Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Eligibility Hearing in Arizona tomorrow
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/arizona-obama-ballot-challenge-hearing-tomorrow-in-tucson ^ | Feb 22, 2012 | obamaballotchallenge.com

Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt

Please attend hearing if you can.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; arpaio; certifigate; eligibility; hearing; kerkorian; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-398 next last
To: Mr Rogers
...I suggest they review posts 142 & 143 for what passes as reason by a birther.
I suggest they view posts 142 & 143 as good a reason to refine their argument so that they also don't bring humiliation upon their own selves as you so justly have.
151 posted on 02/24/2012 9:44:51 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

You’re still whining about Roberts, which proves nothing.


152 posted on 02/24/2012 9:47:35 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The actual ruling in Minor doesn’t mention NBC.

From the decision in Minor v Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

From the syllabus...

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

Only in your mind does it not do so. Another fail for you.

153 posted on 02/24/2012 9:57:48 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
@Mr Rogers and his Epic Fail
154 posted on 02/24/2012 10:02:53 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: edge919

He is the guy that will ultimately slap down the birthers - if any cases make that far.


155 posted on 02/24/2012 10:13:15 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So Justice Roberts was helpless to stop a crime? Not only that, he had no choice but to swear in a man he knew was not eligible?

This presumes that they have a correct understanding of the term "natural born citizen." It has been my observation that anyone trained in law worships at the alter of "precedent" rather than "original Intent." It is a disease that has spread throughout our legal system, and Justice Roberts may very well be a victim of it.

What you are saying is that Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have no honor. That they would knowingly violate their oaths to protect the Constitution.

Were such one dimensional thinkers not so loud and persistent, it wouldn't be worth the time to deal with you. I have presented an obvious alternative explanation. Of course, for someone that cannot keep two ideas in his head at the same time, this is most likely futile.

Perhaps pictures will help? You can understand pictures, right?


156 posted on 02/24/2012 10:32:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So you are in the “Roberts and Scalia are ignorant of the law” camp.

Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?


157 posted on 02/24/2012 10:35:31 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH
I have debated Mr Rogers on the subject of natural born in the past and will not waste any more of my time debating it again.

Mr. Rogers is pretty much a waste of time. Occasionally he will concede a point just a little bit, but then he later goes on to just keep repeating the same nonsense.

If we found a document, signed by every member of the Constitutional Convention attesting that their intentions in using the term "natural born citizen" were to require American citizen Parents and birth on the soil, he would accuse them all of lying, or not knowing what they are talking about. :)

158 posted on 02/24/2012 10:40:54 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Sounds like you are mentally prepared to lose. That’s good - soft landings are easier on the ego.

No, Mr. Anchor baby, i'm mentally prepared for the Courts to do another "Roe v Wade." Incompetent courts make incompetent rulings. What kind of fool expects good fruit from a diseased tree?

159 posted on 02/24/2012 10:44:48 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I don't normally read your long posts, and I didn't read this one. I just wanted to make you aware of the testimony of a Legal Scholar regarding the basis for American Citizenship.

Dr. Erler testified before the House of Representatives in 1997 regarding the basis of United States citizenship. He most emphatically disagrees that it was based on English Common law.

He cites specifically the Expatriation act of 1868 (made by the same congress as the 14th amendment) as proof that American citizenship explicitly abrogates an English Law Connection.

Just another piece of contradictory evidence for your theory/thinking.

160 posted on 02/24/2012 10:50:57 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?
Oh yeah, you're really here to learn. Uh-huh. /sarcasm
161 posted on 02/24/2012 10:51:56 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So you do know how things will end - good. At least you have some grip on reality.


162 posted on 02/24/2012 10:55:54 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So the top conservative legal minds in America are merely ignorant. Got it.

Yeah, but there is precedent for this. (It actually happens a lot.) In 1920, the top leading minds in Physics were all certain of the Ether theory of light transmission. Einstein set them straight.

This happens so often there is an axiom for it.

"Every great physical theory starts as a heresy and ends as a dogma".

Law works the same way, but with less competence and checking of accuracy.

Perhaps Leo should invite them over for some poker and a lesson in Constitutional law. Because there is no doubt that Leo is the go to guy on this issue.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Perhaps you'll get something else correct before midnight, though I doubt it.

163 posted on 02/24/2012 10:58:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

164 posted on 02/24/2012 11:00:21 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Leo’s writings are the basis of many of your arguments - true?

You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience. You support the legal antics of a California dentist with an online law degree. And you are upset when others disagree with you.


165 posted on 02/24/2012 11:00:54 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So you are in the “Roberts and Scalia are ignorant of the law” camp.

Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?

I have some Idea of what Leo has learned of the subject. He has done extensive research on this exact aspect of it, while Roberts and Scalia would presumably know more about the more mainstream aspects of constitutional law. As I keep pointing out, this is a cul-de-sac issue of constitutional law. It relates to nothing else, and there is little reason for most lawyers to investigate it, especially as the gale force winds of ignorance throughout the legal profession erroneously claim it was decided by Wong Kim Ark.

Given that it is unlikely that Roberts or Scalia have been apprised of the evidence accumulated which demonstrates the English Law principle to be erroneous, I would have to say yeah, Leo has a better understanding of the issue than they do.

H3ll, anyone who thinks "Anchor Babies" are legitimate is obviously ignorant. Don't you think so Mr. Anchor baby?

166 posted on 02/24/2012 11:06:23 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So you do know how things will end - good. At least you have some grip on reality.

Yes, the economy will collapse, there will be riots in the cities, and perhaps millions of people will starve or be killed in the aftermath. That is what will eventually happen if we keep allowing corrupt/idiots to rule us.

The courts will be loath to undo their previous erroneous decisions or thinking, and will ride it all into the ground.

167 posted on 02/24/2012 11:11:21 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.

Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation? No. From serving as a judge? No. From teaching law? No. From Google? Yes.

He is just another Google lawyer. And yet he knows more then the top conservative legal minds in America. Wow.

So how do you explain the Supreme Court rejecting all the birther suits? Surely they read the arguments and evidence in the briefs. Why didn’t the light come on and they say “boy were we wrong.”?


168 posted on 02/24/2012 11:12:58 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Because it is beyond the realm of possibility that you might be wrong. The only possible answer is that every court and every judge is either ignorant or corrupt. Is that what I am hearing?


169 posted on 02/24/2012 11:15:44 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience.

Leo points to documents which we can read for ourselves. Documents like this:

Or This:

These documents do not rely on Leo for their legitimacy, but are self affirming.

It is an Alinskey tactic to attempt to discredit independent evidence by linking it to an ad hominem directed at an individual.

170 posted on 02/24/2012 11:16:46 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So if it is so clear cut, shouldn’t we be seeing a lot of articles in legal journals discussing the eligibility issue? Shouldn’t there be vigorous debate over whether Obama is a NBC? Why are your theories relegated to the loonytoon fringe of the internet? Some vast conspiracy encompassing the entire legal system and both political parties? Is the why the truth is being suppressed?


171 posted on 02/24/2012 11:22:07 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; W. W. SMITH; Harlan1196

“If we found a document, signed by every member of the Constitutional Convention attesting that their intentions in using the term “natural born citizen” were to require American citizen Parents and birth on the soil, he would accuse them all of lying, or not knowing what they are talking about. :) “

I don’t need to do what ifs. Here are samples of how one of the ratifying states used NBS & NBC interchangeably:

In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”


Of course, in the Bizarro World of Birtherism, the documents you have never found outweigh the documents that do exist. Pity for you that the courts don’t live in the same world you do. In the real world, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is considered more knowledgeable than a poker player.


172 posted on 02/24/2012 11:28:29 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; DiogenesLamp
The only possible answer is that every court and every judge is either ignorant or corrupt. Is that what I am hearing?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is what I am seeing and hearing, and **that** is what should concern **you**. Please remember Yuri Besmenov’s warning. The first people dragged out of their homes and shot were the Useful Idiots.

It is not only the Jews of Germany who simply could not believe that “every court and every judge is ignorant or corrupt”, it has happened in nearly every country that has fallen to despotism. Most citizens, especially the Useful Idiots, simply could believe what seemed to be impossible. Those that were wise packed up an left before the country fell. Unfortunately, if the U.S. falls to tyranny there is no where else to go. The entire world will fall under a dark age that will last centuries.

More than having a likely usurper in the Red House ( oops! “White” House) is the fact that Obama’s elgibility has been ignored by every governor, all secretary of states, all state attorneys general, every representative on every level, the MSM, conservative media, and our very highest military leadership.

Maybe you are tone deaf but alarm bells are going off in my head. Endemic moral decay and corruption is far more threatening to our nation than having a usurper in the White House.

173 posted on 02/24/2012 11:34:17 AM PST by wintertime (Reforming a government K-12 school is like reforming an abortion center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Leo’s writings are the basis of many of your arguments - true?
No, they aren't the basis. I looked at and read the original information of my own accord. I've gotten input from a wide variety of sources, not just Leo. I merely agree with some of his writings.
Good God, man, I publicly railed against the man for whining about the cover-up issue and was chastised thoroughly for doing so by a poster here. I also hinted at (not wanting to embarrass the man) the fact that others had come to realize that the holdings were relevant when he hadn't even come to that conclusion. His understanding came later than that of others.

You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience.
No, you dotard, I read the necessary information and came to my own conclusions! Unlike you, I don't let others think for me.

And you are upset when others disagree with you.
You're really pathetic. Wipe the lies off of your homepage.

174 posted on 02/24/2012 11:35:18 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.

So? You do know what "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam" means, don't you? On the other hand, probably not. It means that something is not true just because someone in authority says it is true.

A person with no credentials whatsoever can be correct. Facts and Logic do not bow to credentials, but are freely employable by everyone. God is no respecter of Persons, and I don't see why any American should be. We gave up practicing lèse majesté when we overthrew English Law.

Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation?

What knowledge can be gained from Litigation, other than court procedure? (Which in my mind has absolutely nothing to do with the correct meaning of "natural citizen." )

No. From serving as a judge?

Again, how does that increase one's knowledge of what was meant in 1787? Does knowledge fly in through the courtroom window carried in by knowledge fairys or something?

No. From teaching law? No.

Teaching law would only inform someone who focused on this particular aspect of it. As it is a legal cul-de-sac, not subject to very much scrutiny at all, it is highly unlikely that teaching general law would result in any appreciable knowledge regarding the correct meaning of the 1787 term "natural born citizen." Most law professors probably default to the simpleminded "it's based on English Common law" in complete and utter oblivion to the fact that the War of 1812 absolutely refutes this theory, as does the Expatriation act of 1868. Here is another document you won't understand.

From Google? Yes.

Nope, Google (liberal owned and operated) scrubs links on this issue. Yahoo is far more informative.

No, everything you mentioned above is irrelevant. The ONLY way to gain understanding on this issue is to research it, starting with founding era documents, and working outward from there.

175 posted on 02/24/2012 11:35:54 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
the documents you have never found
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a deliberate distortion. This is unlike you. As one of the defenders of Obama’s legitimacy you generally do not use these debating tactics and I have respected you for that.

You very well know that access to documents is being withheld.

176 posted on 02/24/2012 11:39:35 AM PST by wintertime (Reforming a government K-12 school is like reforming an abortion center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

So you are hopelessly wrong due to you own doing? Makes sense to me.


177 posted on 02/24/2012 11:43:04 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So how do you explain the Supreme Court rejecting all the birther suits? Surely they read the arguments and evidence in the briefs. Why didn’t the light come on and they say “boy were we wrong.”?

Several possible reasons. Here is the first, and most obvious.

It is already established that the Court will maintain an unconstitutional ruling if to overturn it will disrupt things beyond their tolerance.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, writing for the majority in the case of PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, "Stare Decisis." (Which means Shut the F*** up! We have made our decision!)

Given that it is axiomatic that "Constitutionality" is not the Supreme goal of the Supreme Court, it requires no imagination to wonder why the Judges might run screaming in terror from the very thought of turning out the first "Black" Precedent.

If they thought that ignoring the case would result in massive quantities of people burning down cities and killing many thousands, they would very likely have taken the issue up.

But you go on thinking that this is all about law and constitutionality.

178 posted on 02/24/2012 11:48:33 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Lots of people have well researched legal theories that are completely wrong.

Every case that goes before a judge has a winner and a loser. The losers are smart guys who are convinced that they are still right. But they are still losers.

Leo is one such loser. His theories have gained absolutely no traction either within or outside of any court. He has lost every case. Every case that uses his theories has lost.

That’s how things work in the legal system. You just can’t stand up and declare that you are right. You have to fight those that have different ideas and you have to prevail in a court of law.

When you can point to real victories in real courts then perhaps you can say that you and Leo are right. You cannot say that at the moment without ignoring a harsh dose of reality.


179 posted on 02/24/2012 11:50:18 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So not only are Roberts and Scalia ignorant, now they are cowards. Got it.


180 posted on 02/24/2012 11:52:09 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Because it is beyond the realm of possibility that you might be wrong. The only possible answer is that every court and every judge is either ignorant or corrupt. Is that what I am hearing?

I don't think anyone is alleging corruption.

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

Ignorance is the dominant force in this issue, especially amongst those in the legal profession who were systematically taught the wrong lessons from precedent case law.

The only way to understand what is correct it to look at the intention of the legislators, not what some subsequent court opinion was.

181 posted on 02/24/2012 11:52:30 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I agree that documents like birth certificate, college records, etc have been withheld by Obama, and I think that is obscene. I have supported in the past and continue to support legislation that, at a bare minimum, requires candidates in AZ to submit birth certificates. I believe that should be expanded to require offering the public school records and tax returns.

However, I’m unaware of any late 1700s/early 1800s legal documents being suppressed.


182 posted on 02/24/2012 11:56:05 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Because we know that ignorance and stupidity is never found in legislators?

What you propose is exactly the opposite to how our system has worked for several centuries. We are a common law country.


183 posted on 02/24/2012 11:56:29 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So if it is so clear cut, shouldn’t we be seeing a lot of articles in legal journals discussing the eligibility issue?

Really? And why is that? Seems like it only comes up once every Fifty years or so. The occasions to question eligibility are to my knowledge:
1. Chester A Arthur, 1884.
2. Charles Evan Hughes, 1965.
3. George Romney, 1965.
4. Barack Obama, 2008.

So let's see, where there articles in legal journals (or other) discussing the eligibility issue?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

Shouldn’t there be vigorous debate over whether Obama is a NBC?

There should have been, and it should have occurred prior to the election. Because so many Americans are ignorant of the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" and because the media absolutely refused to discuss the issue, it never happened.

Why are your theories relegated to the loonytoon fringe of the internet?

Because the loonytoon fringe of the Mainstream F****** media has pushed them there. Virtually every person involved in media, from creating movies/tv shows, to reporting News/Sports, is a Union Employee, hired from very liberal districts (New York/Los Angeles) and virtually monolithic of political opinion.

The only reason you need to have this stuff explained to you is because you are not a conservative. Conservatives already know this stuff. You are a liberal agent provocateur promoting a false flag operation on an enemy website.

Some vast conspiracy encompassing the entire legal system and both political parties? Is the why the truth is being suppressed?

Ignorance is not a conspiracy. As Reagan said:

" The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Our opposition is a monolithic block of Liberals in the media industries, and they control access to the microphones. It is not a conspiracy, they just all happen to think alike.

184 posted on 02/24/2012 12:13:48 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Here ya go Harlan, look at the dates!

@105...Well let's just look at what Chief Justice Waite had to say... August 08, 2010
Chief Justice Waite's "words" came from the decision.

@US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT June 21, 2011
Leo's light finally dawned a full nine months later.

Others at FR had already come to that understanding as well even before me and I used their knowledge.

I guess I should have been more direct and forceful back then instead of waiting so long.

185 posted on 02/24/2012 12:14:42 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Did you say something? I couldn’t hear you for all the noise.


186 posted on 02/24/2012 12:14:42 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Last I knew, the Chief Justice does not make decisions by himself.


187 posted on 02/24/2012 12:20:35 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

But since their understanding is wrong then you are wrong.

That’s the piece you keep missing.

Legal right and wrong is decided in a courtroom. Your interpretation of Waite’s decision has never been validated in a courtroom. It has never been validated anywhere except on birther websites.

When you have some real victories in real courtrooms then perhaps you can say that you are right. You can’t do that right now.


188 posted on 02/24/2012 12:23:53 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Every case that goes before a judge has a winner and a loser. The losers are smart guys who are convinced that they are still right. But they are still losers.

Leo is one such loser. His theories have gained absolutely no traction either within or outside of any court. He has lost every case. Every case that uses his theories has lost.

So you are defending the winning side in Dred Scott v Sanford because they won? How about Plessey v Ferguson? Were they correct because they won? Roe v Wade? Lawrence v Texas? (you probably ESPECIALLY agree with that ruling.)

What a turd you are.

That’s how things work in the legal system. You just can’t stand up and declare that you are right. You have to fight those that have different ideas and you have to prevail in a court of law.

Great theory. If only someone could get into the courthouse and present their evidence. It's like a drag race where you are not allowed to get into the car, and the referees are wearing the Uniform of your competitor.

When you can point to real victories in real courts then perhaps you can say that you and Leo are right. You cannot say that at the moment without ignoring a harsh dose of reality.

Oh, I can definitely point to real victories in real courts, (see above) and you may count them as proving which side was correct, but to conservatives they only prove that the court system needs to get the sh*t beaten out of it.

Your theory of "Court win = Right" has justified Slavery, Abortion, Homosexuality, Land Theft, Civil Rights abuses, and Murder, but for you that is the "Gold Standard" of evidence. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about you.

189 posted on 02/24/2012 12:26:13 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So not only are Roberts and Scalia ignorant, now they are cowards. Got it.

Jesus said "Let this cup pass before me. " Does that make him a coward?

190 posted on 02/24/2012 12:27:52 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So the rest of the Supreme Court are closet birthers? Don’t think so.

How many different justices do you think were involved in rejecting all those birther suits at the Supreme Court? We know at least five of them are not on your side.


191 posted on 02/24/2012 12:32:15 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So you are hopelessly wrong due to you own doing?
ROTFLOL...This coming from the person so strongly committed to the idea that there was such thing as positive law!

Shall I remind you of your own words?

192 posted on 02/24/2012 12:35:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Because we know that ignorance and stupidity is never found in legislators?

What a stupid and ignorant person you are! Here I have to explain basic facts of life to you again! It does not make any difference whatsoever if a legislator is ignorant. The laws they pass are still laws.

The law is what the legislators intend for it to be, whether it is grounded in ignorance or not. The law *IS* the will of the legislature in majority vote.

What you propose is exactly the opposite to how our system has worked for several centuries. We are a common law country.

Mr. Anchor baby says:

Baaa.... Four legs good, two legs baaaadd...


193 posted on 02/24/2012 12:36:45 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Every one of those individuals where born before the birth of the United States and in every case what was done specific to each was the same as what was done to the population as a whole with the enactment of the constitution, making all who where present at the time of the enactment, Natural Born Citizens.

Some of these came to America between the declaration of independence and the surrender of the British. Some where citizens of countries other than Briton. All of these where corrections and redress of the confusion resulting from the revolution.

Your argument doesn’t fly Mr Rogers.


194 posted on 02/24/2012 12:39:50 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No - he was full fear and doubt but he made the decision he knew he had to make.

Bravery is not the lack of fear and doubt. It is being full of fear and doubt but still making the right choice.


195 posted on 02/24/2012 12:41:37 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
But since their understanding is wrong then you are wrong.

But since it isn't, he isn't!

That’s the piece you keep missing.

No, that's the lie we keep ignoring.

Legal right and wrong is decided in a courtroom.

Yes, Dred Scott must remain a slave. That is the "right" which was decided in the court room, so therefore it must be true. You have a funny idea of what determines right and wrong. I suppose you would decree the rulings of the Volksgerichtshof must be correct because the court ruled.

Your interpretation of Waite’s decision has never been validated in a courtroom.

And therefore it doesn't have the validity of Roe v Wade or Dred Scott v Sanford. (according to Mr Anchor Baby's theory.)

When you have some real victories in real courtrooms then perhaps you can say that you are right. You can’t do that right now.

Yes, people such as Mr. Anchor Baby cannot comprehend someone being right unless someone else tells him to think so. It is a malady that independent thinkers do not suffer from.

Probably much of his daily life is saved the effort of thinking for himself. All he has to remember is to do what the authorities tell him.

196 posted on 02/24/2012 12:46:42 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So if the legislators intentionally or inadvertently violate someone’s Constitutional rights, who do we turn to determine that and to fix it? That’s right - the courts. And what do the courts use in determining their Constitutional remedy? That’s right - past case law and Supreme Court decisions.

Which means at the end of the day the courts will decide if Obama is an NBC or not.


197 posted on 02/24/2012 12:47:34 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Just a question. If the next dual citizen who runs for president has an American BC and a passport from his father’s home country, and notches on his rifle for Americans killed in action while fighting against us, like an Alawaki type. Would a judge call him an NBC?

Sometimes you have to wonder why the nbC requirement keeps getting translated into just 'citizen'. Does someone know something that would make just being a 'citizen' an issue?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Born

From above:

a. Having from birth a particular quality or talent: a born artist.

b. Destined, or seemingly destined, from birth: a person born to lead.

Note the formal defnition of the adjective "born" includes FROM BIRTH. It does NOT say "at birth".

FROM birth!

If a person loses or gives up their citizenship and then requires it it would seem they are no longer a 'born Citizen'. They are not. They are naturalized citizen.

The events of December 1971 are interesting as might be Obama's actions as a young adult. These may be more problematic than anything related to 1961.

198 posted on 02/24/2012 12:49:25 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So the rest of the Supreme Court are closet birthers? Don’t think so.

How many different justices do you think were involved in rejecting all those birther suits at the Supreme Court? We know at least five of them are not on your side.

No, they are on YOUR side, along with Roe v Wade and Dred Scott v Sanford. This is called the "sinistra" side.

199 posted on 02/24/2012 12:49:35 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
No - he was full fear and doubt but he made the decision he knew he had to make.

And for the same reason, neither is the Supreme Court cowards for refusing to plunge the country into chaos over a legal technicality. There just happen to be those of us that thing the worst is yet to come for their having done so.

Bravery is not the lack of fear and doubt. It is being full of fear and doubt but still making the right choice.

I am sure that in their minds they feel as though they have made the right choice, but let us have none of this argument that anything was decided on it's merits. Merits were never considered. It is always the issue of "Standing."

Losing on the field is one thing, not being allowed to play is something entirely different.

200 posted on 02/24/2012 12:53:54 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-398 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson