Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

It is my understanding that according to the law...if both parents are United States citizens...a person could be born in another country...and they still would be a U.S. citizen.

The problem many have with President Obama is that his Father was not a United States citizen...and the way the law is worded...he may not be a U.S. citizen.

Am I right about this?

reply to post by caladonea


Citizen is one level. If you are born here you are a citizen, according to most people.

To be eligible for president one must be a natural born citizen, which I have come to understand means, born here, parents, or at least dad are citizens at the time of the candidates birth. The reason is because founders were suspicious of foreign leaders taking over after having so much trouble with King George.

Some say Obama was a dual citizen at birth, that would be bad.

Some say that the 14th amendment changed all that.

Lots of good posts and links on this issue. Dig in, find the truth.

ATS post Sad eyed lady, happersat court precedent here

Post with ART II stuff here

ATS post back on p5

Originally posted by Laokin

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's totally implausible for a person to recant a statement and issue a new one? You also didn't post this audio recording in response to me, as it's absent in this thread.

This is why birthers cannot and will not ever be taken seriously. You have just been presented with the unedited audio proving your fake idea wrong. You call it BS and say it proves nothing so you stick to your belief in an idea you have no idea why you believe because you have NOTHING anywhere that remotely backs up what you claim.

It takes a very special kind of trying to be stupid to make that kind of claim.

reply to post by nuttin4U


this is the result of 911 sir and to fix the ills of the past you have to right the present and maintain it then you can work backwards to straighten the past

reply to post by caladonea


both my parents were american citizens(passed) and birthed my brothers and i across the river in canada registered our births with customs and that is called american born abroad and i don't think i am able to run for president.all presidents must be born on american soil as i understand the constitution.

Originally posted by stanats


In answer to the question, of course he/she can become president. It is clearly spelled out in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution. You were born in the United States therefore you are a citizen. The only possible argument by any reasonable person against this is whether or not your birth was vaginal or caeserian with caeserian being the not-natural option.

I want my answer to come from a birther and I want them to prove their case.

Originally posted by kawika


If we all just shut up, what would be the point of ATS.

Quality and productive discussion. Getting the birthers and their fantasy nonsense out of the way could only make things better here. This place is supposed to be about truth and facts, not paranoid fantasies. If all the birthers shut up, ATS might be a quality site again.

reply to post by Kristinaso


under maritime law if birthed by american woman child would be born in american waters and port?

Originally posted by caladonea
It is my understanding that according to the law...if both parents are United States citizens...a person could be born in another country...and they still would be a U.S. citizen.

The problem many have with President Obama is that his Father was not a United States citizen...and the way the law is worded...he may not be a U.S. citizen.

Am I right about this?

Then you tell me. My mother is a Natural Born US citizen. She gave birth to me in a US hospital. No one knows who dad is. You telling me I cannot become president?

reply to post by Kristinaso

Quality and productive discussion. Getting the birthers and their fantasy nonsense out of the way could only make things better here. This place is supposed to be about truth and facts, not paranoid fantasies. If all the birthers shut up, ATS might be a quality site again.

There will always be as many points of view as there are people.

Without discussion, people resort to violence. People are violent when they think they can not be heard any other way.

This thread, this site, ATS, gives all people, who will abide by certain rules of civil behavior, a place to vent, a place to learn, a place to discuss.

What I am learning is it is necessary to ignore some posters who are baiting you, trying to get you to write something extreme and then the Moderator will erase your post.

The best thing to do, is ask your questions honestly, give your answers with factual references whenever possible, and temper your opinions, such that the conversation can continue. And ignore posters who do not follow the rules.

He will find a way to wiggle out of this one

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TheCounselor

 

There is already a Marie Antoinette quality about the POTUS and FLOTUS that is raising ire in more groups than Republicans.
Using the term 'king' disposes your post. There would be no sympathy for a despot.
It surely wouldn't raise any sympathy in me to have this case go through. I would like to believe that people don't vote on sympathy, but on competence.

You assume I'm defending Obama.

The reason I used the word "king" here was to illustrate that the reason that many people support Obama may have little to do with the legal basis for his rule, but the fact that many people genuinely believe in the rightfulness of his rule.

People supported kings you know, they still do (though not going by that name usually). Just because they are "despots" does not automatically mean that the majority wants them out.

That's the game.

That is a valid point. Just because I have a suspicion of all things Monarchy, doesn't mean everyone does.
I have both exremes of the politcal spectrum in my family, and sometimes have to use those diametrically opposed viewpoints to understand the dynamics of politics.
You are right. My mother would very much appreciate the idea of a king.
I don't like the legal games and dirty tricks being played by both sides in this election, but that's what has become of the voting game. I'd rather the record of the man decide if the people want him for four more years.

reply to post by Laokin

Dear Laokin,

Sorry that it took so long for me to get back to you. I'm working on eliminating sleep and family but I'm not there yet.

There's a lot of confusion on this thread and a germ of that confusion has infected you. Please let me know if I don't explain it well.

My parents came to the US from another country. Eventually they applied for citizenship and received it. They are "naturalized citizens." The "naturalized" is simply a type of citizenship indicating how it was obtained. The Constitution says that the President must be a "natural born citizen." Unfortunately we're talking about legal language which doesn't always mean what it looks like it means.

That's the problem, basically, facing Georgia. There is a good argument to be made that "natural born citizen" requires that your parents, at the time of your birth, are both American citizens. If the courts decide that is what it means, then Obama is not a "natural born citizen" because his father wasn't American when Obama was born.

The lawyer isn't arguing that Obama isn't a citizen. He's saying, let's assume he is a citizen, born in Hawaii just like he says. That, says the lawyer, doesn't matter. Is he a "natural born citizen?" Not just a citizen who was born in the US. That's the question

Further, the court is not deciding whether he can stay as President. It is simply deciding whether Obama can be listed on the primary ballot in Georgia in 2012. (It may also be deciding whether he is eligible to be on the ballot in November, I haven't checked that.)

With respect,
Charles1952

I think I know the answer.

Not going to post sources.

The key is there is an embarrassing detail, the Kenyan guy, not his real father.

Can't say where he was born. The guy who I think may be the real father passed in 1987.

Here is a clue. Why are there risque pics of Obama's mom in some other guys apartment in Hawaii?

Can not be sure, but I think I know the answer.

Originally posted by caladonea
The problem many have with President Obama is that his Father was not a United States citizen...and the way the law is worded...he may not be a U.S. citizen.

Am I right about this?

No, you're wrong. The law does not require that either parent be a US citizen. Only that he be born a citizen, which is satisfied by his being born inside the US even if both parents were non-citizens. In this case, his mother was an American and his father not, just like Pres. Chester A. Arthur. He is a natural born citizen despite his father's lack of citizenship. There has NEVER been a requirement that the parents,or one of them, of a President be citizens.

I cited cases some pages back, Lynch v. Clarke - which expressly quoted the provision about "natural-born citizen" from the Constitution, and Wong Kim Ark. If you bother to look those up, you'll find lots of other legal authorities that say the same thing. In fact, with the recent fuss about Mexicans coming into the US to have "anchor babies", some law review articles have been suggesting that the birthright citizenship principle be changed - but it was still in place when Obama was born in Hawaii.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


This meaningless little red neck judge will get slammed by the Fed Court. This moronic issue is D.O.A.

reply to post by FeatherofMaat

Exactly which Federal law or Constitutional decree restricts the ability of states to establish ballot requirements within Constitutional guidelines?

This redneck wants to know.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Exactly which Federal law or Constitutional decree restricts the ability of states to establish ballot requirements within Constitutional guidelines?

It all goes back to the income tax.

This may seem off topic, but, people have been conditioned to believe that the federal gov is at the top of the pyramid. When in fact, the intention was for the federal gov to be like, an association.

We live in a condo, we have an association. The association takes care of the pool, the gardening etc...

But the association works for us, we don't work for them.

In creating the income tax, legal or not, the federal gov put us to work for them. And after all these years people have gotten used to the idea that Fed can do what ever it wants and is in charge of us.

Actually the association in Michigan would tell me what color I could paint my house, and that I could not keep my boat on the trailer in the driveway. I swore never to live under an association like that again. Hard to imagine, the servant dictating to the master, but it keeps happening.

In Michigan we had this church. The church elders grew tired of having to meet and sign checks for routine church business. So they gave pastor a power of attorney to do routine business. Pastor left his wife for one of the church ladies, got her pregnant, and decided the church property was his. Elders spent a ton of money going to court to fix things. In the end the judge threw it out, she said the gov could not decide the matter because of the separation of church and state. Now I know you think I am making that up, but it is a true story, there are judges out there dumb as a box of rocks.

But my point is because of our overall lack of education about history and government people do not know the facts of the proper relationship between the states and the federal government.

We have been dumbed down...

To carry this to its logical conclusion, I predict, if not already, people will begin to believe that the UN is at the top of the pyramid, over the US and all the countries of the world. Simply because of the one to many relationship and hierarchical system they have grown used to.