(01-26-2012 03:13 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You know if these people were serious about getting him off the ballot in November then they should find a way to bring a case in Hawaii. As long as the state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii then you don't have a chance of any success in the Federal Courts and therefore a state can't take him off the ballot because they don't think he fulfills the federal(Constitutional) requirements to be President.

I think its a State issue

Not if the basis of the ballot refusal is based on a Constitutional requirement. At that point it becomes a Federal issue.

And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

(01-26-2012 03:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

What Constitutional crisis? Wouldn't the crisis be if the evidence clearly showed his ineligibility and they let it slide?

(01-26-2012 03:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

Even if the SC ruled that he was ineligible to be President they dont have the constitutional right to remove a sitting President even if he is shown to be ineligible.

(01-26-2012 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

Even if the SC ruled that he was ineligible to be President they dont have the constitutional right to remove a sitting President even if he is shown to be ineligible.

They why have the requirement?

(01-26-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

Even if the SC ruled that he was ineligible to be President they dont have the constitutional right to remove a sitting President even if he is shown to be ineligible.

They why have the requirement?

Good question. Let me call up James Madison on his cell and find out.

(01-26-2012 03:28 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:22 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And you're drinkin the KooK Aid if you think that any federal court will rule in any way, shape or form, regardless of the real or imagined presented evidence, that the President is anything but completely, undeniably 100% eligible for the Office.

You all don't see the long range here - even if the evidence is strong, the courts will simply interpret the evidence to show he is eligible. Could you imagine the Constitutional crisis otherwise? It won't be allowed to be ruled any other way.

Even if the SC ruled that he was ineligible to be President they dont have the constitutional right to remove a sitting President even if he is shown to be ineligible.

They why have the requirement?

Good question. Let me call up James Madison on his cell and find out.

LOL

Does anyone know why this case was filed in Georgia instead of any other state(s)?

Also, which court and which judge conducted the hearing?

Not a word on any of the news sites I go to. Wonder how long the MSM can ignore this. It doesn't matter if Obama is right or wrong, this is news and we the people can make up our own minds.

A state's electorate doesn't vote on a president, they vote on a set of delegates.

-Can this case prevent the delegates from voting for Obama?
-Does it remove his name, but still list the DNC delegates?

(01-26-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You know if these people were serious about getting him off the ballot in November then they should find a way to bring a case in Hawaii. As long as the state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii then you don't have a chance of any success in the Federal Courts and therefore a state can't take him off the ballot because they don't think he fulfills the federal(Constitutional) requirements to be President.

Quote:The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

the state of Hawaii did not grant his father citizenship

(01-26-2012 07:31 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You know if these people were serious about getting him off the ballot in November then they should find a way to bring a case in Hawaii. As long as the state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii then you don't have a chance of any success in the Federal Courts and therefore a state can't take him off the ballot because they don't think he fulfills the federal(Constitutional) requirements to be President.

Quote:The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

the state of Hawaii did not grant his father citizenship

that is not the past interpretation of what a natural born citizen is through either the Supreme Court or through the history of English Common Law.

(01-26-2012 07:52 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:31 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You know if these people were serious about getting him off the ballot in November then they should find a way to bring a case in Hawaii. As long as the state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii then you don't have a chance of any success in the Federal Courts and therefore a state can't take him off the ballot because they don't think he fulfills the federal(Constitutional) requirements to be President.

Quote:The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

the state of Hawaii did not grant his father citizenship

that is not the past interpretation of what a natural born citizen is through either the Supreme Court or through the history of English Common Law.

Just keep ignoring that you are wrong. There was no birthright citizenship when Obabba was hatched, even if there were, it could never be construed as natural citizenship. There is a real difference between a natural citizen, and citizen. As I have always said, and you can check the "Constitional Crisis" thread, the law is still unsettled, it may never be settled, why, because being closed mined gets you college credit.

(01-26-2012 09:34 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:52 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:31 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You know if these people were serious about getting him off the ballot in November then they should find a way to bring a case in Hawaii. As long as the state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii then you don't have a chance of any success in the Federal Courts and therefore a state can't take him off the ballot because they don't think he fulfills the federal(Constitutional) requirements to be President.

Quote:The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

the state of Hawaii did not grant his father citizenship

that is not the past interpretation of what a natural born citizen is through either the Supreme Court or through the history of English Common Law.

Just keep ignoring that you are wrong. There was no birthright citizenship when Obabba was hatched, even if there were, it could never be construed as natural citizenship. There is a real difference between a natural citizen, and citizen. As I have always said, and you can check the "Constitional Crisis" thread, the law is still unsettled, it may never be settled, why, because being closed mined gets you college credit.

From the majority opinion from United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Quote:The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "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."

....

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

......

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

So as I said earlier in the thread. Unless they can get Hawaii to say he wasnt born there, any lawsuit to keep him off the ballot for purely reasons of constitutional citizenship requirements will get thrown out immediately.

This lawsuit may be total BS, but guess what ... Holder the Doofus will try to overturn a State Court Default Judgment asserting the Voting Rights Act .... And guess what ... It's more evidence of an Imperial Federal Government trying to take over the sovereign States....

The framers version of common law, Natural born = 2 citizen parents. Concerning the Presidency, an exception for those born before the constitution.

(01-27-2012 09:02 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The framers version of common law, Natural born = 2 citizen parents. Concerning the Presidency, an exception for those born before the constitution.

Yea, I am sure the 30 lawyers in Philadelphia in 1787 weren't aware of 1,000 years of history and precedent on English Common Law. Hell, the Federalist Papers mention precedents set by English common law throughout jurisprudence. They knew what it was, the jurist standing in decision of WS vs Wong Kim Ark knew what it was. Beyond US v Ark and the history and precedent from US, and before that, English Courts, the current US Code Title 8, Section 1401 clearly defines who is a citizen at birth.

(01-27-2012 10:28 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 09:02 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The framers version of common law, Natural born = 2 citizen parents. Concerning the Presidency, an exception for those born before the constitution.

Yea, I am sure the 30 lawyers in Philadelphia in 1787 weren't aware of 1,000 years of history and precedent on English Common Law. Hell, the Federalist Papers mention precedents set by English common law throughout jurisprudence. They knew what it was, the jurist standing in decision of WS vs Wong Kim Ark knew what it was. Beyond US v Ark and the history and precedent from US, and before that, English Courts, the current US Code Title 8, Section 1401 clearly defines who is a citizen at birth.

Does title 8, define natural born citizen. I thought not.