Either immigrants were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

Immigrants were not intended to be eligible (hence the ban on naturalized citizens as POTUS).

Either the anchor babies of immigrants, illegal OR legal, were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

The babies of immigrants (all of whom were legal since there was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time) have always been considered natural born and thus eligible for the presidency.

The Founders just finished a war with England, right?

The were rebelling against the English government’s policy of taxation without representation, not rejecting everything “English”.

So, either ALL immigrants, including British ‘subjects’, were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

First of all, any immigrant was making the same decision (to try to find a better life in America) that every US citizen (or their forefathers) had made. Secondly, immigrants are not allowed to be president—Jennifer Granholm, for example, would make a fine Democratic presidential candidate if she were not an immigrant (I would love to be able to see Warren/Granholm in 2016, but it wouldn’t be Constitutional). Lastly, (white-skinned) immigrants from any country were welcomed—something along the lines of: “Give us your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to be free”—you know, the American values that birthers love to spit on…

Clarity is the goal, and we’re getting there.

Sorry, but the only thing that is clear from your stream-of-consciousness ramblings is that you are a complete nut job.

Yes, Squeeky, it is accurate to say about my suppositions,

“There is nothing particularly wrong with your SUPPOSITIONS about what the Founders intended … .”

However, the issue is not my suppositions or your suppositions, but the ORIGINAL intent of ORIGINAL words of the Founders, right?

Does the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words that the Founders used in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 determine what our suppositions are?

Yes?
No?

Yes.

The Founders either allowed for immigrants, illegal or legal, to become POTUS or they did not, right?

So, Squeeky, either my suppositions are wrong or your suppositions are wrong, right?

Also, your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 can not all be ‘yes’ if you start out with the correct supposition, right?

What is the ‘correct’ supposition?

Either immigrants were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

Either the anchor babies of immigrants, illegal OR legal, were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

The Founders just finished a war with England, right?

So, either ALL immigrants, including British ‘subjects’, were intended to be eligible to be POTUS or they were not, right?

Clarity is the goal, and we’re getting there.

- – - – - – - – - -

The ‘long form’ did it?

Was the long form the ‘last’ straw that thoughtfully and intellectually convinced you that BHObama is legit, so from a ‘Birther’ you chose to espouse ‘Anti-Birther’ views?

That’s a good, inquisitive, followup question, isn’t it?

Was it a voila moment when you as a ‘Birther’ looked one direction and shuddered when you saw the darkness of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5?

Is that when you looked in another direction and went joyfully into the light of the Anti-Birther-in-Chief, aka the titular head of the “occupy” movement, aka the OCCUPIER-in-Chief, aka the Lenin wanna-be Transformer-in-Chief BHObama?

Well, if your SUPPOSITIONS of the long form birth certificate convinced you that BHObama is legit, then that helps explain why the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document about ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ are not persuasive.

Why?

‘Cause, since it does not matter to ‘Anti-Birthers’ if BHObama is a U.S. ‘Citizen’ born on U.S. soil in Hawaii, or was it possibly Washington state, the birth records are, uh, confusing to thoughtful inquisitors, to only one U.S. ‘Citizen’, then it probably will not matter to ‘Anti-Birthers’ if BHObama is a citizen of Kenya or an naturalized citizen of Indonesia.

As a child under the care of a mother who remarried and who would have to renounce the U.S. citizenship of her child so he could attend a Muslim school in Indonesia, BHObama has a unique and original legacy, doesn’t he?

So, of course, to ‘Anti-Birthers’ BHObama is legit and should sit in the Oval Office as POTUS.

Well, clarity being the goal, we’re getting there.

Art

“A child by a ‘break-and-enter’ couple, aka an illegal alien couple from, well, pick a country, any country will do, who happen to have a child on U.S. soil was NOT the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words.
Think it through.”

Okay, let’s think this through. The founders, who welcomed immigrants freely, had no concept of an “illegal alien”. Anyone who came to the US could settle here and their children (born in the country) could grow up to be president. There is no available evidence which contradicts this view while your interpretation cannot possibly be the original intent as it uses a concept with which the Founders were unfamiliar. Seems pretty clear you screwed the pooch on this one…

I added a link to your website in this Internet Article, and also put it in the blogroll links.

There is nothing particularly wrong with your SUPPOSITIONS about what the Founders intended, and whether they would feel particularly comfortable with Mexican anchor babies. I mean, they’re dead and gone sooo who can say???

It is just that in the course of litigation, the courts did not make those same suppositions. They defined “natural born citizen” in accordance with English common law, and that equates to people who are born here being NBC.

I ask you the same question that I have posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq:

What keeps you from maintaining the position that jus soli NBC is either wrong, or less intelligent than jus sanguinis, and should be changed as opposed to the current Birther stance of maintaining the law is something that it clearly isn’t???

Plus, I named this The Birther Think Tank because I was originally a Birther before the long form came out.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

As I said elsewhere, you are a very good writer…
… but you can do better.

Think it through.

Starting with your intro line, “A new Birther reader of The Birther Think Tank, Art Telles, left this test in the comments.”

While it is accurate to write that a ‘new birther reader ‘ posted a comment, maybe, for accuracy and clarity, you might want to consider changing your blog name to ‘The Anti-Birther Think Tank’ instead.

Hmmm… on second thought, keep the ‘Birther’ appellation, yes.

Ok, now to the substance…
… but very briefly, because the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Articled 2 Section 1 Clause 5 are not included in your comments.

Here is only one example.

Your answers is ‘yes’ to questions 1, 2, and 3.

ALL of your comments after this are irrelevant if you ignore the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words in Clause 5.

Also, your 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Act ‘clarification’ is confusing.

The emendation of the 3 words ‘natural born Citizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act and the repeal of ‘natural born Citizen’ by the Washington administration in the 1795 Naturalization Act with the 1 word ‘Citizen’ reveals that the words did NOT mean the same thing in the 1787 Clause 5 and they do NOT mean the same thing today in 2012.

There is soooo much more that I could add, but it’s already said on my blog with yellow highlights on the pertinent words, so this is sufficient here.

2, 1, 0… bingo…

… the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document, the U.S. Constitution, the ONLY place in the founding documents,

- Declaration of Independence
- Articles of Confederation
- U.S. Constitution

contrasts the 3 words ‘natural born Citizen’ and the 1 word ‘Citizen’, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with ORIGINAL intent.

1- The 1787 ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words is NOT that both ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ mean the same thing, which means that your ‘yes’ to question #1 and #2 is not a correct answer.

Think it through.

2- The 1787 ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words that were written to defend the new Republic from a foreigner who wanted to be POTUS definitely does NOT mean that just any child will be eligible to occupy the Oval Office as POTUS.

Think it through.

A child by a ‘break-and-enter’ couple, aka an illegal alien couple from, well, pick a country, any country will do, who happen to have a child on U.S. soil was NOT the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words.

Think it through.

But, hey, Squeeky, you got # 4 correct…
…that was very easy, wasn’t it, ’cause you simply quoted Clause 5, and I also agree with ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of Clause 5.

And, ‘The Conversation’ continues…
… cause ridicule is nowhere present in your counterpoint to my point.

Art