It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rren
Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Image that, a new thread on ATS stating a judge is considering ruling Obama's name will not be allowed to be on the Georgia ballot. This following his and his legal counsel's failure to show up in court.
WTH - Annee stated numerous times on this thread this Natural Born Citizen suit was a constitutional issue and had nothing to do with Obama! Why the heck then is this judge trying to punish Obama!
Annee was so certain and I don't mind saying pretty righteous about this fact. To me it doesn't even matter if the ballot issue is true, if the judge is even considering it, it confirms my feeling all along that this suit was always all about Obama.
Use your Google-Fu young one. There has been no ruling by the judge. President Obama is still on the ballot. Annee is correct; this is an issue of constitutional semantics/language (I.E., do you need one or two citizen parents to be considered "natural-born"?]. It's about Obama, because of the people whom brought the lawsuit.... but, ultimately this is an issue of constitutionjal semantic clarity and will have to be decided by the supreme court. Such a decision will take a while to happen (imo). After the 2012 election, so the haters will just have to beat 'em fair-and-square.
Sorry 'bout their luck. [/quote
Well well well someone cannot read. I didn't say there was a ruling. I said the judge is considering leaving him off the ballot. Old one. I also have stated in previous posts this so called constitutional issue has more to do with Obama than the constitution.
Ironic how in one paragraph you state, this is a constitutional issue and Annee is right. (Read her post, she states, "This has nothing to do with Obama.". Then right after that you say, "it's about Obama.". Are you reading this stuff off of a TelePrompTer.
Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Well well well someone cannot read. I didn't say there was a ruling. I said the judge is considering leaving him off the ballot. Old one.
I also have stated in previous posts this so called constitutional issue has more to do with Obama than the constitution.
Ironic how in one paragraph you state, this is a constitutional issue and Annee is right. (Read her post, she states, "This has nothing to do with Obama.". Then right after that you say, "it's about Obama.". Are you reading this stuff off of a TelePrompTer.
Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by Rren
[...] I stated this suit was a backdoor assault on Obama. That this was just another angle to prove he cannot be CIC. Since the birth certificate issue was not sticking.
Annee and I guess you too now by proxy still want to state this has nothing to do with Obama.....okay
Then you acknowledge that Obama's NBC is being questioned. Hey if talking on a forum doesn't work out for you Iraq is looking for a new spokesman to inform the world the enemy is no where in sight, as tanks are rolling behind him.
You too have a wonderful life what's left. Because if you are referring to me as young one, you must be about 80!
Originally posted by Rren
(cant speak for Ammee - dont know him/her)
Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by Rren
Thank you for the clarification. I will agree with your final rebuttal.
Glad you enjoyed my humor.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Rren
(cant speak for Ammee - dont know him/her)
That would be me in my Avatar.
I try to stick with logic - - not emotions and mass hysteria.
Originally posted by Rren
Me too, or, at least I try; I like your style... sorry about the name typo..
Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well: Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)) Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed.
Originally posted by PMNOrlando
Peel away the multiple layers
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by PMNOrlando
Peel away the multiple layers
A birth certificate does not have multiple layers, so exactly what are you on about?
Originally posted by PMNOrlando
You're right that a birth certificate does not and should not have multiple layers
I don't think you'll be confused about what I meant about layers.
Originally posted by spoor
You are in fact very confused, none of those so called experts have even seen or touched Obama's birth certificates....
why do you keep ignoring that fact?