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

Skip to comments.

Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'
WND ^ | 26 April 2012 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; birthcertificate; elections; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last
This seemed kind of significant to me, that we appear here to have an actual judge referring to the matter as a Federal one, and important and deserving of resolution to boot. Kicking the can down the road yes, but this seems like a new twist to me, from a judicial standpoint.

Hedging of bets, perhaps?

1 posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:23 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; melancholy; Brown Deer; philman_36; little jeremiah; DiogenesLamp; Smokeyblue; ...
"Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

I'd be very, very interested in people's views on the actual judge referring to a dispute vis a vis the constitution and Minor. I was personally taken aback, reading this piece.

2 posted on 04/27/2012 4:54:28 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.


3 posted on 04/27/2012 5:08:58 AM PDT by BilLies (If FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS had a son, he would look just like BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
“A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.””

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

““The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.”

This could be HUGH!
or he could find a horses head in his bed, or a dead fish wrapped in newspaper.

(even spell check thinks “Obama” is illegitimate)

4 posted on 04/27/2012 5:10:31 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
“If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.”

I don't think that would matter, unless FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS is on Obama’s REAL BC. Which of course he is not, since I have seen a copy of Obama’s “Kenyan” BC.

If Obama has to produce to the court, that FAKE BC, he will be guilty of fraud, if not forgery.

It's always “the cover up” that gets them.

5 posted on 04/27/2012 5:16:23 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
I think it would have to be his LEGAL father, regardless of the sperm donor. Sperm doesn't have any “foreign influence”.
6 posted on 04/27/2012 5:19:03 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
Doesn't make any difference unless FMD was married to Zippo’s mother at the time of his birth.

Zippo’s mother was married to Zippo Sr. at the time of Zippo’s birth.

Zippo Sr. is the father.

7 posted on 04/27/2012 5:19:49 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
Ping................

I'd be very, very interested in people's views on the actual judge referring to a dispute vis a vis the constitution and Minor. I was personally taken aback, reading this piece.

Thank you, Flotsam_Jetsome.

8 posted on 04/27/2012 5:23:52 AM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

From the headline, thought we were talking about Rubio.

Could we?

Here’s what I hear about him:
He can speak for 45 minutes straight without notes.
He’s a senator. (after Ob. can’t we assume there’s not much to that?)

My son had more stringent criteria getting into ninth grade.


9 posted on 04/27/2012 5:40:44 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
Zippo’s mother was married to Zippo Sr. at the time of Zippo’s birth.

Maybe or maybe not. Even Hussein/Ayers wrote in "Dreams" that the legality of the marriage was iffy and vague.

10 posted on 04/27/2012 5:45:10 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

:: will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests. ::

And opening him to violation of fraud and falsifying documents.


11 posted on 04/27/2012 5:46:47 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Now that the RATS have an ineligible prez, the GOP is pushing for theirs. Once the GOP has their ineligible candidate in office, watch for the quick destruction of the Constitution.


12 posted on 04/27/2012 5:47:35 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bgill

The divorce court has ruled his parents were married at the time of his birth, and the marriage produced a child.


13 posted on 04/27/2012 5:54:54 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.


14 posted on 04/27/2012 5:55:03 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Maybe Jughead won't be the dem nominee come October.

Either he's a Kenyan, or by some weird, unprovable fluke he is an American named Barry Soetoro, but he perpetrated such a massive fraud in order to get into Harvard including the forging or theft of federal documents (his CT SSN, draft) that he is impeachable for crimes and misdemeanors.

What if Jughead gets tossed and the dems put up a dem like Ben Nelson who is to the right of Mittens? I can see voter's heads exploding now.

15 posted on 04/27/2012 5:57:44 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (Sofa King Mitt Odd Did Obamneycare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Hussein wants to delay it getting to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS (Thomas) has already admitted they are “evading” it. They’re all in on the delay. Look for 3 resignations or retirements after the election. That will give Hussein a majority with his 5 total appointments of enemies to America and our Constitution to do his bidding.

Ginsburg is 79
Scalia is 76
Kennedy is 75
Breyer is 73


16 posted on 04/27/2012 5:58:11 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

That’s true and would be upheld in an American court. We are quickly moving away from such courts.


17 posted on 04/27/2012 5:59:47 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I'd be very, very interested in people's views on the actual judge referring to a dispute vis a vis the constitution and Minor. I was personally taken aback, reading this piece.

I hadn't seen this piece yet. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

18 posted on 04/27/2012 6:04:22 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

“On September 6, 2007, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee vacated by James D. Todd. Anderson was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 10, 2008, and received his commission on May 21, 2008.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Thomas_Anderson

Unfortunately, he was appointed at the end of W’s admin long after W showed severe signs of an invasion of the body snatchers so who knows which side Anderson is on.


19 posted on 04/27/2012 6:05:12 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.

I hope he does. At this point it is not going to matter whether or not he is a natural born citizen or not, but what seriously needs to happen is that everyone who opposed the asking of the questions needs to have their political teeth knocked out.

Those people who defamed and criticized us "birthers" need to be shown to be utter fools and jackasses. They need to be identified publicly as idiots and they need to accept the responsibility that but for their refusing to support the effort to question this man, he would not have been President, and all the damage he has done would not have happened.

The DAMAGE of the Obama Presidency needs to be laid at the feet of these people who thought they were too brilliant to question his qualifications. They need to be made to face the fact that it is THEIR FAULT that he was not question.

People like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Eric Erickson, Allahpundit, Ace, etc. need to know they backed the wrong horse and it caused horrible destruction and it was their hubris which so led them astray.

Shoving what gets discovered down their throats is the only remedial action which can be taken at this point.

20 posted on 04/27/2012 6:15:31 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

21 posted on 04/27/2012 6:20:48 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.

That is his ace in the hole as regards NBC but it still leaves him open to multiple felony fraud charges.

22 posted on 04/27/2012 6:21:03 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Romney's judicial appointments were more radical than Obama's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; All
U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.” “This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

These idiots are about four years too late but I guess better late than never,hard to imagine the judiciary is this stupid.

23 posted on 04/27/2012 6:23:29 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

I think zero and his handlers have covered up and burned any reference to DNA possible to him or possible relatives starting with his granny in Hawaii who was burned rather than buried as was her request in her will. This crap has been going on for a while.


24 posted on 04/27/2012 6:25:47 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
They need to be identified publicly as idiots and they need to accept the responsibility that but for their refusing to support the effort to question this man, he would not have been President, and all the damage he has done would not have happened.

Absolutely!

Were this case to reach its ultimate conclusion and the SCOTUS finds that BHO is ineligible for the office, it would by default prove that BHO perpetrated the greatest fraud on the citizenry of these United States in the history of our Republic. The fallout would redefine our electorate.

25 posted on 04/27/2012 6:45:35 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

DiogenesLamp, I agree with you as to the revenge on all the cowards like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Eric Erickson, Allahpundit, Ace as well as the big talkers like Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc. I’ve stopped listening to all these faux Conservatives and have lost all interest in anything GOP! BTW, I’m in favor of also investigating Romney, Rubio or any other candidate as to their eligibility as Natural Born Citizens!


26 posted on 04/27/2012 6:54:07 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

No, he isn’t the first. Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen at time of birth.


27 posted on 04/27/2012 6:54:07 AM PDT by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with http://abcnewsradioonline.Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
So the long and short of it is that the case stays at the Federal level.
Fed Court: Eligibility Question “Important and Not Trivial”
I also told you that LLF had filed a motion to remand the case back to the State court. Last Friday the Federal court denied our motion.
Good. IMO it needs to be at that level.

“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
While I would like to see that in context, evidently someone argued something to garner such a declaration by the Judge, it seems to me that the "dispute" is already settled.

28 posted on 04/27/2012 7:11:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill; All

Legitiamate or not, he doesn’t care about the Constitution or worse but he has nearly finished on term, maybe his last.

Could we please act out of character for conservatives or republicans and move on.

Rubio is presently and actively speaking against the US in favor of the UN and IMF.

Romney just got the nomination, can we face it and turn our attention to this?

the time to look at Rubio is NOW.

I liked him until I read yesterday’s piece repeated here on FR.

He frightens me.


29 posted on 04/27/2012 7:15:20 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

And we can thank Leo Donofrio for finding that...in 2009...

Arthur hid the fact and hid it well due to the implications.


30 posted on 04/27/2012 7:18:01 AM PDT 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 27 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Legitimate is the way it is spelled, I know.


31 posted on 04/27/2012 7:18:31 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Notice it's going straight to the heart of the matter! No Wong Kim Ark, no Ankeny...none of the BS cases.

I'm going to go see if I can find some pdf files that cover this.

32 posted on 04/27/2012 7:18:49 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Here we go...4-13-12 – Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Case Back to TN State Court
33 posted on 04/27/2012 7:21:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Not really. The information comes from a biographer.
Greg Dehler.

It is a matter of public record.

I suspect that there were people in the Republican Party that knew the truth at the time.

It is also possible that Justice Horace Gray knew it , too.


34 posted on 04/27/2012 7:29:55 AM PDT by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with http://abcnewsradioonline.Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Well, well, well...would you look at this new twist! Defendants further assert that the matter of President Obama’s qualifications for office arises under federal law. In any event, the Court should hold that Plaintiffs’ claims turn on significant federal questions. Defendants offer one other basis for denying remand, that federal constitutional interpretation should preempt any state law claim involving presidential qualifications.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”3 The removal statute, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), provides that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”4 A case may “arise under” federal law where (1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law.5 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”6

Perhaps the Defendants might have known that their case wouldn't pass muster in this State so they forced it into the Federal level to avoid a negative ruling.
The question to ask is...why hasn't this been done before this case is if it's such a significant "federal question"?

35 posted on 04/27/2012 7:35:00 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Context before the statement... Based on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are exactly of the kind which “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” As one of the elements of their claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants somehow misrepresented a material fact.14 It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. It is true that viewed from one perspective, Plaintiffs’ suit is about state elections and the manner in which a state political party selects its nominee for federal office and then takes steps to have the nominee’s name appear on the state-wide ballot for a general election. When cast in this light, it could be argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are peculiarly a matter of state law. Nevertheless, the primary basis for Plaintiffs’ state-law claims is the allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as the Supreme Court has defined the term, and therefore not qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs concede as much and actually allege in their First Amended Complaint that President Obama cannot be considered a natural born citizen based on a definition of “natural born citizen” the United States Supreme Court announced over one hundred and thirty-five years ago in Minor v. Happersett. Plaintiffs’ ultimate success in proving Defendants liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation turns then on Plaintiffs’ ability to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as federal law defines that concept.15 Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.”

Furthermore, it is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are “actually disputed and substantial.” There is a sharp dispute in this case over Plaintiff’s main contention that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is otherwise disqualified from the office under the United States Constitution. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor. The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.

IMO things just heated up!

36 posted on 04/27/2012 7:45:07 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

BTW, I’m in favor of also investigating Romney, Rubio or any other candidate as to their eligibility as Natural Born Citizens!

Of all of the politicians in the country, how many have questionable “natural born” status? I’ll bet the percentage is very small; yet, the top candidates for Pres and VP both fall in that category. What are the odds?


37 posted on 04/27/2012 7:47:56 AM PDT by Josephat (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BilLies
If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.

Why? Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama's eligibility?

Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS will craft a decision that confers upon millions of Americans born and raised here a status of second class citizen?

38 posted on 04/27/2012 7:53:07 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
This gives some insight into the arguments presented... Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).”16

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

39 posted on 04/27/2012 7:56:00 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama's eligibility?
Do you still honestly believe that the presumptive POTUS is actually a NBC?

Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS will craft a decision that confers upon millions of Americans born and raised here a status of second class citizen?
Nobody would be a "second class" citizen. They would have all of the rights of other citizens with the sole exception of being elected to the office of POTUS.
What you're trying to do with your question is BS and contemptible!

40 posted on 04/27/2012 8:06:19 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; LucyT

Ping


41 posted on 04/27/2012 8:19:16 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

It’s really important for Van Irion to emphasize that the Minor definition of NBC, which was unanimously supported, was also unanimously support by both the majority opinion and dissent in Wong Kim Ark. That’s 18 Supreme Court justices that agreed the only definition for the Article II Constitutional term is “all children born in the country to citizen parents” in exclusion of children born of foreign parents. There’s no legal precedent for any lower court to go against the judgment of 18 SCOTUS justices.


42 posted on 04/27/2012 8:22:58 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

Disagree. All documents (real ones) proving who his parents are and where he was born and any nationality/ies he has held or presently holds would all have to be on the table.


43 posted on 04/27/2012 8:33:03 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stanne

He’s also a huge government globalist.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2876843/posts?page=24#24

Rubio Praises U.N., World Bank, IMF for Not Asserting ‘Narrow American Interests’
CNS News ^ | 4/25/2012 | Michael W. Chapman


44 posted on 04/27/2012 8:35:11 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

mail


45 posted on 04/27/2012 8:45:01 AM PDT by advertising guy ( Slo Joe Biden " I promise you the President has a big stick, but Michelle's is bigger ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: melancholy; philman_36

Thanks for the ping, Mel. Can you imagine life in Moonbatville today? Any time a serious, mature adult fails to treat this issue w snide contempt, Obots’ heads implode. Pretty much the outer reaches of their intellectual prowess is mocking Orly. When more than that is required, they resort to flinging foul words and insults like monkey dung. Lol. I wish I had time to pay them a visit today. It would be interesting to see how many times they call this judge a ‘pissant’. They are so very intelligent, you understand.
::snicker snort::

Phil, this:

“What you’re trying to do with your question is BS and contemptible!:

Oops upside the head.

;)


46 posted on 04/27/2012 8:53:32 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
"and the marriage produced a child."
...define, "marriage" to a muslim...it's called: rape...
(Koran / Islamic law is extremely flexible on this subject, esp. 6/9 year olds)

47 posted on 04/27/2012 9:09:04 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me $h!t, w!th d!fferent fl!e$". :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Ugh.

What if Ob is history, now?

I mean, what if, Romney is effectively in? In a way se is. He could win it. He is now appointing staff. Let’s say Ob and Pelosi and all are out. They’re yesterday’s news and they are now just babbling.

Can’t we assume that we now need to be very careful to be honest about what kind of non patriots are getting in there? Even though we don’t have power to change it (we should, but we can see we haven’t so far, in this primary), can’t we look at it and at least say “no, he is not loyal to this country”, when a nominee/prospective appointee alogically appears so?

Can we learn from Ob? Just because he has political affiliations which tend toward anti American-ism, does not logically mean that the GOP-establishment cannot appoint someone with anti American sentiments from a different direction.

Ob might be just done.

His wife is talking about leaving the WH in the media. That’s significant.

She’s moving on, in a sense.

Can we do so?


48 posted on 04/27/2012 9:18:46 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Little barry bastard commie’s thugs thought the Minor case so important that they took the trouble to amend the files of the website where attornies and judges go to read SCOTUS deceisions/cases. Taking a cue from the criminal enterprise democrat party, what they lie and cheat to hide and alter indicates what is a legitimate restriction on what they want the law to allow them to do.


49 posted on 04/27/2012 9:20:53 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

And Arthur’s actions to hide the truth, appoint a SCOTUS judge to override the law, and destroying his White House files upon leaving office tells us old Chester knew he was not Constitutionally qualified and he wanted to ignore the Constitution, just like the current crop of democrats and feckless pubbies.


50 posted on 04/27/2012 9:24:21 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 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