice :D
I would argue now that Kucinich has defected, or was a CFR plant who was put in place as a last ditch effort to sway borderline libertarians.
I would rather not put my faith in any congressman as it's another poor excuse to blame someone else for what happens to my life. I'm in control and refuse to give a 'suit' that control.
@TheApothocary...so are telling me that any land, any where in the world is ours "legally" and it is considered constitutionally US soil even though we illegally invaded that land unconstitutionally and set up a make shift "base" by force for occupation?
I see your point, but i disagree
Just because I could invade your home by force and occupy a portion there of does not legally, morally, or constitutionally make it mine. This is why McCain had to go beg congress to write a resolution.
@RP4409 well if you think about it America was taking by force from the Native Americans so to me its all the same. so i guess nobody is a U.S. natural born citizen
@RP4409 what they are saying is under US law a "armed forces base" whether it be in an illegally invaded land or anything else just like an US embassy is considered US soil. Still Agree mcCain is a twat and was unqualified to be president (that didn't stop Obama though).
@TheApothocary You do not know what you are talking about. The soil jurisdiction has absolutely nothing at all to do with a natural born Citizen status. As long as you have an American father when you are born, you are a nat born SOVEREIGN American. Soil jurisdiction is only about PRIVILEGES not natural Inherited Rights from nature which is what Article II is all about. Obama is not a nat born Citizen because his dad is a foreigner and his mom and soil are irrelevant.
Tis you who don't know what you are talking about. Sounds like you've been listening to morons like Puzo and Kerchner.
It's really very simple. It's English--the language the Constitution was written in. In English a 'natural born' -whatever- is someone who is -whatever- from birth.
If you are born a leader you are a 'natural born leader.'
If you are born a killer you are a natural born killer.
If you are born a citizen you are natural born citizen.
@Mystylplx, You don't understand what I am saying. Let me clear it up for you. There are basically 3 ways to be a nat born citizen either by soil jurisdiction or by your citizen mom or by your citizen dad. Article II is only talking about natural born Citizens that are created by your citizen dad. The ones by soil or your mom cant prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of Pres which is the entire point of Article II therefore soil and your mom are irrelevant. Now do you get it?
I understand perfectly what you are saying and you are wrong. Not only wrong, but you make no sense at all. Art. II simply requires you to be a natural born citizen. Period. It says nothing about your mom or dad.
It says what it says and it doesn't say what you are claiming.
@Mystylplx You are a layman with no understanding of the Constitution. You do not know what you are talking about. I can easily prove you wrong with one simple observation of history and the Minor v Happersett Supreme Court case. Pay attention layman. Women are natural born citizens but until the 19th amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution, female nat born citizens could not vote or be President so obviously Article II is not talking about just any natural born citizen.
Wrong. Minors V. Happerset was only about voting, not Presidential eligibility.
The framers were smart men who said what they meant and meant what they said. You (like Apuzzo) are trying to argue that they really meant something different from what they said.
"Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation." — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.
It's a very simple concept. You can't make up new meanings when the plain English meaning is unambiguous.
The court ruled that Virginia Minor was indeed an NBC but that Missouri could still deny her the right to vote because the right to vote for President is NOT enshrined in the Constitution and that states could make up any rules they want for that.
@Mystylplx Look fool, you can believe whatever bullshit you want. It is clear you have no understanding or knowledge. You are arguing that females were intended by the framers to have the political right to attain the highest political office in the land with Article II, but the Constitution did not even give them the political right to vote a more basic political right? Talk about not making any sense at all, you take the cake. I have proven you wrong but you just refuse to accept reality.
No, what's clear is you've never even read the case you cite. In a nutshell, Virginia Minors whole argument was that she was a natural born citizen, thus eligible to run for President, so how could they deny her the right to vote for President?
The court AGREED that she was NBC (thus eligible to run for President) but that the Constitution gave to the state legislatures the power to decide how to choose the electors. So if Missouri wanted to prohibit women from voting they could.
Say WHAT?? It is clear that YOU have never read the Minor case because it was not about her running for president she just wanted to register to vote. You have no credibility at all. You are full of shit. I have proven you wrong now grow up and admit it. Article II is only talking about a specific natural born citizen that is why Citizen is capitalized as a proper noun because Article II is not talking about just any natural born citizen because its referring to a specific one.
That's what I said! It was not about her running for President, it was about her right to vote! Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.
The court ruled that she was a Natural born citizen (thus eligible for the Presidency after attaining the age of 35 and with 14 years residence) but that this still didn't mean that MO couldn't deny her the right to vote. The right to vote is NOT in the Constitution.
@Mystylplx It is not my reading comprehension that is lacking it is yours. You read the Minor case which is only about registering to vote and somehow you conclude that the court found that she had the right to the highest political office in the land. The court never said any such thing but somehow you have been able to draw this conclusion? I think it is clear who has reading comprehension issues and it is not me.
Your short term memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. YOU are the one that claimed Minors V Happersett was about eligibility for President, and that women were ineligible until the 19th amendment. I pointed out that both the case and the amendment were only about the right to vote. Minors wasn't suing to run for President, but it WAS part of her argument that she was a natural born citizen (thus eligible) so how could they deny her the right to vote?
@Mystylplx NO I never made that claim. That is a false assumption on your part. I never said how Minor makes my case until I showed u that if women could not have the right to vote then it makes no sense to think that the framers intended females to be Pres if they couldnt even vote. All I said was that I can easily prove u wrong with history & Minor & I have done that. Article II is clearly referring to only one specific type of nat born citizen & it precludes those by soil or by females alone.
No. Voting and being President have nothing to do with each other. The truth is the framers probably never even imagined the possibility that a woman could be President, but that doesn't mean they prohibited it. They also never imagined a black person being President and didn't prohibit that either.
EITHER WAY they said what they meant and meant what they said. You are the one who is proven wrong. Minor is about voting, not Presidential eligibility.
@Mystylplx They have everything to do with each other because they are both talking about what political rights you have as a citizen not just that you ARE a citizen. This fine distinction escapes you and it makes all of the difference in the world because Article II is talking about only those who INHERIT their political right to be Pres (nat born). You only inherit your POLITICAL RIGHTS form your dad not mom.
To understand Minors V Happerset you have to understand that Women were never prohibited from running for President--they were prohibited from voting. The Constitution lists the qualifications for President, but allows the states to cast their electoral votes any way they want. In the first few elections the state legislatures chose the electors with no popular vote at all.
@Mystylplx You are so full of shit it is unbelievable. You dont even understand the original intent of Article II which is to prevent a monarchy form of government by preventing titles of nobility (royalty) from attaining the office of President. You do not even know where political rights even come from or what is the controlling Precedent that defines Article II. There is no point in me spelling it out for you because it is clear that you are opinionated and are not interested in learning.
You are partly right that a concern of the framers was that Americans were so used to being ruled by nobleman that the worried that a foreign prince, who was not a natural born American, would come here and get elected President while holding little or no loyalty to America. Thus article II prohibits that from happening.
@Mystylplx Now try and explain just how Article II does that, idiot. Then you will see that a natural born citizen by the soil cant work because any foreign king and his queen can just drop a kid on U.S. soil and according to you that natural born citizen created by the soil jurisdiction is good enough for Article II and he could be Pres since according to you just any natural born citizen will do. You have just proven my point that Article II is not talking about just any nat born citizen.
You really aren't very bright, are you? Article II prohibits any but a natural born citizen from becoming President. Thus the framers worry that a FOREIGN prince would come here and get elected is taken care of. If they had intended to simply prohibit nobility they would have said so.
Your arguments are even dumber than Apuzzos, but what you have in common is you are trying to claim the framers meant something other than what they said.
"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."
They said what they meant and they meant what they said. Quit trying to say they meant something other than what they said.
@Mystylplx What you fail to realize is that there are many more than 1 type of nat born citizen defined under U.S. law & defined prior to the Constitution. Talk about not being very bright you take the cake. Under U.S. law you can be a nat born citizen by just the soil no matter the citizenship of your parents or you can just have a citizen mom & a foreign dad & you are still considered nat born or you can just have a citizen dad. Only one fits with Article II. You have been proven wrong.
No. There were different listed REQUIREMENTS to be a citizen (or subject) at birth, but those don't constitute different KINDS of natural born citizens. If you are a citizen at birth you are a natural born citizen.
But even if you were right it doesn't matter. Unless the framers specified which "kind" of NBC then it means ANY kind.
@Mystylplx Not all nat born citizens are created politically equal. Females were nat born citizens but they could not vote so not all nat born citizens are equal. nat born citizens created by the soil or mom alone cant prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of Pres. U are wrong & I have proven it u just refuse to accept reality. U cant even grasp simple logic. U are irrational. Obama cant possibly qualify because he is not a nat born citizen by way of a citizen dad end of story.
The framers stated that no one but a natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency. Period. Stop trying to put words in their mouths and thinking you know better than they did. They didn't say any special kind of natural born citizen. It is natural born citizen. Period. That means ANY natural born citizen.
@Mystylplx Then explain how a nat born cit created by the soil jurisdiction can prevent a king & his wife from having a baby on U.S. soil who would then inherit a title of nobility from his foreign parents but could then be Pres according to u because any nat born citizen will do. I think any rational person can see that we have just proven u wrong & Art II is only talking about one specific type of nat born citizen, you just refuse to rely on logical reality to guide your reason. U R IRRATIONAL
Even by your weird definition it would just take one more generation. A king and his wife have a baby on U.S. soil who then grows up and marries and has a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is still the heir to the thrown of whatever foreign power and is still an NBC in the U.S. and eligible to run for President.
But the framers weren't worried about that far-fetched scenario. They were worried that a foreign prince who wasn't natural born would come here and get elected.
Plus you keep thinking that there are different types of natural born citizens simply because there were different ways of becoming one. That's as dumb as thinking if two people take different routes to get to the same destination they are really arriving at different destinations.
There's only one "kind" of natural born citizen. There are different ways of getting there, jus sanguinis, jus soli, but the destination is the same whatever the route taken to get there.
@Mystylplx Good at least you recognize that there are different ways to be nat born. Now, add in the context of POLITICAL RIGHTS which is what Article II is talking about and apply the concept of political rights to the different pathways and you will discover that not all pathways lead to the same political rights. Only the pathway of your citizen father creates the correct political condition that fits with Article II. That is what you and everyone else is missing and refuses to accept.
More nonsense from you. Article II isn't talking about "political rights" it is talking about the office of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government, its powers, duties, and qualifications.
Go back to school junior. You are way over your head with this stuff.
The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; and more....
"It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, ...We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power." — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
@Mystylplx Article II is not talking about political rights??????? BUWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! YOU ARE A MORON. You have no credibility at all. You clearly have no clue what is going on. If the office of President is not about political rights then what the hell rights is it about????? No one will believe your bullshit that the President is not the highest political office in the land and that Article II has no political context at all. You have shot yourself in the foot and I am now done with you.
Your hysterical laughter just shows the real level of your intellect. You think different routes to becoming a citizen at birth somehow means different kinds of natural born citizens. You think the framers didn't say what they meant and didn't mean what they said. Here's a clue: if the framers had meant to limit the Presidency to only those whos fathers were citizens they would have said so. They did not.
@Mystylplx Here is a clue for u idiot. If Article II is not about political rights then why are the qualifications all about your citizenship since CITIZENSHIP IS A POLITICAL RIGHT you retard. You are a Loyalist because u argue that just by being born on the soil jurisdiction you owe a political allegiance to the state. That is the same argument that King George made to the colonists because the colonial soil was under the Kings jurisdiction. We won a war in 1776 that says otherwise. You lose.
I said understanding political rights is irrelevant to article II but not to Minors. It's actually the other way around--understanding article II has bearing on political rights.
And yes, citizenship is a political right. Just as natural born citizens being eligible to be President is.
This doesn't help your case. It still says what it says. They meant exactly what they said. If they had meant "natural born citizen whose father was also a citizen" then they would have said that.
@Mystylplx Its not my weird definition, idiot. I have invented nothing original here of my own. I am just relating the facts that I have learned by investigating and applying principles of law that you know nothing about. You fail to realize that the next generation offspring will not inherit a title of nobility because U.S. citizenship laws do not create titles of nobility under OUR jurisdiction. What is your next bogus argument?
No, you have invented a pure fantasy that no one with any education or knowledge believes. You still can't perceive that different routes to becoming natural born do not translate into different 'kinds' of natural born.
And why would the next generation not inherit the title? You make increasingly less sense. He would still inherit the title under THEIR jurisdiction. No one EVER inherits such a title under OUR jurisdiction, so your point is pointless.
@Mystylplx They do specify in Art II u just cant infer the implied meaning. U must apply the concepts in the Dec of Independence which clearly states that its a self evident truth that males are endowed with political rights that they inherit from their fathers. That means the specific nat born citizen that is being referred to is one who inherits the political right from a citizen dad which proves that art II is only talking about nat born citizens that are created by your dad. I rest my case.
@Mystylplx No you are wrong. The entire Constitution has all kinds of implied meanings. It is clear I am dealing with a layman with no knowledge. I have better things to do with my time than argue with morons. I have clearly proven you wrong and you just are not mature enough to admit it. Give it up already you can not win this argument.
They come from the Constitution itself or from state constitutions or from statute law.
This is irrelevant to article II. It does have some bearing on Minor, but no bearing on your attempts to claim the framers meant something other than what they said in plain English by a fantasy twisted argument about some hypothetical king having a child on U.S. soil.
@Mystylplx No, to understand Minor u must understand where political rights come from which u clearly dont understand. I know where political rights come from but I will bet that u don't. I would love to hear ur explanation of where political rights come from as I think it would be hilarious to prove once again how ignorant u are of these matters. Here is your chance to impress me. Tell us wise one, where do political rights come from? I know but you dont. That is why you lose this debate.
You have no argument. You are living in fantasy land. The framers said what they meant and meant what they said. No amount of attempting to redefine it will help either you or your friend Apuzzo.
@Mystylplx Look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that it is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among MEN and that all MEN are created inheriting political rights. They are not talking about the political rights of females. How you conclude that Article II was originally intended to include women is beyond any rational persons ability to accept.
BTW, the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, not a legal document. It has no bearing on our laws. SCOTUS has repeatedly denied that it even has a use in interpreting the Constitution.
And I never said the President is not the highest political office. First you try to put words in the mouths of the framers, now you are trying to put words in my mouth.
You would be better off listening to what is ACTUALLY said and not making stuff up.
@Mystylplx Wrong again fool. The first act of Congress was to adopt the Declaration of Independence as part of the Laws of the United States. You are really uneducated and ignorant of history, law, and the Constitution, and you definitely have no fucking clue about the natural born citizen clause. I have proven everything you have said is wrong and I have proven my case but you still don't get it. You are brain fucked irrational and without reasoning skills.
Wrong again, dimwit. The first act of the first Congress under the Constitution was "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths."
There was also a "congress" of sorts that adopted the declaration, but not as a matter of law. It was a message sent to the King. SCOTUS has cited the Declaration as part of the dicta in some cases, but never as a matter of organic law.
@Mystylplx Furthermore, Apuzzo is an idiot he has no clue what Article II is talking about. I know because I have gone several rounds with him until I proved him wrong & then he just called me crazy & refuses to listen to me. Apuzzo is a moron who doesnt even have the correct legal theory & he doesnt describe any legal theories that explain why Obama can not possibly qualify. He just asserts bogus facts & draws wrong conclusions with failed hypotheses. I am the only one with the correct theory.
@rw5791 ....wrong....The people had no rules and/or boundaries when the pilgrims came....Any land unlawfully seized AFTER the constitution was ratified would be unconstitutional. How could it have been unconstitutional if we did not have a constitution at the time?
Woudlnt the include the western territories like....Arizona where you live?
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The treaty was violated and so everything west of the Louisiana territories are illegal.
Treaties supersede the constitution as I know you already are aware and I know you know about the treaty of G.H. Any violation of a treaty makes it null and void.
Their lack of ability to enforce the violation would be the same as the Panamanians unable to repel an illegal occupation.
McCain is a lot of things, and he is unqualified to lead this Nation. He is a traitorous slimy politician, but he IS a natural born citizen. Both his parents are Natural born citizens neither his or him renounced their citizenship. It is immaterial that he was born in Panama, while his father was station there, regardless that he was born in a civilian hospital in Panama.
Obama, on the other hand was born of 1 US citizen and 1 foreign born male.
If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.
When TPTB ran the Bush vs Kerry show, the American people could chose between two Skull & Bones men, and for Obama vs McCain, they could chose between two... men not elegible to become president?! Is this some cruel insider joke, first let's see whether Americans can understand the impact of secret societies, and then let's see whether they can even remember what it means to be American?
FIRST you say you're an "illegal" and now you're saying you're an "anchor baby". Do you really know what the hell you are or are you just typing so the rest of us will know that you're ignorant??
The US constitution is a a Box of Crayola crayons but Human Rights that's a UV spectrum.
Got any Indian Red crayons, how about Anglo white, and African Black crayons?
Are the Indian red colors "illegal?"
Respect? That's what anchor babies ask for a little Respect? I'm sorry it upsets you but it does say "We the People." We will speak Spanish cuz that's what some humans speak and your constitution says free speech. Also, Spanish has been spoken in the South west it's not a conspiracy.
I agree, the Southwest did speak spanish until we beat them back past the Rio Grande River!!!!!
And do us all a favor, will you? If you're going to type in English, then at least learn the correct usage of the words and the correct punctuation.....
Excluded many "PEOPLE" who were born and migrated to the US...
They should have written it correctly and not disguised it with a double meaning..
We the White Rich Citizens of the New British Colony, in Order to form a more perfect Union....
I know most white folks are bit tee'd due to being grouped and called terrorists, my question is how does it feel? A Simple question from an "illegal" to a group of "white terrorists..."
Man, you're 3 for 3!! It's quite obvious that you've never even read the 14th Amendment, have you???
It does NOT exclude blacks or Indians - READ it ya' moron!!!! before trying to give a dissertation (Google this word, maybe you'll LEARN something!) about it!!!!!!!!!
I concur - MacCain is an alien! But, I believe that under 14 amendment you only need to be naturalize to run for Senate (or house). Natural born for President. So much for Obama!
I never thought I'd see the day when both presidential front runners were not born in America, and a natural born citizen couldn't get elected. Anybody that don't think it's time for the revolution better wake up or start learning another language.
Obama is not a citizen much elss a NBC he has no Birth Certificate, his mother never brought his sorry ass back from Kenya. This entire thing is shit. His grandparents lived at the residence and put a statement in the paper, that ain't legal pproof and is not submissable as evidence at all his sorry ass is still and Indonesian citizen which remains unquestioned. Mcpain on the other hand was boin to 2 US Citizens on US Soil, his father had no control over were the USG sent him. Stop bsing.
Both John Mccain and Barack Obama are natural born citizes. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii witch makes him a natural born citizen, he has a birth certificate. John Mccain was born on a us military base witch is considered American soil, there for he is a natural born citizen. Obamas mom never went to Kenya. and he lost his kenya citizenship at the age of 21. Obama never became a citizen of Indonesia. Oh and learn english and edcaute your self would you?
@darkvampire5555 He obtained a birth certificate that ANYONE could've in the time he did because all u had 2 have was 1 relative that resided there & you can have a birth certificate. Thats proven fact. Also, they celebrate his birthplace in Kenya. If you lived there or visited you can see the memorial. The KING himself said that they celebrate his birth place before he was president. Now he said he was misquoted. Open your eyes buddy. If you're such a darkvampire, you should know these things.
lol i agree this is ludicrous but it says clearly "in my opinon".. they're jus making a point about the constitution, that he wasent actually born in the country.. though legally he is natural born.. he was born on a US military base, which is considered US soil and both of his parents are american citizens.. this only hurts ron paul if your a moron and wanna take what is said as fact..
Show me where in the constitution that a military base is american soil you freaking moron.
You said a US military base is "considered" US soil? Really? considered By who? You?
Panama was an illegaly invaded occupied foreign land by US troops which translates to not a natural born citizen.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land and unless you can show me and amendment stating that you could be born on a military base than your argument fails.
excuse me? im not a mccain supporter by any means but to think this video is FACT is obsured, i agree the constitution says "natural born" what most people would think is born in the USA. but having said that neither the constitution nor the supreme court has clarified the meaning of "natural born".. mccain came right out with his required documents and the courts agreed hes "natural born." he was in the military i think he knows better than u. i was jus giving my opinion, this vid is not FACT
Kimit420 you make no sense....First you claim that neither the constitution nor the supreme court has clarified the meaning of "natural born" ....then in the next line you claim that a courts agreed McCain is "natural born"
WTF
What court and when?
Also the constitution does state what natural born is.
ok where does the constitution clarify what "natural born citizen" is?? ok bad choice of words. Its the state governments, and their state elections divisions who are responsible for making sure hes legit. which is basically a court. i really shouldnt have to research things for u.. i actually look to your channel for info, but putting out videos like this, with no proof of FACT, lol which says clearly "in my opinion" i thought it was jus a personal thought. sry i questioned ur intelligence lol
Its not in the constitution about the military base. In my 20years of military service all bases i have been to outside the U.S. is consdered US soil. Just like any Embassy. It is part of any agreement by the US and the Host country. through treaty. Some are leased for a time that has to be renewed others are joint bases
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
if that was the case then my kids are japanes and english. i fill out no special paperwork to make them US citizens. i wasnt around during Mcain birth. But i know what im talking about. And by the way my 20 years was never with blindfold on just defending or freedom
If you're going to level these kinds of charges - particularly in the name of "helping Ron Paul" - do some g@d d@mned research and BRING it when you make something like this. This does DAMAGE to the Ron Paul campaign and to the credibility of ANYONE who agrees that McCain's eligibility was doubtful.
mccain is a cfr sellout for sure but come on,he was born on a USA base to two american parents who were there in service to the USA.Obama's parents were america hating marxist whores who were in kenya when she dropped the kid.
That isn't the Constitution jackass. The USC clearly states a NBC is born to 2 parents, where they are born means nothing, but the fact is John Mcpain who I think is a traitor because of his actions in Nam and subsequent Senatorial career hello Vietnam betrayal is a NBC.
The fact is the USC clearly states 2 US citizens as parents is all that is required, but anyhoo He was born on US Soil-US military base, to deny babies of US military personel their rights because of overseas duty is retarded
They know we're planning revolution just like they knew we would!
I WANT TO MAKE PLANS FOR A UNAGGRESSIVE MARCH THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA AND KICK THEM OUT PERMANENTLY!!!!
LETS DO THIS PEOPLE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!
IMAGINE 1 MILLION MARCHING THEY WONT STOP US WELL BE GAINING NUMBERS ALL THE TIME PEOPLE WONT BE SCARED WELL PROTECT EACHOTHER THE POLICE WILL JOIN US I KNOW THEY WILL!!!!
mccain is certainly a pow rat and a traitor, but, unfortunately, he is probably a natural born citizen.
oh bomb duh may not be a natural born citizne based on the supreme court decision of the 90's. Persoanlly, I htink that desicison was entered for his benefit.
Your name claims to be "real people" yet so many people disagree with you...You may be right in you point, but what does it matter, a "liberal douchebag" won(in your words which I, and clearly a majority of the world, believe to be false)...and you don't really know the definition of socialism so there is not point arguing.
"and you don't really know the definition of socialism so there is not point arguing."
The banks are now own buy the Government(50%), its no longer PRIVATE! Damn Douche bag, how dumb can a guy get, pull out a dictionary and find the definition of socialism while you are at it look at the definition of fascism.
:o really...i mean i actually believed socialism to be where the state owns the means of productions and/or distribution. I mean, there is really no reply I can give to counter your arguments cause all you did was banter me instead of disproving anything I said...But I still don't believe you understand the definition of socialism. Don't worry about it though. I understand the ignorance of people that [try to] offend people by insulting them instead of defending their argument.
as long as you're born on US soil you are considered a US citizen, John McCain was born on a military base which is considered by law US soil just like a US Embassy would also be considered US soil
Ummm... techinacaly a US air base is US soil... Same goes if your born in a US embassy in another country.... Its considered US soil.... those are just the facts... Im not a McCain supporter but Im not going to spew utter bullshyt just to discredit him...
No where in the constitution cause the constitution did not deal with this specifically... However under international law... thats how it works... this is a complicated issue cause the constitution doesn't state one way or another...
OMG you are so fucking retarded, go do your home work man, I would know, geez some people are so fucking stupid. I'm sick of replying to your pansy remarks, have a nice one douchebag!
Senator McCain is officially a "natural born" US citizen, but technically only because of a Senate resolution.
In actuality, the guy who posted the video is correct: The issue is more complex than you put it- military bases are not automatically US soil, just like American Samoans are not automatically US citizens- check the State Dpt. Manual. American parents make you a citizen but naturalization is still a weird gray area. Lots of articles on it
Are you high??? I am not naturalized. I WAS BORN AT A FUCKING US AIRBASE. Did you not know that US bases are an extension of the United States? How many times do I have to say this??? Does my BC say I was born in Germany? NO! Geez you're a super tard.
You're naturlized you moron because both your parents are Americans but you were not truly borin IN AMERICA...A US airbase is NOT America no matter how much you so desperatly want to believe...
I know he is a little liberal, but not communist liberal like obama, and he's not a naturalized citizen. He was born on a US AIRBASE!!!!! Geez lay the pipe down and turn off CNN.
No one can just "run" to a US base and spit out a kid. You have to be an american on a US base. Hell all US bases have people from that country working on it, just because one goes into labor and spits out a kids doesn't mean it's a US citizen.
In order for naturalized citizens like John McCain to be qualified an Amendment to the Constitution under Article V would have to be passed before a naturalized citizen could legally be elected President.
Get it, McCain is NOT a natural born citizen he is Naturalized, just like that moron Obama and just like you son.
So by your rationale an American mother who gives birth on a plane flying from Hawaii to California but giving birth over international waters/airspace, her child isn't a natural born citizen. What about people born in Puerto Rico? Guam? Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany? Saying somewhere is "illegally occupied" is political language, not legal. "Natural-born" is a legal term, not political.
frizbaloid 3 weeks ago
well we already have an illegal president, if you let it soak into your mind in 08 we had 2 illegals running for president. oh the irony lmao.
makesumad 4 weeks ago
When I start seeing flags like "CFR", "Bilderberg", "Trilateral Commission", "Rockefeller", I know not to take it seriously. Do you even know what the Trilateral Commission is? What the CFR is? Who the Bilderbergs and Rockefellers are? I don't think so. The Trilateral Commission is run by an executive committee, not Rockefellers.
You should be more concerned with the facts. They are more scary than your theories.
MR2Davjohn 1 month ago
I like Ron Paul for President. What I don't like, and what scares me, is that there are far too many people following Mr. Paul who are, in their understanding of the law, worse and more ignorant than Barack H. Obama. Not only that, but because Mr. Paul is the most conservative he suffers the insult of being followed by every anarchist, theorist, and conspiracy nutjob crawling out of the woodwork.
The Panama Canal was a military base by treaty, and therefore, US Territory.
MR2Davjohn 1 month ago
• Thank you for this video and the work you do spreading the truth. Within American government lies another government in control, orchestrating war, lies, and human sacrifice to their cabalist leaders and the military industrial complex. These people's names can be found on the following membership lists, none of which are official US government organizations: The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission run by the Rockefeller family, The Bilderberg Group. They run the world.
altgeldrarities 1 month ago
@NocredRS Actually RP4409 is wrong. You are the NEGATIVE scum of the earth. A WASP. A Jewish Anglo-Protestant scumbag. Youre deplorable. And worthy of Aushwitz concentration camp extermination. Youre trash. the consensus is in: youre deplorable. alway remeber that when you look at your children and put them to bed. always remember that when you go to work and brind back food. Because you'll wake up late realizing.
Famadeus101 2 months ago
Damn, I always knew McCain(Keating 5 Crook)and Lieberman were Nazi's, Lieberman will be another George Soros-selling his own people into Nazi-FEMA Death camps. McCain has always been a Gangland hustler. Any Congressman/women that votes for this Nazi Legislation will be UTTERLY SINGLED OUT and DEFEATED in next ELECTION! American Communism is Courtesy of the Vatican"the whore of Babylon clothed in Scarlet,Purple sitting on top of beast with 10 horns/kings"
libertydogfight 2 months ago
Didn't they give John McCain an exemption because the law was never ment to exclude any person becaue whos parents served in the armed forces?
tsharpmac420 2 months ago
@NocredRS
hahaha more like extremists like YOU fuck this world up.
OMG Noriega is declaring war.....run for our lives....he may shoot a fire cracker or throw some cocaine on us....We must invade to stop this man.....LMFAO
He declared a state of war because we were fucking invading his country and infiltrating it just like we do every fucking sovereign nation you blind fucking idiot.
You are a flat out psychotic extremist.
RP4409 4 months ago
@NocredRS
Noreiga declared war on us? hahahahahaha LMFAO
How were they possibly going to attack? LOL
Did they have a Navy? Did they have an Air force?
1 marine dies and we have to invade a sovereign nation? You're a typical fucking stupid ass brainwashed parrot American. You have no fucking clue how this rogue government even works and support their tyranny at all costs. You have no empathy for anyone.
RP4409 4 months ago
@NocredRS ...uhhhh Panama attacked us? How? With what Army? What Navy?
We invaded Panama you douche.
RP4409 4 months ago
@NocredRS ....so are telling me that any land, any where in the world is ours "legally" and it is considered constitutionally US soil even though we illegally invaded that land unconstitutionally and set up a make shift "base" by force for occupation?
I see your point, but i disagree
Just because I could invade your home by force and occupy a portion there of does not legally, morally, or constitutionally make it mine. This is why McCain had to go beg congress to write a resolution.
RP4409 4 months ago
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents in wedlock acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided that one of the parents resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such residence is required. At the time McCain was born in Panama, it was under US control, and no, they weren't there by force.
1Sweetsexyflava 6 months ago
The intent of the natural born clause was to prevent those with split allegiances from being president. Not to mention that court rulings on the issue, as well as amendments since makes McCain qualified. The constitution allows for McCain, but not Obama.
leeuniverse 7 months ago
It really drives me nuts when conservatives act like liberals, if this guy is conservative. :( McCain was born to two Citizens..... Just because they happened to be "traveling" at the time, no matter if they were on occupied U.S. soil or not, doesn't somehow NOT make him a natural born citizen. Anyone with a brain can understand that McCain's situation would make him WITHIN the "intent" of the Natural Born clause of the Constitution.
leeuniverse 7 months ago
Could you be a bigger douchebag? If you don't know enough to shut your mouth than please consider the REAL facts. His mother and father were Americans. You are a simpleton. And Your understanding of politics is a joke. And I'm a Democrat for Christ's sake. Jesus wept. How do you get through a day without somebody not beating the snot out of you? This guy spent Five and a half years at the Hanoi Hilton. Are you fucking brain damaged? And I am a Democrat. You people are nuts.
cjgerber19621 8 months ago
@cjgerber19621 ....you fail to understand the laws and what qualifies someone to be "naturally born" You are in fact a uninformed simpleton.
If there was not a problem with his eligibility then why did he run and beg (bribe) congress in 2007 having them draft a resolution giving him the ok to run?
He is naturalized...not naturally born and there is a difference grasshopper!
RP4409 8 months ago 5
@RP4409 "beg (bribe) congress in 2007 having them draft a resolution giving him the ok to run?"......1st he the senate drafted the res, on their own accord, not all of congress. 2nd it was non-bidding i.e. it has no legal power, it was merely a dog and pony show.
he never had to naturalize since he was born a US nationals, and congress grandfather him and many other people into NBC status. don't let the facts hit you on your ass on your way out
noliesundead 7 months ago
@cjgerber19621 TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL GTFO
ciupa911 1 month ago
I garuntee you this was done so that there could be an Israeli candidate for President in the future.
Senate Res 511 granted John Mccain the right to run for President based on precedent according to the resolution
Paraphrasing
Where as other candidates for President were born outside the united states and were UNDERSTOOD to be eligible to be President.
Do you know who was born outside the country and ran for President before?
John Mccain.
ROFL!
Please check out my video on it.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
BOYCOTT TUCSON AZ THEY KILLED MY DOG SUKI ON 1/5/2011
pimakilledsuki 11 months ago
CFR = THE JEWS
BowToMySkill 1 year ago
I see from another post that you are associated with the convicted felon Manning who conducted a circus in Harlem this year. You people need to quit sniffing those vapor trails and using the fluoride toothpaste.
1940jan 1 year ago
@1940jan
Don't tell them to stop using toothpaste. Their breath is bad enough as it is... ;)
Mystylplx 1 year ago
There is another person quoting the law against obama and it says that if both your parents are natural American citizens it does not matter where they have thier child, it is American, however the point he makes is if only one parent is naturalized, the other must have spent 14 years in america before they can have a baby outside the USA and cosider the child a natural citizen
joshuwaski 1 year ago
@eastwood13 thats what the law says, but that not what the constitution says regarding the presidencey.
bwc3821 1 year ago
Wrong on this account. McCain was born to US Citizens on a US Military base inside a US Terrirory. Although I think McCain is a rather large douch bag. The original naturalization act (not immigration act) ws passed with Article 1 Section 8 authority. This act defined instances where US Citizenship was automatic (natural born) not in the context of our modern naturalized citizen. Puerto Ricans are US Citizens but Puerto Rico is not a state. Guam is the same case.
Robbob9933 1 year ago
4409 is correct; McCain is not a natural born citizen.
peepnklown 1 year ago
[con't from below]
..The Panama Canal was a US protected administration zone under complete US jurisdiction between Nov. 18th 1903 and Dec. 31st 1999.
You claim it was illegally occupied by force. That may be, but as soon as Panama agreed to the terms of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (for a lump sum 10M$ payment and resumption of the yearly 250k$ lease payments), the zone became US soil for the duration of the lease.
MelioraCogito 1 year ago
I think you're grasping at straws on this issue - what you're saying is children born of American parents serving overseas (whether they be military or diplomatic personnell) are not to be considered "natural citizens"?
Just to be clear, US Embassy’s, Consulates and military establishments for the purpose of international law are US protected territories (unless otherwise stipulated in the treaty arrangment of the host nation).
[more above..]
MelioraCogito 1 year ago
Against your point, and I'm sure this has been said, even if his parents were on the moon and he had been born on the moon he's still a natural born citizen because his parents were also. In favor of your point, I agree Obama is naturalized, and agree that Ron Paul was the best choice :D
nathan9384 1 year ago
I would argue now that Kucinich has defected, or was a CFR plant who was put in place as a last ditch effort to sway borderline libertarians.
I would rather not put my faith in any congressman as it's another poor excuse to blame someone else for what happens to my life. I'm in control and refuse to give a 'suit' that control.
venuecam 1 year ago
4409 is no better then the westbro baptist church
fight4yourfreedom1 1 year ago
I hate McCain like the best of them, but a military base IS considered US soil. Sorry but your an idiot.
TheApothocary 1 year ago 2
@TheApothocary...read the video description. It is NOT American soil if it was unconstitutionally illegally occupied by force.
RP4409 1 year ago 4
@RP4409 Hey, I like you guys, I subscribe, but this time your wrong.
TheApothocary 1 year ago
@TheApothocary...so are telling me that any land, any where in the world is ours "legally" and it is considered constitutionally US soil even though we illegally invaded that land unconstitutionally and set up a make shift "base" by force for occupation?
I see your point, but i disagree
Just because I could invade your home by force and occupy a portion there of does not legally, morally, or constitutionally make it mine. This is why McCain had to go beg congress to write a resolution.
RP4409 1 year ago 9
@RP4409 You should know all about that living in AZ. Right now you are living "illegally" in what should be Mexico.
TheApothocary 1 year ago
@RP4409 well if you think about it America was taking by force from the Native Americans so to me its all the same. so i guess nobody is a U.S. natural born citizen
darkbladex080 1 year ago
@RP4409 what they are saying is under US law a "armed forces base" whether it be in an illegally invaded land or anything else just like an US embassy is considered US soil. Still Agree mcCain is a twat and was unqualified to be president (that didn't stop Obama though).
Ron Paul 2012.
xsh3ldonxppc 1 year ago
@TheApothocary You do not know what you are talking about. The soil jurisdiction has absolutely nothing at all to do with a natural born Citizen status. As long as you have an American father when you are born, you are a nat born SOVEREIGN American. Soil jurisdiction is only about PRIVILEGES not natural Inherited Rights from nature which is what Article II is all about. Obama is not a nat born Citizen because his dad is a foreigner and his mom and soil are irrelevant.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Tis you who don't know what you are talking about. Sounds like you've been listening to morons like Puzo and Kerchner.
It's really very simple. It's English--the language the Constitution was written in. In English a 'natural born' -whatever- is someone who is -whatever- from birth.
If you are born a leader you are a 'natural born leader.'
If you are born a killer you are a natural born killer.
If you are born a citizen you are natural born citizen.
English.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx, You don't understand what I am saying. Let me clear it up for you. There are basically 3 ways to be a nat born citizen either by soil jurisdiction or by your citizen mom or by your citizen dad. Article II is only talking about natural born Citizens that are created by your citizen dad. The ones by soil or your mom cant prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of Pres which is the entire point of Article II therefore soil and your mom are irrelevant. Now do you get it?
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
I understand perfectly what you are saying and you are wrong. Not only wrong, but you make no sense at all. Art. II simply requires you to be a natural born citizen. Period. It says nothing about your mom or dad.
It says what it says and it doesn't say what you are claiming.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You are a layman with no understanding of the Constitution. You do not know what you are talking about. I can easily prove you wrong with one simple observation of history and the Minor v Happersett Supreme Court case. Pay attention layman. Women are natural born citizens but until the 19th amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution, female nat born citizens could not vote or be President so obviously Article II is not talking about just any natural born citizen.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Wrong. Minors V. Happerset was only about voting, not Presidential eligibility.
The framers were smart men who said what they meant and meant what they said. You (like Apuzzo) are trying to argue that they really meant something different from what they said.
Nonsense.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
"Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation." — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.
It's a very simple concept. You can't make up new meanings when the plain English meaning is unambiguous.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
The court ruled that Virginia Minor was indeed an NBC but that Missouri could still deny her the right to vote because the right to vote for President is NOT enshrined in the Constitution and that states could make up any rules they want for that.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Look fool, you can believe whatever bullshit you want. It is clear you have no understanding or knowledge. You are arguing that females were intended by the framers to have the political right to attain the highest political office in the land with Article II, but the Constitution did not even give them the political right to vote a more basic political right? Talk about not making any sense at all, you take the cake. I have proven you wrong but you just refuse to accept reality.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
No, what's clear is you've never even read the case you cite. In a nutshell, Virginia Minors whole argument was that she was a natural born citizen, thus eligible to run for President, so how could they deny her the right to vote for President?
The court AGREED that she was NBC (thus eligible to run for President) but that the Constitution gave to the state legislatures the power to decide how to choose the electors. So if Missouri wanted to prohibit women from voting they could.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
Say WHAT?? It is clear that YOU have never read the Minor case because it was not about her running for president she just wanted to register to vote. You have no credibility at all. You are full of shit. I have proven you wrong now grow up and admit it. Article II is only talking about a specific natural born citizen that is why Citizen is capitalized as a proper noun because Article II is not talking about just any natural born citizen because its referring to a specific one.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
That's what I said! It was not about her running for President, it was about her right to vote! Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.
The court ruled that she was a Natural born citizen (thus eligible for the Presidency after attaining the age of 35 and with 14 years residence) but that this still didn't mean that MO couldn't deny her the right to vote. The right to vote is NOT in the Constitution.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx It is not my reading comprehension that is lacking it is yours. You read the Minor case which is only about registering to vote and somehow you conclude that the court found that she had the right to the highest political office in the land. The court never said any such thing but somehow you have been able to draw this conclusion? I think it is clear who has reading comprehension issues and it is not me.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Your short term memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. YOU are the one that claimed Minors V Happersett was about eligibility for President, and that women were ineligible until the 19th amendment. I pointed out that both the case and the amendment were only about the right to vote. Minors wasn't suing to run for President, but it WAS part of her argument that she was a natural born citizen (thus eligible) so how could they deny her the right to vote?
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NO I never made that claim. That is a false assumption on your part. I never said how Minor makes my case until I showed u that if women could not have the right to vote then it makes no sense to think that the framers intended females to be Pres if they couldnt even vote. All I said was that I can easily prove u wrong with history & Minor & I have done that. Article II is clearly referring to only one specific type of nat born citizen & it precludes those by soil or by females alone.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Sigh.
No. Voting and being President have nothing to do with each other. The truth is the framers probably never even imagined the possibility that a woman could be President, but that doesn't mean they prohibited it. They also never imagined a black person being President and didn't prohibit that either.
EITHER WAY they said what they meant and meant what they said. You are the one who is proven wrong. Minor is about voting, not Presidential eligibility.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx They have everything to do with each other because they are both talking about what political rights you have as a citizen not just that you ARE a citizen. This fine distinction escapes you and it makes all of the difference in the world because Article II is talking about only those who INHERIT their political right to be Pres (nat born). You only inherit your POLITICAL RIGHTS form your dad not mom.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
To understand Minors V Happerset you have to understand that Women were never prohibited from running for President--they were prohibited from voting. The Constitution lists the qualifications for President, but allows the states to cast their electoral votes any way they want. In the first few elections the state legislatures chose the electors with no popular vote at all.
continuing...
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You are so full of shit it is unbelievable. You dont even understand the original intent of Article II which is to prevent a monarchy form of government by preventing titles of nobility (royalty) from attaining the office of President. You do not even know where political rights even come from or what is the controlling Precedent that defines Article II. There is no point in me spelling it out for you because it is clear that you are opinionated and are not interested in learning.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
You are partly right that a concern of the framers was that Americans were so used to being ruled by nobleman that the worried that a foreign prince, who was not a natural born American, would come here and get elected President while holding little or no loyalty to America. Thus article II prohibits that from happening.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Now try and explain just how Article II does that, idiot. Then you will see that a natural born citizen by the soil cant work because any foreign king and his queen can just drop a kid on U.S. soil and according to you that natural born citizen created by the soil jurisdiction is good enough for Article II and he could be Pres since according to you just any natural born citizen will do. You have just proven my point that Article II is not talking about just any nat born citizen.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
You really aren't very bright, are you? Article II prohibits any but a natural born citizen from becoming President. Thus the framers worry that a FOREIGN prince would come here and get elected is taken care of. If they had intended to simply prohibit nobility they would have said so.
Your arguments are even dumber than Apuzzos, but what you have in common is you are trying to claim the framers meant something other than what they said.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
"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."
They said what they meant and they meant what they said. Quit trying to say they meant something other than what they said.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx What you fail to realize is that there are many more than 1 type of nat born citizen defined under U.S. law & defined prior to the Constitution. Talk about not being very bright you take the cake. Under U.S. law you can be a nat born citizen by just the soil no matter the citizenship of your parents or you can just have a citizen mom & a foreign dad & you are still considered nat born or you can just have a citizen dad. Only one fits with Article II. You have been proven wrong.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
No. There were different listed REQUIREMENTS to be a citizen (or subject) at birth, but those don't constitute different KINDS of natural born citizens. If you are a citizen at birth you are a natural born citizen.
But even if you were right it doesn't matter. Unless the framers specified which "kind" of NBC then it means ANY kind.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Not all nat born citizens are created politically equal. Females were nat born citizens but they could not vote so not all nat born citizens are equal. nat born citizens created by the soil or mom alone cant prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of Pres. U are wrong & I have proven it u just refuse to accept reality. U cant even grasp simple logic. U are irrational. Obama cant possibly qualify because he is not a nat born citizen by way of a citizen dad end of story.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
The framers stated that no one but a natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency. Period. Stop trying to put words in their mouths and thinking you know better than they did. They didn't say any special kind of natural born citizen. It is natural born citizen. Period. That means ANY natural born citizen.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Then explain how a nat born cit created by the soil jurisdiction can prevent a king & his wife from having a baby on U.S. soil who would then inherit a title of nobility from his foreign parents but could then be Pres according to u because any nat born citizen will do. I think any rational person can see that we have just proven u wrong & Art II is only talking about one specific type of nat born citizen, you just refuse to rely on logical reality to guide your reason. U R IRRATIONAL
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Even by your weird definition it would just take one more generation. A king and his wife have a baby on U.S. soil who then grows up and marries and has a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is still the heir to the thrown of whatever foreign power and is still an NBC in the U.S. and eligible to run for President.
But the framers weren't worried about that far-fetched scenario. They were worried that a foreign prince who wasn't natural born would come here and get elected.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
Plus you keep thinking that there are different types of natural born citizens simply because there were different ways of becoming one. That's as dumb as thinking if two people take different routes to get to the same destination they are really arriving at different destinations.
There's only one "kind" of natural born citizen. There are different ways of getting there, jus sanguinis, jus soli, but the destination is the same whatever the route taken to get there.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Good at least you recognize that there are different ways to be nat born. Now, add in the context of POLITICAL RIGHTS which is what Article II is talking about and apply the concept of political rights to the different pathways and you will discover that not all pathways lead to the same political rights. Only the pathway of your citizen father creates the correct political condition that fits with Article II. That is what you and everyone else is missing and refuses to accept.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
More nonsense from you. Article II isn't talking about "political rights" it is talking about the office of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government, its powers, duties, and qualifications.
Go back to school junior. You are way over your head with this stuff.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; and more....
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
"It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, ...We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power." — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Article II is not talking about political rights??????? BUWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! YOU ARE A MORON. You have no credibility at all. You clearly have no clue what is going on. If the office of President is not about political rights then what the hell rights is it about????? No one will believe your bullshit that the President is not the highest political office in the land and that Article II has no political context at all. You have shot yourself in the foot and I am now done with you.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Your hysterical laughter just shows the real level of your intellect. You think different routes to becoming a citizen at birth somehow means different kinds of natural born citizens. You think the framers didn't say what they meant and didn't mean what they said. Here's a clue: if the framers had meant to limit the Presidency to only those whos fathers were citizens they would have said so. They did not.
Go back to school dimwit.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Here is a clue for u idiot. If Article II is not about political rights then why are the qualifications all about your citizenship since CITIZENSHIP IS A POLITICAL RIGHT you retard. You are a Loyalist because u argue that just by being born on the soil jurisdiction you owe a political allegiance to the state. That is the same argument that King George made to the colonists because the colonial soil was under the Kings jurisdiction. We won a war in 1776 that says otherwise. You lose.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
I said understanding political rights is irrelevant to article II but not to Minors. It's actually the other way around--understanding article II has bearing on political rights.
And yes, citizenship is a political right. Just as natural born citizens being eligible to be President is.
This doesn't help your case. It still says what it says. They meant exactly what they said. If they had meant "natural born citizen whose father was also a citizen" then they would have said that.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Also, it's amusing how you keep making an ass of yourself and then proclaiming yourself the winner.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Its not my weird definition, idiot. I have invented nothing original here of my own. I am just relating the facts that I have learned by investigating and applying principles of law that you know nothing about. You fail to realize that the next generation offspring will not inherit a title of nobility because U.S. citizenship laws do not create titles of nobility under OUR jurisdiction. What is your next bogus argument?
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
No, you have invented a pure fantasy that no one with any education or knowledge believes. You still can't perceive that different routes to becoming natural born do not translate into different 'kinds' of natural born.
And why would the next generation not inherit the title? You make increasingly less sense. He would still inherit the title under THEIR jurisdiction. No one EVER inherits such a title under OUR jurisdiction, so your point is pointless.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx They do specify in Art II u just cant infer the implied meaning. U must apply the concepts in the Dec of Independence which clearly states that its a self evident truth that males are endowed with political rights that they inherit from their fathers. That means the specific nat born citizen that is being referred to is one who inherits the political right from a citizen dad which proves that art II is only talking about nat born citizens that are created by your dad. I rest my case.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
"Implied meaning?" Try again. They don't "imply" in the Constitution. They come right out and say.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx No you are wrong. The entire Constitution has all kinds of implied meanings. It is clear I am dealing with a layman with no knowledge. I have better things to do with my time than argue with morons. I have clearly proven you wrong and you just are not mature enough to admit it. Give it up already you can not win this argument.
jedipauly 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
They come from the Constitution itself or from state constitutions or from statute law.
This is irrelevant to article II. It does have some bearing on Minor, but no bearing on your attempts to claim the framers meant something other than what they said in plain English by a fantasy twisted argument about some hypothetical king having a child on U.S. soil.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mystylplx No, to understand Minor u must understand where political rights come from which u clearly dont understand. I know where political rights come from but I will bet that u don't. I would love to hear ur explanation of where political rights come from as I think it would be hilarious to prove once again how ignorant u are of these matters. Here is your chance to impress me. Tell us wise one, where do political rights come from? I know but you dont. That is why you lose this debate.
jedipauly 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Now you are just spamming.
You have no argument. You are living in fantasy land. The framers said what they meant and meant what they said. No amount of attempting to redefine it will help either you or your friend Apuzzo.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that it is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among MEN and that all MEN are created inheriting political rights. They are not talking about the political rights of females. How you conclude that Article II was originally intended to include women is beyond any rational persons ability to accept.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
BTW, the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, not a legal document. It has no bearing on our laws. SCOTUS has repeatedly denied that it even has a use in interpreting the Constitution.
And I never said the President is not the highest political office. First you try to put words in the mouths of the framers, now you are trying to put words in my mouth.
You would be better off listening to what is ACTUALLY said and not making stuff up.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Wrong again fool. The first act of Congress was to adopt the Declaration of Independence as part of the Laws of the United States. You are really uneducated and ignorant of history, law, and the Constitution, and you definitely have no fucking clue about the natural born citizen clause. I have proven everything you have said is wrong and I have proven my case but you still don't get it. You are brain fucked irrational and without reasoning skills.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@jedipauly
Wrong again, dimwit. The first act of the first Congress under the Constitution was "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths."
There was also a "congress" of sorts that adopted the declaration, but not as a matter of law. It was a message sent to the King. SCOTUS has cited the Declaration as part of the dicta in some cases, but never as a matter of organic law.
It was a message to the King. Not law.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@jedipauly
You apparently think blathering on about how the framers really meant something completely different from what they said somehow proves me wrong.
You funny. Dumb as a stump, but funny.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Furthermore, Apuzzo is an idiot he has no clue what Article II is talking about. I know because I have gone several rounds with him until I proved him wrong & then he just called me crazy & refuses to listen to me. Apuzzo is a moron who doesnt even have the correct legal theory & he doesnt describe any legal theories that explain why Obama can not possibly qualify. He just asserts bogus facts & draws wrong conclusions with failed hypotheses. I am the only one with the correct theory.
jedipauly 1 year ago
@RP4409 isnt how this country was built lol.....by force
ihaveaverybadcold 1 year ago
@RP4409 your logic would have to mean that america itself is unconstitutional which,of course,is absurd.
America wrote the constitution so how could we be unconstitutional?You're not an american injun,are you?
rw5791 1 year ago
@rw5791 ....wrong....The people had no rules and/or boundaries when the pilgrims came....Any land unlawfully seized AFTER the constitution was ratified would be unconstitutional. How could it have been unconstitutional if we did not have a constitution at the time?
RP4409 11 months ago
@RP4409
Woudlnt the include the western territories like....Arizona where you live?
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The treaty was violated and so everything west of the Louisiana territories are illegal.
Treaties supersede the constitution as I know you already are aware and I know you know about the treaty of G.H. Any violation of a treaty makes it null and void.
Their lack of ability to enforce the violation would be the same as the Panamanians unable to repel an illegal occupation.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
McCain is a lot of things, and he is unqualified to lead this Nation. He is a traitorous slimy politician, but he IS a natural born citizen. Both his parents are Natural born citizens neither his or him renounced their citizenship. It is immaterial that he was born in Panama, while his father was station there, regardless that he was born in a civilian hospital in Panama.
Obama, on the other hand was born of 1 US citizen and 1 foreign born male.
lacbear4u 1 year ago
@TheApothocary i have to agree with this guy. i thought it was common knowledge honestly
wang0fett 11 months ago
A territory is not the United States. .
If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.
euro944t 1 year ago
we know this. He is not prez and neither is obama.
SpringChatty 1 year ago
When TPTB ran the Bush vs Kerry show, the American people could chose between two Skull & Bones men, and for Obama vs McCain, they could chose between two... men not elegible to become president?! Is this some cruel insider joke, first let's see whether Americans can understand the impact of secret societies, and then let's see whether they can even remember what it means to be American?
RachelBartlett 1 year ago
Peace, Light, and Love...
I'm an anchor baby and I assimilated....
I like you guys 4409=Freedom!
cutejoker69 1 year ago
@cutejoker69
FIRST you say you're an "illegal" and now you're saying you're an "anchor baby". Do you really know what the hell you are or are you just typing so the rest of us will know that you're ignorant??
krklek 1 year ago
The US constitution is a a Box of Crayola crayons but Human Rights that's a UV spectrum.
Got any Indian Red crayons, how about Anglo white, and African Black crayons?
Are the Indian red colors "illegal?"
Respect? That's what anchor babies ask for a little Respect? I'm sorry it upsets you but it does say "We the People." We will speak Spanish cuz that's what some humans speak and your constitution says free speech. Also, Spanish has been spoken in the South west it's not a conspiracy.
cutejoker69 1 year ago
@cutejoker69
I agree, the Southwest did speak spanish until we beat them back past the Rio Grande River!!!!!
And do us all a favor, will you? If you're going to type in English, then at least learn the correct usage of the words and the correct punctuation.....
krklek 1 year ago
Excluded many "PEOPLE" who were born and migrated to the US...
They should have written it correctly and not disguised it with a double meaning..
We the White Rich Citizens of the New British Colony, in Order to form a more perfect Union....
I know most white folks are bit tee'd due to being grouped and called terrorists, my question is how does it feel? A Simple question from an "illegal" to a group of "white terrorists..."
cutejoker69 1 year ago
"You may want to believe in your heart it's US soil but it's NOT. Please refer to that little document called the constitution."
I know you're talking about the 14th amendment & it gives a broad definition of citizenship but it excluded Blacks and Native Americans, why?
I think most of the people you call "illegal" are your 21st century Native Americans, just like they did in the 1800's..
They should rewrite the Preamble and correct it so the world can notice how those that created it(NWO).
cutejoker69 1 year ago
@cutejoker69
Man, you're 3 for 3!! It's quite obvious that you've never even read the 14th Amendment, have you???
It does NOT exclude blacks or Indians - READ it ya' moron!!!! before trying to give a dissertation (Google this word, maybe you'll LEARN something!) about it!!!!!!!!!
krklek 1 year ago
his dad was in the military so it makes him a citizen.
ATiger18 1 year ago
ATiger18...research more
RP4409 1 year ago
read the side bar
RP4409 1 year ago 2
During the 1930's the US tried to Annex almost EVERY country in the Americas; Panama was part of this plan by the US. So McCain is citizen
tpakvn 2 years ago
I concur - MacCain is an alien! But, I believe that under 14 amendment you only need to be naturalize to run for Senate (or house). Natural born for President. So much for Obama!
TheJm8284 2 years ago
MCain is a major gungrabber. His goal is to disarm americans to complete neocon tyranny
mizzoulibertarian 2 years ago
Yes you are correct McCain is anti firearm just like Slick Willy Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Osama Hussien Obama.
MrTrajan69 1 year ago
Interesting....Illegals shouldn't be allowed to run muck in the streets. How should they be stopped?
odinata 2 years ago 2
I never thought I'd see the day when both presidential front runners were not born in America, and a natural born citizen couldn't get elected. Anybody that don't think it's time for the revolution better wake up or start learning another language.
amzuel420 2 years ago
Comment removed
bigstoc 2 years ago
see, anarchrist
ryan2579126 2 years ago
They never intended for McCain to win that's why he stupidly said bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ron Paul won. We are running out of time very fast.
PaulLayton1102 2 years ago
Obama is not a citizen much elss a NBC he has no Birth Certificate, his mother never brought his sorry ass back from Kenya. This entire thing is shit. His grandparents lived at the residence and put a statement in the paper, that ain't legal pproof and is not submissable as evidence at all his sorry ass is still and Indonesian citizen which remains unquestioned. Mcpain on the other hand was boin to 2 US Citizens on US Soil, his father had no control over were the USG sent him. Stop bsing.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
deltapunk21..read below your argument fails....Natural born citizen is born in the United State of America...
NOT born on an illegally invaded foreign land.
RP4409 2 years ago
Both John Mccain and Barack Obama are natural born citizes. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii witch makes him a natural born citizen, he has a birth certificate. John Mccain was born on a us military base witch is considered American soil, there for he is a natural born citizen. Obamas mom never went to Kenya. and he lost his kenya citizenship at the age of 21. Obama never became a citizen of Indonesia. Oh and learn english and edcaute your self would you?
darkvampire5555 2 years ago
@darkvampire5555 He obtained a birth certificate that ANYONE could've in the time he did because all u had 2 have was 1 relative that resided there & you can have a birth certificate. Thats proven fact. Also, they celebrate his birthplace in Kenya. If you lived there or visited you can see the memorial. The KING himself said that they celebrate his birth place before he was president. Now he said he was misquoted. Open your eyes buddy. If you're such a darkvampire, you should know these things.
drivenBEATS 2 years ago
lol i agree this is ludicrous but it says clearly "in my opinon".. they're jus making a point about the constitution, that he wasent actually born in the country.. though legally he is natural born.. he was born on a US military base, which is considered US soil and both of his parents are american citizens.. this only hurts ron paul if your a moron and wanna take what is said as fact..
Kimit420 2 years ago
Show me where in the constitution that a military base is american soil you freaking moron.
You said a US military base is "considered" US soil? Really? considered By who? You?
Panama was an illegaly invaded occupied foreign land by US troops which translates to not a natural born citizen.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land and unless you can show me and amendment stating that you could be born on a military base than your argument fails.
RP4409 2 years ago
excuse me? im not a mccain supporter by any means but to think this video is FACT is obsured, i agree the constitution says "natural born" what most people would think is born in the USA. but having said that neither the constitution nor the supreme court has clarified the meaning of "natural born".. mccain came right out with his required documents and the courts agreed hes "natural born." he was in the military i think he knows better than u. i was jus giving my opinion, this vid is not FACT
Kimit420 2 years ago
Kimit420 you make no sense....First you claim that neither the constitution nor the supreme court has clarified the meaning of "natural born" ....then in the next line you claim that a courts agreed McCain is "natural born"
WTF
What court and when?
Also the constitution does state what natural born is.
RP4409 2 years ago
ok where does the constitution clarify what "natural born citizen" is?? ok bad choice of words. Its the state governments, and their state elections divisions who are responsible for making sure hes legit. which is basically a court. i really shouldnt have to research things for u.. i actually look to your channel for info, but putting out videos like this, with no proof of FACT, lol which says clearly "in my opinion" i thought it was jus a personal thought. sry i questioned ur intelligence lol
Kimit420 2 years ago
Its not in the constitution about the military base. In my 20years of military service all bases i have been to outside the U.S. is consdered US soil. Just like any Embassy. It is part of any agreement by the US and the Host country. through treaty. Some are leased for a time that has to be renewed others are joint bases
95tahoe1 2 years ago
95tahoe1...difference is there was no treaty with panama. It was illegaly invaded :)
RP4409 2 years ago
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
holographygirl 2 years ago
@95tahoe1 there was no legal treaty with Panama buddy. So your 20 years in the military have been with a blindfold on
drivenBEATS 2 years ago
if that was the case then my kids are japanes and english. i fill out no special paperwork to make them US citizens. i wasnt around during Mcain birth. But i know what im talking about. And by the way my 20 years was never with blindfold on just defending or freedom
95tahoe1 2 years ago
@95tahoe1
factcheck, the Panama base was built 2yrs after John was born.
euro944t 1 year ago
This is pathetic!
If you're going to level these kinds of charges - particularly in the name of "helping Ron Paul" - do some g@d d@mned research and BRING it when you make something like this. This does DAMAGE to the Ron Paul campaign and to the credibility of ANYONE who agrees that McCain's eligibility was doubtful.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
mccain is a cfr sellout for sure but come on,he was born on a USA base to two american parents who were there in service to the USA.Obama's parents were america hating marxist whores who were in kenya when she dropped the kid.
rw5791 2 years ago
You people are wackjobs. I hate obama, i didn't like mccain, but Ron paul was just an extremist. You people are effin' crazy.
adirtygaspump 2 years ago
Yea the constitution is so extreme...LMAO douche bag
RP4409 2 years ago
hahah you tell em brother!
frankfritter35 2 years ago
That isn't the Constitution jackass. The USC clearly states a NBC is born to 2 parents, where they are born means nothing, but the fact is John Mcpain who I think is a traitor because of his actions in Nam and subsequent Senatorial career hello Vietnam betrayal is a NBC.
The fact is the USC clearly states 2 US citizens as parents is all that is required, but anyhoo He was born on US Soil-US military base, to deny babies of US military personel their rights because of overseas duty is retarded
deltapunk21 2 years ago
wow. im down for a go0d old fashioned impeach the effing president move.. ready when you are america.. .
serrtucheserrtuche 2 years ago
The two main candidates were ineligible!!!
YouTubReptilian 2 years ago
No both candidates were eligible.
darkvampire5555 2 years ago
We need to take action TODAY PEOPLE!!!!
They know we're planning revolution just like they knew we would!
I WANT TO MAKE PLANS FOR A UNAGGRESSIVE MARCH THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA AND KICK THEM OUT PERMANENTLY!!!!
LETS DO THIS PEOPLE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!
IMAGINE 1 MILLION MARCHING THEY WONT STOP US WELL BE GAINING NUMBERS ALL THE TIME PEOPLE WONT BE SCARED WELL PROTECT EACHOTHER THE POLICE WILL JOIN US I KNOW THEY WILL!!!!
d240786 2 years ago 2
CFR
Cock Focking Retards
Constitutional Fraud Representatives
Convening For Rockefeller
Fock the Trilateral Commission, and the UN!
Parasome 2 years ago 2
Thanks.
mccain is certainly a pow rat and a traitor, but, unfortunately, he is probably a natural born citizen.
oh bomb duh may not be a natural born citizne based on the supreme court decision of the 90's. Persoanlly, I htink that desicison was entered for his benefit.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Your name claims to be "real people" yet so many people disagree with you...You may be right in you point, but what does it matter, a "liberal douchebag" won(in your words which I, and clearly a majority of the world, believe to be false)...and you don't really know the definition of socialism so there is not point arguing.
pogejr 3 years ago
"and you don't really know the definition of socialism so there is not point arguing."
Go suck a Dick or read Karl Marx and suck his Dick! In Layman's term bro, government intervention in the free market = Socialism
Parasome 2 years ago
"and you don't really know the definition of socialism so there is not point arguing."
The banks are now own buy the Government(50%), its no longer PRIVATE! Damn Douche bag, how dumb can a guy get, pull out a dictionary and find the definition of socialism while you are at it look at the definition of fascism.
Parasome 2 years ago
:o really...i mean i actually believed socialism to be where the state owns the means of productions and/or distribution. I mean, there is really no reply I can give to counter your arguments cause all you did was banter me instead of disproving anything I said...But I still don't believe you understand the definition of socialism. Don't worry about it though. I understand the ignorance of people that [try to] offend people by insulting them instead of defending their argument.
pogejr 2 years ago
as long as you're born on US soil you are considered a US citizen, John McCain was born on a military base which is considered by law US soil just like a US Embassy would also be considered US soil
vicksters1989 3 years ago
FAIL.
Panama Was a US Terratory at the Time.
Your arguement is invalid.
JXZjeremy 3 years ago
Ummm... techinacaly a US air base is US soil... Same goes if your born in a US embassy in another country.... Its considered US soil.... those are just the facts... Im not a McCain supporter but Im not going to spew utter bullshyt just to discredit him...
matthias4085 3 years ago
matthias4085 you use the word "considered"
considered is not the same "as is" us soil.
Where in the constitution does is state that a us embassy is us soil?
RP4409 3 years ago
No where in the constitution cause the constitution did not deal with this specifically... However under international law... thats how it works... this is a complicated issue cause the constitution doesn't state one way or another...
matthias4085 3 years ago
OMG you are so fucking retarded, go do your home work man, I would know, geez some people are so fucking stupid. I'm sick of replying to your pansy remarks, have a nice one douchebag!
barqs19 3 years ago
I have some straight talk for you, my friends.
Senator McCain is officially a "natural born" US citizen, but technically only because of a Senate resolution.
In actuality, the guy who posted the video is correct: The issue is more complex than you put it- military bases are not automatically US soil, just like American Samoans are not automatically US citizens- check the State Dpt. Manual. American parents make you a citizen but naturalization is still a weird gray area. Lots of articles on it
sheepburn 3 years ago 2
Are you high??? I am not naturalized. I WAS BORN AT A FUCKING US AIRBASE. Did you not know that US bases are an extension of the United States? How many times do I have to say this??? Does my BC say I was born in Germany? NO! Geez you're a super tard.
barqs19 3 years ago
You're naturlized you moron because both your parents are Americans but you were not truly borin IN AMERICA...A US airbase is NOT America no matter how much you so desperatly want to believe...
RP4409 3 years ago
I know he is a little liberal, but not communist liberal like obama, and he's not a naturalized citizen. He was born on a US AIRBASE!!!!! Geez lay the pipe down and turn off CNN.
barqs19 3 years ago
If you think there is any difference between Obama and McCain you "My Friend" are smoking and need to put the pipe down.
They are both socialist liberal douche bags and they just gave 700b to a bunch of thugs on wall street. THAT"S SOCIALISM
RP4409 3 years ago
No one can just "run" to a US base and spit out a kid. You have to be an american on a US base. Hell all US bases have people from that country working on it, just because one goes into labor and spits out a kids doesn't mean it's a US citizen.
barqs19 3 years ago
You proved my point.
In order for naturalized citizens like John McCain to be qualified an Amendment to the Constitution under Article V would have to be passed before a naturalized citizen could legally be elected President.
Get it, McCain is NOT a natural born citizen he is Naturalized, just like that moron Obama and just like you son.
RP4409 3 years ago
OMG what a retard, he was born on a US airbase as I was in Germany. You're a US Citizen!!!! Liberal communist piece of no common sense garbage!
barqs19 3 years ago
barqs19....haha if you like McCain YOU are the liberal because McCain IS a liberal amnesty loving douche bag.