Skip to comments.
'Birthers' Nonsense Sets Georgia Up For Ridicule -- Again
Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer ^
| January 27, 2012
Posted on 01/27/2012 6:53:39 AM PST by transducer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 241-252 next last
To: Darksheare
Your sh*tting me!
NO Way! ;>)
101
posted on
01/27/2012 8:12:10 AM PST
by
Bigun
("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
To: transducer; Darksheare
transducer: “Every President has a constant barrage of frivolous lawsuits...”
Yes, and interestingly enough, frivolous law suits almost never get to the courtroom. Hence one would have to suggest that perhaps this is not one of those.
To: lacrew
He's not confused, it's willful ignorance.
The entire story is playing to the ignorant masses which is the dems base, trying to make them believe citizen and NBC are one and the same.
Expect future stories on how Rich White Republicans consider blacks to be 3/5 of a person and not a citizen.
To: Eric in the Ozarks; Bigun
There exists nothing in American law disqualifying a presidential candidate for his parents birthplace. As Bigun also pointed out, at least you have one thing correct. But that is also IRRELEVANT. It's their citizenship status at the time of the offspring's birth that matters. Neither Obama's nor Rubio's parents were citizens AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH. You can't say that because they were naturalized later, that Rubio is eligible. If that's what you're trying to say. That would be some kind of ex post facto decision.
104
posted on
01/27/2012 8:13:14 AM PST
by
backwoods-engineer
(Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
To: transducer; spokeshave
Tell me, has Obama been to all 57 states yet?
[note, the Islamic world has 57 states.]
105
posted on
01/27/2012 8:13:33 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
To: transducer; administrator
Where are you getting this stuff? There is no requirement for a President to be on the ballot in all states -- Lincoln wasn't (not on the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), for example. Mr "This issue is "Flapdoodle" " is posting more opposition research. Again, not the activity of someone who is unconcerned with this issue, but someone who is actively working for the other side.
106
posted on
01/27/2012 8:14:24 AM PST
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: jcsjcm
You can have a Mexican woman run across the border, give birth on our land and that child is now a citizen by birth. Do you call that a natural born citizen? Could that child be President? I would love an answer on that! Good post. Transducer the troll doesn't get it, but our forbears already gave us an answer to your query in 1874: NO, that child could NOT constitutionally be President.
Hence Obama the Usurper.
107
posted on
01/27/2012 8:15:36 AM PST
by
backwoods-engineer
(Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
To: Bigun; transducer
Way!
And by the definition of natural born citizen...
108
posted on
01/27/2012 8:15:36 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
To: transducer
You
Me
109
posted on
01/27/2012 8:16:00 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: transducer
It is the obligation of every citizen to call out abuses of the Constitution.
There is good cause to doubt Obama's status, too many questions are unanswered, too many claims unproven.
If seeking justice causes hurt feelings or civil unrest it is just too damned bad!
110
posted on
01/27/2012 8:16:30 AM PST
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
To: visually_augmented; transducer
Yeah, amazing, isn’t it?
This lawsuit wasn’t really a so-called “Birther” lawsuit.
This was a suit to prove eligibility to be on Georgia’s ballot.
Should have been a simple thing for Obama the wunderkind to do, right?
After all, we were assured in ‘08 that he was articulate and a great orator.. as long as he’s speaking froma teleprompter.
111
posted on
01/27/2012 8:17:31 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
To: Admin Moderator; 50mm; TheOldLady
Retread troll tries to sue the Admin Moderator....
and loses.
112
posted on
01/27/2012 8:17:42 AM PST
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
To: backwoods-engineer
Qualifications for the presidency are:
Age 35
Born in the US
Where a candidates parents were born is immaterial.
To: Darksheare
I was being just a tad facetious.
114
posted on
01/27/2012 8:18:34 AM PST
by
Bigun
("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
To: Venturer
As I understand the case, the Secretary of State has declared that he will make a decision, based on the decision of this administrative court judge.
Team Obama will likely appeal and all sorts of stuff...and initially one would think that he could stretch this out until after the election.
However, I believe this SOS has the authority to say ‘Team Obama, you haven’t provided enough documentation to qualify for the ballot’, at any time...and he can rely on the initial judge’s decision.
So, what we may have is finally a politician somewhere, with the cajones to stand up to ridicule, charges of racism, and media smears& snears...and do the right thing. Maybe.
If anyone else is more learned in the case, and I have mispoke, please correct me.
115
posted on
01/27/2012 8:18:47 AM PST
by
lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
To: Bigun
116
posted on
01/27/2012 8:19:13 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
To: backwoods-engineer
117
posted on
01/27/2012 8:19:36 AM PST
by
jcsjcm
(This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
To: transducer
To: transducer
Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Try again! The court explicitly states that Wong IS NOT a natural born citizen.
From Wong Kim Ark -
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Now to head you off, before you make the next idiotic statment, that
Minor where it talked about "natural born citizen' was only dicta. In Wong Kim Ark, the court cites Minor as precedent.
This is from the Wong kim Ark opinion -
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Minor defined the Constitutional term-of-art 'natural born citizen' to require Citizen parents. It left open whether or not children of non-Citizen parents could be included in the broader class of
Citizens.
This is where
Wong picks up. Wong did not fall into the class of 'natural born citizen' as defined by
Minor, so they needed to continue where the
Minor court left off, and decide that Wong fit into the broader class of 'Citizens' that
Minor used judicial restraint to avoid.
The arguments that
Wong somehow declared Wong a natural born citizen are rediculous, and if the argument ever gets adjudicated, the court will have no option but to agree.
To: transducer; moder_ator
He was ruled a citizen who did not need to be naturalized to become a citizen -- i.e. he was a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, aka a "natural born citizen". BladeBryan, is that you? Your arguments are still stupid. Firstly, the Wong Court got it wrong. They intentionally ignored the debate in Congress which explicitly stated that citizenship would not apply to the children of transient aliens. Secondly, even if the 14th Amendment so intended (which it did not) it still was not intended to re-define the Presidential Eligibility requirements which Preceded the 14th amendment and remained in effect both before and after. Thirdly, You are again behaving as a opposition partisan and not as someone who considers the whole issue "flapdoodle" as you pretend.
The Fact that you lied about this is good enough for me. I think you need to be zotted.
120
posted on
01/27/2012 8:25:54 AM PST
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 241-252 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson