Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


I do think some of the other arguments have been silly. But I think the issue of Natural Born citizen is one that has merit; do you not see the merit in the argument????

Originally posted by Annee
I told you there were discussion on ATS of McCain's eligibility. There are.

Why I need to provide any specific link - - is beyond me. But here is one: A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because if you are going to post something it must be backed up.

Very insightful. And wrong. You still haven't shown that the law, that I provided earlier(with a link to said law), was before McCain was eligible for public office. That said, aren't we talking about Obama here?

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

Hi Annee,

He just means you are completely wrong about that.

Wrong about what? McCain?

Action was taken to make him a Natural Born Citizen. That means he wasn't.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Republicans understand they don't have a chance to win the election, so they are resorting to activist judges to circumvent the vote. This is indeed interesting.

Not true. This issue has been around for years, and FINALLY a court is hearing the proper argument. NOT that his birth certificate is fake, NOT that he was really born in Kenya,.....but that he may not meet the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" based upon the citizenship status of his father.

I think it really is about the Constitution and whether Obama is eligible. Don't you think that is worth consideration?

But please tell me which article/section/amendment of the constitution states that to be a "natural born citizen", you have to have two parents who are U.S. citizens. I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. What I do see is that if you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen of the U.S. I also see a distinction for "naturalized citizens", but no requirements for being a "natural born citizen".

Just because some activist judge may rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen does not mean that he is correct. I would like to see the Supreme Court's ruling on this for the most accurate interpretation.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

A activist judge has paved the way for a political activist secretary of state to remove a standing president off the ballot. Thus skewing the election process in this state, based on what?

It hasn't happened yet. He hasn't ruled.

It's based on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen." That is what is up for debate.

From what I've read, in Georgia the people have the authority to question ballot eligibility. That is what has happened. And if it is questioned, the case must be considered. Apparently eligibility has been questionoed before in local races, so I don't understand why it would be considered "activist" to question eligibility in any other type of race.

It is the GOP trying an imaginative way to force their political will on the entire state.

You are certainly free to believe that if you want; however, Obama didn't win here in 2008. What makes you think he would do better now? Do you honestly believe that without what you are calling "GOP activism" he would have a shot at taking Georgia?

I just saw the local news 5 minutes ago (i live in GA), and they just reported that the judge has NOT decided anything.

Not sure where this blog info comes from, but i think the news would say if he was not going to be on the ballot.

And they even had a clip of Orly Taitz.

Can tell the news thinks this a big joke, and is mocking these birthers, and their argument.

ETA:

News just said it will be decided FEB 5. So, i dunno where this blog gets its info.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Resolution Proclaiming Hawaii Obama's Birthplace Passes House Unanimously

Don't you think the verbiage of that Resolution is suspicious? Why wouldn't they just come out and proclaim him a Natural Born Citizen? Why did they specifically proclaim Hawaii as his birthplace, but stop short of saying anything more significant?

That is why this issue has lingered for so long. They keep dancing around the issue and nobody is stepping up to say otherwise.

The Hawaii Governor was bold enough to step up, and then something made them shy away from the issue.

It just seems there are several simple solutions that are being avoided, and that keeps the issue alive.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by jacklondonmiller

 

Sour grapes Jack? A judge finally doing the right thing is Big govt?

A few officials unilaterally deciding on who people can vote for sure as hell is,
that is some 1935, European type stuff.

If it is based on a court precedent of a candidate being declared not eligible????

Would you say the same that Nancy Pelosi didn't have the right to verify Obama's eligibility and thus be placed officially as the Democrat nominee?

I guess that would also mean that it was not allowable for several of the Republican candidates not being placed on state ballots...
Do you liberals ever think through your arguments?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Annee
I told you there were discussion on ATS of McCain's eligibility. There are.

Why I need to provide any specific link - - is beyond me. But here is one: A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because if you are going to post something it must be backed up.

Very insightful. And wrong. You still haven't shown that the law, that I provided earlier(with a link to said law), was before McCain was eligible for public office. That said, aren't we talking about Obama here?

OK OK - - I apologize.

Action was taken to make McCain a Natural Born citizen. If action had to be taken - - then he wasn't.

The only reason McCain came into this (from me) - - is I stated his case was handled correctly with integrity and respect.

Why isn't Obama being handled the same way? Because there is nothing to handle?

I don't agree that Obama's eligibility should hing on his father, did we hold GWB accountable for his Nazi financing/sympathizing father? You have had years to prove this case, both in court and in the public area, and you have failed outright.

reply to post by kaylaluv

But please tell me which article/section/amendment of the constitution states that to be a "natural born citizen", you have to have two parents who are U.S. citizens. I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. What I do see is that if you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen of the U.S. I also see a distinction for "naturalized citizens", but no requirements for being a "natural born citizen".

You will find the answer here

Law of Nations

THe ebook is also easy to find. Ebook

It may take some reading to find the right part. In the old days to be considered educated one had to read many books. Now we just watch video's I think.

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Actually a big part of this is simply that GA is po'd that the feds took them to court over the immigration law they past. Paybacks...

The president can't go to every loony judge's hearings about such ridiculous accusations. If they want to try the case they don't need him to be there. Think about it for a moment people, the president has said and released documents that he was born here publicly, why do they need him there to prove he didn't? Just go ahead and present the case that he wasnt born an American citizen and if you do then he should defend himself. Its a bunch of bs because they know the case is baseless.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Republicans understand they don't have a chance to win the election, so they are resorting to activist judges to circumvent the vote. This is indeed interesting.

Not true. This issue has been around for years, and FINALLY a court is hearing the proper argument. NOT that his birth certificate is fake, NOT that he was really born in Kenya,.....but that he may not meet the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" based upon the citizenship status of his father.

I think it really is about the Constitution and whether Obama is eligible. Don't you think that is worth consideration?

But please tell me which article/section/amendment of the constitution states that to be a "natural born citizen", you have to have two parents who are U.S. citizens. I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. What I do see is that if you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen of the U.S. I also see a distinction for "naturalized citizens", but no requirements for being a "natural born citizen".

Just because some activist judge may rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen does not mean that he is correct. I would like to see the Supreme Court's ruling on this for the most accurate interpretation.

See, that's why it is interesting. The Constitution does NOT specify the definition. WHICH IS WHY IT IS UP FOR DEBATE!!!

One compelling argument I have heard is that the framers of the Constitution didn't feel they needed to specify, because there was a clearly understood meaning at the time (based upon some common understandings of the time period, and some sort of common laws, stemming out of England, perhaps? I can't recall off the top of my head). I believe there have been cases before the Supreme Court that have required them to further clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I don't have time to look for it now; maybe I will later. Or you could. :-)

Originally posted by Liquesence
I just saw the local news 5 minutes ago (i live in GA), and they just reported that the judge has NOT decided anything.

Not sure where this blog info comes from, but i think the news would say if he was not going to be on the ballot.

And they even had a clip of Orly Taitz.

Can tell the news thinks this a big joke, and is mocking these birthers, and their argument.

Also the reason why you don't see this plastered on the front page of every news media outlet available...if it were about Newt though it would be everywhere...

reply to post by Annee

I'm sorry - - but I just don't think he was cleared and approved to be president without some kind of validation.

That is the common misconception, and I have posted much research in previous threads over the last couple of years.

There is absolutely no vetting process for a Presidential Candidate, other than what his/her opponents do. The Secret Service that are willing to give their lives to protect the guy have been through extensive background checks, polygraphs, had all their previous friends, relatives, and neighbors interviewed, and their entire background from gradeschool through college gone over with a fine tooth comb, but the only people vetting the presidential candidates are his/her opponents, and they do not have the legal authority to pull transcripts or force an interview with anybody that doesn't want to cooperate.

By "cooperative" I mean exactly what he campaigned on. TRANSPARENCY! Why did he seal his college transcripts? Why didn't he provide the B/C immediately? Why did the Proclamation not call him a Natural Born Citizen? Why did he work so hard to seal the Whitehouse Visitor logs? Why is the guy who campaigned on transparency so guarded? What does he have to hide?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

 

I'm sorry - - but I just don't think he was cleared and approved to be president without some kind of validation.

That is the common misconception, and I have posted much research in previous threads over the last couple of years.

There is absolutely no vetting process for a Presidential Candidate

Yes - - I did read that.

But - - do we really know that? How do we know that?

Imo it doesnt matter how bullcrap the claim is. obama was ordered to go to court and not doing so means he is guilty. thats how the justice system works. if i miss a court date regardless of how absurd the claim then i am guilty nothing more nothing less. and calling GEORGIA racist and saying its a redneck sate? you must be retarded since they are about 30% black.


ONCE AGAIN. IF HE IGNORES THE COURT DATE THEREFORE HE IS GUILTY.

it doesnt matter what the claim is. it could be that he eats white babies or that he molested sarah palin. it doesnt matter. if he doesnt show up in court that means he is GUILTY.


Edit: on another topic. i was born in Romania in 1990 and both my mother and father were american citizens. would i be able to run for president?

The question is will dems change parties and vote for Commander Ron Paul with this change?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl=See, that's why it is interesting. The Constitution does NOT specify the definition. WHICH IS WHY IT IS UP FOR DEBATE!!!

Thank you. That is the point i have been ranting about for years.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit

www.sodahead.com...

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College

Is this a sign of how desperate birthers are getting? Claiming a April Fool's joke is real?

www.snopes.com...