Obama Eligibility Hearing in Arizona tomorrow

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

[jdirt]

Please attend hearing if you can.

[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?

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.

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[Harlan1196]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[philman_36]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

[edge919]

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

[Harlan1196]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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?

[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.

[philman_36]

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?

[DiogenesLamp]

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...

[W. W. SMITH]

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.

[Harlan1196]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[Harlan1196]

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.

[bluecat6]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.