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

Originally posted by Realtruth
reply to post by Annee

 

Annee we are not talking about eligibility anymore, this is about not showing up in court and disregarding the law.

This is a serious issue.

If the President, the highest office in the United States defies the laws of the land, and does so arrogantly, then we are truly in a sad state of affairs.

I am not a Obama supporter just for the record.

On a side note, you can't arrest the president. He has certain immunities to him as being president. One of them being he can't be arrested during term in office. You people are getting worked up about nothing. The secretary of state already said yesterday she will not rule to remove him from the ballot.

C'mon guys!

21 pages of discussion and we still cannot come to a consensus on whether or not the judge made a ruling or what the constitution even says?

Well let me add to the confusion......

I think it's FACT that the judge did not make a ruling whatsoever contrary to the OP. That will come on Feb. 5th.

Also, my understanding of the constitution is that Obama would be considered eligible for the presidency as long as he was born in Hawaii as he claims, to a mother of US citizenship.

Let's also not forget that this only applies to primary ballots, not the general election.

I do not see this effecting the 2012 election in any way and I would give this issue much more thought if it weren't for Orly Taitz being involved. She chaps my hide and has no weight to bring to the argument.

Carry on citizens.....continue flaming!

Originally posted by Realtruth
Guy's from what I just read on the judges rulings, Obama is screwed.

www.art2superpac.com...

The Art2superpac - - is a disguised Birther site.

44. (Putative President) Barack Hussein OBAMA – Not an NBC. His father was a foreign national and was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama was seated due to FRAUD about his nativity story and the progressive corruption in the media of the legal meaning of NBC and the willful neglect of Congress. Obama’s father was a foreign national. His father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. His father was only sojourning in the USA attending college and went back to Kenya after completing his education. Obama claims he was born in 1961 allegedly in HI but his birth registration most likely was falsified by the maternal grandmother. No hospital record of his birth has been produced. No name of an attending physician, mid-wife, or paramedic called to the scene of a speculated home birth report exists. No independent witnesses to the claimed birth in Hawaii have ever been named or surfaced. No pre-natal care records exist in Hawaii for Obama’s mother. There is no record at all of his mother even being in Hawaii in August 1961, the alleged month of Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. A false registration of birth at home in HI with no witnesses would have generated the vital record in HI and also would have generated the two newspaper ads. Those ads were placed automatically by the state a result of all birth registrations – real or falsified. And to further contradict the Hawaiian birth nativity story of Obama, there are many accounts by Obama’s paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and Kenyan and African newspapers that Obama really was born in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. No other President in history has had so many accounts attesting to his being foreign born and/or can provide NO contemporaneous birth witnesses or evidence to corroborate their claim to U.S. birth. www.art2superpac.com...!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

reply to post by nenothtu


As I have read on the web page where this was originally posted, the judge makes a ruling and a RECOMENDATION to the Secretary of State. The SOS then decides to keep him on the ballot or not. Page one of this post gives the link to the original news story where it states that the SOS has agreed to keep his name off of the ballot.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS

I am not a Obama supporter just for the record.

On a side note, you can't arrest the president. He has certain immunities to him as being president. One of them being he can't be arrested during term in office. You people are getting worked up about nothing. The secretary of state already said yesterday she will not rule to remove him from the ballot.

So everyone understands here a Lawsuit or claim like this is not an arrest, nor a criminal case.

There is no guilty, or not guilty verdict.

reply to post by candcantiques


giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com...

I doubt Obama is to hurt over losing Georgia. And now Georgia will be considered a racist state which is they only time the MSM will mention the situation.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS

Originally posted by Realtruth
reply to post by Annee

 

Annee we are not talking about eligibility anymore, this is about not showing up in court and disregarding the law.

This is a serious issue.

If the President, the highest office in the United States defies the laws of the land, and does so arrogantly, then we are truly in a sad state of affairs.

I am not a Obama supporter just for the record.

On a side note, you can't arrest the president. He has certain immunities to him as being president. One of them being he can't be arrested during term in office. You people are getting worked up about nothing. The secretary of state already said yesterday she will not rule to remove him from the ballot.

Yes. As previously posted by many.

Presidents are exempt from frivolous lawsuits - - - or they'd be spending all their time defending themselves.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS

I am not a Obama supporter just for the record.

On a side note, you can't arrest the president. He has certain immunities to him as being president. One of them being he can't be arrested during term in office. You people are getting worked up about nothing. The secretary of state already said yesterday she will not rule to remove him from the ballot.

So everyone understands here a Lawsuit or claim like this is not an arrest, nor a criminal case.

There is no guilty, or not guilty verdict.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

Wrong again in civil court, you are given either a default judgement or a summary judgement for this particular event.

reply to post by candcantiques


Who is the real enemy of the state? A dire time we live in

The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. That means that Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia!

giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS

I am not a Obama supporter just for the record.

On a side note, you can't arrest the president. He has certain immunities to him as being president. One of them being he can't be arrested during term in office. You people are getting worked up about nothing. The secretary of state already said yesterday she will not rule to remove him from the ballot.

So everyone understands here a Lawsuit or claim like this is not an arrest, nor a criminal case.

There is no guilty, or not guilty verdict.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

Wrong again in civil court, you are given either a default judgement or a summary judgement for this particular event.

Your reaffirming what I just said, but you added what transpires.

I was trying to explain the differences, but left out what the ruling are. Thank you for posting that.

Originally posted by Annee


Presidents are exempt from frivolous lawsuits - - - or they'd be spending all their time defending themselves.

Indeed. And, judging by the Minor vs. Happersett case precedent they are submitting, I'd say this definitely qualifies as frivolous.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrlqban

Read Minor vs. Harpersett, the ONLY U.S. Supreme Court case that DEFINES what a Natural Born Citizen is by unanimous decision and also gives you a background of the idea of membership in a nation. Its a relative short decision so it shouldnt be too bad to read.. Read U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark as well (although I warn you it's a very long read) and compare this case with Minor's.

IMHO, Minor vs. Harpersett is not ironclad precedent. For example the decision reads:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “

That tells me that they did not feel the need to address whether it was REQUIRED to have U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They were simply saying you could not deny someone citizenship if they were born in the jurisdiction and had citizen parents.

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first .For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

Yes, this entire passage is about membership in the nation in our society as defined by the framers in Article II Section one. But, while at it, the Court established Minor's citizenship by defining the word "citizen", and then defining the class of “natural-born citizens” making a distinction between natural born or natives vs aliens or foreigners. The Court then mentions that those, who were not in either extreme, natives or natural born vs aliens or foreigners , might be citizens.

When defining "Citizen" the court stated that citizen should only be treated as the "idea of membership in a nation and nothing more":

"Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has
been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican
government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from
Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in
the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as
conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874)".

So whenever you see the word "citizen', you should not interchange it with natural born citizen.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Thats BS, these scumbags have been do this all over the country for three years.
They are fascists, misusing their power like they own the entire process of voting
in America.

SCUM

They are fascist?? And what would you call a President who signs a bill that allows for the detention of American Citizens without trial or due process of law, which is granted under the Constitution? Not only did this President sign such a bill, he demanded the power.

Fact is this. Most of us at one time or another have had to go to Court. When we do not show up in Court, it is typical that an arrest warrant is issued. If Obama really wanted to be on that ballot, he would have at the very least sent someone to Court on his behalf with whatever was needed to be presented to the Court. He didn't.

I once had to go to Court on a Destruction of Property charge. The "property" was my own coffee table, that I paid for and was sitting in my home. On the advice of my attorney, I had my girlfriend who lived with me at the time write a letter to the judge which stated I owned the table, I paid for it, I did indeed break it, and I had replaced the damaged property. Even as stupid as this case was, I still had to go court and present my "evidence", had I not done so I would have been convicted on the charge. It's that simple. So why should the President not have to follow the same rules as I do? Either our Legal system is the same for all or it is not.

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by Phage

 

I posted that a ton of pages back. lol
I figure people want to believe what they want to believe.

It wouldn't HURT Obama much though, electoral vote wise, anyway, b/c he didn't carry GA the first time.

In theory though, can't it present precedent if the final ruling is default for the plaintiffs. Couldn't other States make the same case?

THIS IS F******

AWESOME!!!

Am I dreaming or something? Did I die last night and wake up in heaven?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee


Presidents are exempt from frivolous lawsuits - - - or they'd be spending all their time defending themselves.

Indeed. And, judging by the Minor vs. Happersett case precedent they are submitting, I'd say this definitely qualifies as frivolous.

judging what exactly.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee


Presidents are exempt from frivolous lawsuits - - - or they'd be spending all their time defending themselves.

Indeed. And, judging by the Minor vs. Happersett case precedent they are submitting, I'd say this definitely qualifies as frivolous.

I'm very much aware of the Happersett case. Regardless - - there is zero reason for the President to make a personal appearance.

I wouldn't even expect Michelle Bachmann to make an appearance for this.

Seriously - - this is a control issue. People want to be able to control Obama. Go find your facts - - make your case - - there is still zero reason for Obama to be there in person.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president has absolute Immunity from civil lawsuits seeking damages for presidential actions. However, the Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997), that a sitting president does not have presidential immunity from suit over conduct unrelated to his official duties. The holding came in a civil suit brought by Paula Corbin Jones against President Clinton. Jones's suit was based on conduct alleged to have occurred while Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Clinton had sought to postpone the lawsuit until after he left office. The Court stated that it had never suggested that the president or any other public official has an immunity that "extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity." The Court has based its immunity doctrine on a functional approach, extending immunity only to "acts in performance of particular functions of his office." It also rejected Clinton's claim that the courts would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches if a court heard the suit. Finally, the Court rejected the president's contention that defending the lawsuit would impose unacceptable burdens on the president's time and energy. It seemed unlikely to the Court that President Clinton would have to be occupied with the Jones lawsuit for any substantial amount of time. The Court also expressed skepticism that denying immunity to the president would generate a "deluge of such litigation." In the history of the presidency, only three other presidents had been subject to civil damage suits for actions taken prior to holding office.

Presidential Immunity