Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama's eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn't the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.
As I replied earlier - two idiots tried to represent themselves and lost the case due to bad arguments - they can't appeal thier own stupidity.
They didn’t lose due to bad arguments. The court said it didn’t have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true because of its own bad arguments. Read post #27.
Obama Exposer already exposed a Dem operative lawyer troll who got subsequently banned - Blader Bryan. He’s doing a great job so far.
You didn't read that Blade Bryan was the founder of the ultra leftist 0bama supporting site Fogbow? Or you think such a leftist operative should be free to play on FR?
I'd say that the discovery of Minor vs Happersett and related hijinks constitutes a Supremely significant development that is weightier than an IN Appeals Court ruling.
This.
There is absolutely no doubt about the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen precisely because a Natural Born Citizen is the kind of citizen that cannot be any other kind, naturally. Born on US soil to US citizen parents. Seems pretty plain.
I read the pdf instead.
The plantifs were idiots who thought they were smart. Thier arguments were rejected as flawed by the court. The appeal affirmed that decision. There was nothing left to appeal and they probably ran out of time / money etc ...
I find it quite odd for someone to come to the forum with an agenda and immediately challenge the forum to explain WHY some idoits didn’t appeal the case in question further to the US Supreme Court.
Thanks.
I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.
But I think that is not really clear. When what is meant by the wording of the Constitution is not really clear, it is entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court it established to clarify things. While I don’t believe the Court would rule the way so many at FR want it to, I do wish they would take a case bearing on this point and issue a ruling defining the terminology.
I also think a ruling deciding Obama was not eligible and therefore was improperly elected would be extraordinarily destructive. It would constitute the greatest power grab by the judicial branch in US history and would require it to make many thousands of followup decisions to determine which actions, if any, taken under Obama’s invalid authority are legal. The consequences of invalid decisions would then have to be straightened out. Cans of worms aren’t in it.
I think conservatives who cling to the notion that the disasters of the last few years can be reversed by a Court ruling are unconciously falling prey to the liberal notion that the Constitution as interpreted by the Courts is the answer to all our problems. That anything we don’t like can be declared unconstitutional and it will go away without appeal to Congress or the electorate.
I really, really don’t think that’s what the Founders intended. If the people want Obama out, that’s why we have elections.
I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama.
Sherman: “I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama”
I may not speak for the majority on this thread, but the main emphasis of this action now is to get Obama off the ballot for the 2012 election. As you said, most all of his actions to date may have been executed as a fraud, but that is water under the bridge. I would anticipate a finding in which Obama was not allowed a second term and write off his last four years as a massive deception on the part of the Democrat party. Perhaps there would be some penalty against that party since they did (with malice and forethought) get him elected.
This is a very important point. The O-bots all claim the 14th amendment makes anyone born here a "natural born citizen" but the Minor Court was well aware of the 14th amendment, and yet it still says "the constitution does not say who shall be natural born citizens."
This can only be read as the supreme court explicitly recognizing that the 14th amendment is NOT a definition for "natural born citizen."
Thanks edge for another arrow in my quiver.
You are just as much an Obot operative as was BladeBryan.
....unless someone wrote it for him......
I think the surest way to determine if a judge is a kook or not is to see if they are a Democrat. If they are a Democrat, nothing they say should be accepted at face value.
Just as I predicted that Judge in Alabama (a bitter minority Democrat) would dismiss, she did. She won't say so, but I have no doubt she dismissed the case because she saw it as an attack on her and her party.
It is the same with the Supreme court. They are usually very predictable. On any issue before the court, the four Liberal incompetents will always be wrong, the four Conservative Judges will usually be correct, and the Waffler Kennedy will depend on which way the wind is blowing on any given day.
I Recall some wit discussing the litigation regarding the "gay marriage ban" voted on in California a while back. He said: "Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"
Perhaps the difference lies in their view of Obama. Blade wouldn’t even admit Barry is a liar, much less a pathological liar. He was an Obot Troll *who didn’t even try to hide it*.
Sherman, in your view is Obama a typical Malignant Narcissist, who lies almost every time he opens his mouth? [I had to toss in ‘almost’ because presumably he once in a while says, ‘I’m up for a round of golf’ or ‘I want to run out and grab something hot, salty and greasy, followed by a decadent dessert—just to get Shelly’s goat’.]
You two are able to distinguish between “I disagree what Happersett stands for” and “Obot troll,” right? Or is this just another case of “anyone who doesn’t agree that Obama isn’t a NBC must support him”? Sherman Logan has been here for over 5 years with numerous posts, so you should be able to prove he’s an Obot troll (if it’s true) based on more than his/her disagreement with your reading of a SCOTUS case.
Cite specifically what I’ve posted that warrants such a preachy, sanctimonious reply.
Specifically, word for word.
You need to dig deeper. The clincher is that this obot (like all obot and Clinton trolls) is a typical South basher on the CW threads. That alone is acceptable to the management, though if you look at the posting history of obot trolls on Freerepublic, that is one trait they almost invariably have in common.
The perception is that they are agents provocateur and not honest debating opponents. Repeating arguments which have been shot down over and over again is not the mark of an honest debater.
There are a few exceptions though. I think Mr. Rogers is not an Obot, I think he simply cannot distinguish his own emotional preference on the issue from what is actually true.
As for "making stuff up", I think this is less a case of people being intentionally misleading and more of a case that they are misinformed and then repeat that misinformation. It has happened to me once or twice. Once the facts are pointed out to me, I correct my miscomprehension.
Not sure i’d be wishing him “fair well.” I think “good riddance” would be more appropriate. As far as i’m concerned, he is an obfuscator. He served the same purpose as would a cow pie plopped onto the surface of something you were trying to read. It stinks, and obstructs your view of what you are trying to understand.
Here is a typical example of this:
Sherman Logan argues that natural born is identical to native born.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.