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

Skip to comments.

Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship
The Associated Press ^ | 3/5/2009 | NEDRA PICKLER

Posted on 03/05/2009 4:03:57 PM PST by AJ in NYC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-189 last
To: curiosity
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:IT_yYwvsTSAJ:www.opensecrets.org/parties/expend.php%3Fcmte%3DDNC%26cycle%3D2008+Sandler,+Reiff,+and+Young,+DNC,+Obama,+expenditures&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Sandler & Reiff/Sandler, Reiff & Young. Over $750k charged to DNC...not exactly Pro Bono.

181 posted on 03/06/2009 11:17:57 AM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well if he [Thomas Jefferson] was not natural born then he would have been naturalized

No. That would only be if one accepted your silly notion that natural-born means the same thing as native-born (which it clearly does not) and that there are only two classes of citizens.

Naturalized is the past tense of a transitive verb. I know you wish to obscure the meaning of this English language that we use, but it is. Your use of this word would imply that there was some specific time when Thomas Jefferson was naturalized, which you know is nonsense. The Constitution itself refers to Jefferson as "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of [the]Constitution," which means he was already a Citizen of the United States at that time. There was no naturalization, but he wasn't natural-born in their eyes. Words mean things, and it is unclear to me why you should wish to deny what the Framers plainly meant.

ML/NJ

182 posted on 03/06/2009 1:17:38 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

If a noob uses the terms “Obama derangement syndrome,” “wingnuts,” “birthers,” “9-11 truthers,” or “we need to move on,” you can be sure of what you are dealing with.


183 posted on 03/06/2009 1:36:31 PM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
They are getting more clever. They "hit and run" post and come back later after having shared responses and gotten answers to those responses. And they come back with the same answers.
184 posted on 03/06/2009 1:50:33 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
No. That would only be if one accepted your silly notion that natural-born means the same thing as native-born (which it clearly does not) and that there are only two classes of citizens.

It would be silly if the Constitution mentioned three forms of citizenship rather than two. Or if the Constitution defined the difference between native born and natural born. Of if U.S. law made a difference between them and defined more that two forms of citizenship. Or if the Supreme Court had ruled there were three or more forms of citizenship. But none of that is true.

Your use of this word would imply that there was some specific time when Thomas Jefferson was naturalized, which you know is nonsense.

Not at all. If Thomas Jefferson was not naturalized then he would be natural born. And if he was a natural born citizen then there would be no need for that clause in Article II.

185 posted on 03/06/2009 2:32:35 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You'll have to sell your absurd brand of logic to others here, and from what I've seen from the comments here that will not be easy for you.

ML/NJ

186 posted on 03/06/2009 3:08:42 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Shady Ray
Sandler & Reiff/Sandler, Reiff & Young. Over $750k charged to DNC...not exactly Pro Bono.

Just because they charged the DNC in the past does not mean they charged Obama for these motions to dismiss.

Nearly all Lawyers do some pro-bono work. No lawyer does all his work pro-bono.

It's also possible they are working on retainer, in which case they get paid a flat fee and the motions to dismiss would not have cost anything extra.

Face it. You have no evidence Obama has spent a dime defending these lawsuits.

187 posted on 03/06/2009 4:54:28 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Respondent moving parties do not, with this motion, exercise their rights under Code of 28 Civil Procedure sections 1987.2, 2025.410, and 2025.420 to seek recompense for their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs necessarily incurred in bringing this motion. However, Respondent moving may do so in the future if Petitioners continue to misuse the discovery process."

You don't recover/threaten to pursue fees on matters taken pro bono. Case closed. Move onto a subject in which you have some semblance of a clue.

188 posted on 03/06/2009 5:15:57 PM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Shady Ray

That is proving to be a very short list...


189 posted on 03/07/2009 6:42:52 AM PST by ejonesie22 (Stupidity has an expiration date 1-20-2013 *(Thanks Nana))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-189 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