tintin113 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 This is really ridiculous. The constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago, and really should be ammended. Americans voted him into power in the 21st century, so why should a consitution drawn up by a few Americans hundreds of years ago stop him coming to power in this day and age? Thanks to Quarra for the awesome sig!Xbox360 Gamertag = Tintin113 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 This is really ridiculous. The constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago, and really should be ammended. Americans voted him into power in the 21st century, so why should a consitution drawn up by a few Americans hundreds of years ago stop him coming to power in this day and age? because its the law, I have no problem with them amending the constitution to remove this provision(still require some form of citizenship), but there is nothing wrong with that law and so it should stand until changed. Yes, that law is a little outdated, but that doesnt make it wrong, and if a law is in place and there is nothing wrong with it it must be obeyed. The main exception of course is if something is entirely outdated from its context such as a law banning manual labor on sunday. For instance, say you think the fine for speeding is too high, do you get to pay the rate you think it would be if you get a ticket? No, you pay what the law says, but have the full right to try and change the law. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin113 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 This is really ridiculous. The constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago, and really should be ammended. Americans voted him into power in the 21st century, so why should a consitution drawn up by a few Americans hundreds of years ago stop him coming to power in this day and age? because its the law, I have no problem with them amending the constitution to remove this provision(still require some form of citizenship), but there is nothing wrong with that law and so it should stand until changed. Yes, that law is a little outdated, but that doesnt make it wrong, and if a law is in place and there is nothing wrong with it it must be obeyed. The main exception of course is if something is entirely outdated from its context such as a law banning manual labor on sunday. For instance, say you think the fine for speeding is too high, do you get to pay the rate you think it would be if you get a ticket? No, you pay what the law says, but have the full right to try and change the law. Yes but it's a law made in a democratic state, and if they VOTED in Obama, he should stay in. Either that or have a referendum as to whether they should keep that law or not. EDIT: I thought I might add that it is a fairly obviously ratially intolerant law, and IS outdated. Thanks to Quarra for the awesome sig!Xbox360 Gamertag = Tintin113 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yes but it's a law made in a democratic state, and if they VOTED in Obama, he should stay in. Either that or have a referendum as to whether they should keep that law or not. If he wasnt a citizen, him running for office would be a federal crime. We all know he is a legal citizen, and changing the law to elect him at a later time would be fine. If we start changing long standing legal codes on a whim we have a serious problem. Its good to amend old laws that are outdated for whatever reason, its bad to amend a law just because its old. There was a movement a few years back to remove the citizenship so arnold swarcheneger(spelling) could run for president. Im fine with them doing that, provided we have a reason for doing it other then "its an old law". For instance, laws regulating telegraphs coudl be removed, because they no longer apply to everyday life. Wanting the president of a country to be a natural citizen of said country is a legitimate reason to keep that law. edit--it is more natavist then racist, and while it wasnt entirely pure that clause did exist initially to prevent Britain from taking over again through political policy. Without actually being there I couldnt tell you which was the focus, but I do believe it was a reasonable provision. If a national vote to remove it came up for election I would vote for it if it still required more then just citizenship(ex 20 years in country or something). Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryztalwing Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 New video with Alan Keyes about the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkMfToY9Pk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Yes but it's a law made in a democratic state, and if they VOTED in Obama, he should stay in. Either that or have a referendum as to whether they should keep that law or not. If he wasnt a citizen, him running for office would be a federal crime. We all know he is a legal citizen, and changing the law to elect him at a later time would be fine. If we start changing long standing legal codes on a whim we have a serious problem. Its good to amend old laws that are outdated for whatever reason, its bad to amend a law just because its old. There was a movement a few years back to remove the citizenship so arnold swarcheneger(spelling) could run for president. Im fine with them doing that, provided we have a reason for doing it other then "its an old law". For instance, laws regulating telegraphs coudl be removed, because they no longer apply to everyday life. Wanting the president of a country to be a natural citizen of said country is a legitimate reason to keep that law. edit--it is more natavist then racist, and while it wasnt entirely pure that clause did exist initially to prevent Britain from taking over again through political policy. Without actually being there I couldnt tell you which was the focus, but I do believe it was a reasonable provision. If a national vote to remove it came up for election I would vote for it if it still required more then just citizenship(ex 20 years in country or something). We do have a reason why it should be removed, besides it being outdated. It conflicts with democracy, pure and simple. If one person with an American citizenship, born in America or not, wants to become the American president and is voted by Americans more than any other candidate, there should be no doubt that he/she is the president. It's pretty much by definition. A nation which is so proud to call itself democratic needs to remove these unnecessary laws in order to avoid being labelled as hypocritical. Why do people think that so many things are unquestionably true, good and right just because the 'Holier than thou' constitution said so? It makes more sense if you question the constitution itself which was made by a relatively small amount of people who, believe it or not, could get things wrong. ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 We do have a reason why it should be removed, besides it being outdated. It conflicts with democracy, pure and simple. If one person with an American citizenship, born in America or not, wants to become the American president and is voted by Americans more than any other candidate, there should be no doubt that he/she is the president. It's pretty much by definition. A nation which is so proud to call itself democratic needs to remove these unnecessary laws in order to avoid being labelled as hypocritical. Why do people think that so many things are unquestionably true, good and right just because the 'Holier than thou' constitution said so? It makes more sense if you question the constitution itself which was made by a relatively small amount of people who, believe it or not, could get things wrong. I already said I agreed that it should be removed legally. But for a non natural born citizen to be elected we first need to remove the law forbidding it. y you ask? because we are a nation of laws, if we start saying the laws dont matter because of popular opinion we will have a mob society. I am specifically thinking back to the civil rights amendments just after the civil war, if we let popular opinion instantly overrule law without proper procedure we are left with chaos. edit--no, the constitution isnt some almighty document we know that, but I dont like the idea of just throwing it away at a whim just because one line of it is debateable. On topic, as I said earlier we can all be pretty sure Obama is a natural born citizen because the CIA would have checked this as soon as he announed he was running.(assuming it didnt need to be checked to become a senator and was taken care of earlier) Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomyth105 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I dont like Obama, but even I think that this is a bit ridiculous. First off, if it was a problem why did they have to bring this up now after its been decided who the president is? and it is only his father. he was born in the USA... I dont think its unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryztalwing Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 more military members are joining the State Reps lawsuit. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3983 http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/ ... -suit.aspx Leo Donofrio on 1st Lt. Easterling: He Did Not Defy Any Direct Order http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4033 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pryomancer Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 They're actually trying to overthrow the best president the USA has had in decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoi_Tu Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's either that or drink, but I guess they've done too much of that too. Beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baalboy5 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I say racism -.- Or least that what everyone will say if it happens. Don't you know the first rule of MMO's? Anyone higher level than you has no life, and anyone lower than you is a noob. People in OT eat glass when they are bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryztalwing Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 They're actually trying to overthrow the best president the USA has had in decades? They want to determine if he really does or does not meet the natural born citizen requirement to be President. There are now 93 military members who are Plaintiffs including 8 Active and a large number of Active Reserves. The Defend our Freedoms website is Orly Taitz, Esq website, she is behind the lawsuit. She was also behind Lightfoot v. Bowen that was turn down by the U.S. Supreme Court http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/27/ ... ction.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now