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

Why isn't this in the Hoax bin yet?

Oh yeah, because ATS is a right-wing heavy board. Spread all the lies you want.

In the very unlikely event that the judge decides against Obama, there will be a Constitutional issue .... not from the "natural born citizen" issue but from the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV, sec. 1). The State of Hawaii has clearly certified that Obama was born there; two Governors and the Directors of the State Health Dept and the State Vital Records Office have publicly attested to the authenticity of those records. Any contrary decision involves a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

23 pages over an internet blog rumor :shk:

There is no ruling yet...this thread is hilarious.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


What kind if booger eating moron just up and decides a whole state is a specific stereotype?Should I say California is entirely crazy because of idiotic laws or the oft lauded 9th circuit court?
He violated state law which superseded his authority inside that state.They have enacted their choice of penalty.

You can see who are obvious Obummer supporters here.... sad that you guys are willing to let the country burn with him in the drivers seat..... sorry, but its true, and you will destroy your own country by voting for this sadistic man....

reply to post by candcantiques

What you dont get and actually refuse to even try to understand is if a person born in this country is a citizen of both China and the USA they ARE NOT ELIGABLE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Obama at birth was a citizen of Kenya AND the United States. HE IS NOT NOR WILL HE EVER BE ELIGIABLE

"What you dont get and actually refuse to even try to understand is if" your assertion had even the slightest hint of truth, then EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE MORE POWER TO DECIDE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT than any one in the United States.

What you are saying is that if China or North Korea or Iran or Cuba or France or Papua New Guinea decided to make anyone, say, born on a day that ends with the letter 'y', a citizen of their country, that that would make each and every one of those persons ineligible to be President.

You are explicitly claiming that foreign law is more important than American law, even on American soil and pertaining to American citizens, and that claim is not only factually wrong, it is specifically anti-Constitutional and un-American.

reply to post by candcantiques

It's not really hard to go to the link I provided and actually read the entire article.

Not disputing that the article says what you say it does. We're disputing that the article has its facts straight. Which it doesn't.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

According to the article, the judge will make no ruling in regard to Obama being on the ballot. He will make a recommendation to the state Secretary of State, Brian Kemp. Whatever that recommendation is and whether Kemp follows it remains to be seen.

Exactly right. And even if the Judge makes the highly controversial decision to rule against Obama, the chances of the Secretary of State doing it are slim to none.

I know many are really getting their hopes up, and it is fun to watch, but we should all know the chances of this are about the same as hitting the lottery.

And, as others have said, Obama never planned to carry Georgia anyway, it isn't much of a blow, except as a precedent for other states.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
23 pages over an internet blog rumor :shk:

There is no ruling yet...this thread is hilarious.

OS and most likely that Judge will not rule on this issue, so basically even though Obama didn't show up in court on the 26th as stated, the judge will not have the balls to make this "Default Ruling".

I for one could give to squats about the birther issue's, what I was looking for was how each side was following legal protocol, and from what I see I am very disappointed in our President. And the group that filed the complaint didn't use ethical tactics either, but it was filed.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
But, his BC has so much doubt cast over it, and the Hawaiian Officials made bold claims and then backed off,

Which of these bold claims did they make and then back off from? Do you have a source? Are you denying that Hawaiian health department officials verified the authenticity of both Obama's long form and short form birth certificates?

I've said many times, it is far too late to impeach

Birthers have had ample time to present their cases, they've done so already over a period of 96 lawsuits. They have not presented any compelling evidence, any solid evidence, to demonstrate that Obama is ineligible. We're still waiting. Demanding the president provide the evidence to support your accusations doesn't make sense either.

The important things going forward are to clarify some legislation about who is supposed to be vetting candidates, and defeat Obama in the election with a decent GOP candidate. That is where the attention should be focused.

I think it's a very bad idea to lay your hopes on the birther cause making Obama's presidency one term, they have not been all that successful over the years, and they won't be after this court case.

On December 15th this year, the electoral college and congress will have to once again verify the winner of the general elections. If Obama wins the general elections again, December 15th would be the next best day for birthers to make their move, lobby their delegates and senators, and make a case. I doubt they'd be successful even if they try this, but this would logically be the best time.

Originally posted by mrlqban

"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.

I respectfully disagree. This decision does not say that you cannot be a natural born citizen if you don't have citizen parents. It says native or natural born "as distinguished from aliens and foreigners", not as distinguished from regular ole' citizens. It also says that "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens". It doesn't say "natural born" citizens, so apparently they ARE interchanging "citizen" with "natural born citizen".

Let's not forget the original intent of this case. The intent was to decide if a woman could vote if she was a citizen, NOT if a candidate could run for office. If you look at intent, you can't really compare this decision with whether or not Obama is eligible to run for president. In the last sentence of your quote they are referring to the fact that the constitution does not say that just because a person is a citizen, it gives them the right to vote - it just means they are a member of the nation. Hence, the 19th amendment was born. Apples to oranges here.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


Backwoods idiots my ass! How dare you determine that?
It is about time people stand for what is right and might!

The blog appears to be releasing hoaxed information (or else the blogger simply doesn't understand what he's reading.) The judge has ruled but has not released the ruling yet: mableton.11alive.com...

Head to Google, check the news.

None of these have succeeded before. It would be unusual if Taitz won.

reply to post by candcantiques

I will say it yet again. Obama was ordered to appear before court. He didnt. Neither did his lawyer. Does the judge actually have the option of ruling in the favor of Obama when he chose to not show up to defend himself. The judge has nmade his decision and stated so in chambers with the plantiffs. The decision has to be published but the decision has been made.

1) The judge does not make a 'ruling', he makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who may or may not follow the recommendation. This is an administrative hearing, not a trial, as some would have you believe.

2) Both sides have until February 5 to provide more information and objections. No recommendation can be decided until then.

I know what your article says. It is wrong.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
23 pages over an internet blog rumor :shk:

There is no ruling yet...this thread is hilarious.

OS and most likely that Judge will not rule on this issue, so basically even though Obama didn't show up in court on the 26th as stated, the judge will not have the balls to make this "Default Ruling".

I for one could give to squats about the birther issue's, what I was looking for was how each side was following legal protocol, and from what I see I am very disappointed in our President. And the group that filed the complaint didn't use ethical tactics either, but it was filed.

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

His lawyer filed, asking it to be dismissed (as harassing and groundless.) It's legal to not show up (people do this all the time) -- he was in Arizona. Showing up in a Georgia courtroom would have implied that her case had some merit.

Click here for more information.

What a wonderful way to rig an election huh? And look, everyone just jumps for joy here about it. I can hear you all screaming "Yes rig our election, please by all means! We are too stupid in Georgia to make our own decisions anyways, so please dictate to us who we can and cannot vote for". Not that this will actuallly come to fruition.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Byrd

 

Then put it in the hoax bin and quit pandering.

Birthers make up atleast half the membership on this forum. It wouldn't do ATS justice if they really held the birthers accountable to posting these hoaxes online, they'd lose a key part of the membership, so don't waste your breath.

Ever hear of a "write in" candidate?