Breaking News: Judge Doesn't Rule, Secretary of State Doesn't Agree - Obama NOT off

No ruling in ‘birther' challenge

After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.

Click this

As the majority of people in that "other" thread can't seem to read what the mod inserted I'll make this VERY clear:

All the birther claims that some major thing happened in GA are, like all other birther claims, untrue.

The amount of crazy debunked stuff on that other birther thread makes a complete mockery of the ATS motto, "Deny Ignorance". You see, you have to deny it, even when you don't LIKE the truth. It's no good to deny it ONLY when it suits you.

Don't just spread around BS because it suits your agenda, that makes "denying ignorance" harder.

If you want "truth" don't spread lies and misinformation.

good of you to change.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


It's a parody of the other thread title, you know the top thread on the entire site right now:

"Judge Has Ruled, Secretary Of State Agrees, Obama Off Of Ballot In Georgia!!!!!!"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Obama will be our president for a few more years.

It's a hard thing to live with, I know.

Maybe in four years people will be smarter about who they vote for...

I doubt it, though.

I agree, his citizenship doesn't matter, it's a distraction to keep potential voters from researching his actual actions while in office untill November rolls around, just as it has been for a long, long time now. It's his way, distract with a non issue and the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, simple yet genius


reply to post by applesthateatpeople

Ha, yeah. He signed the ndaa, (after lying bout it) took us to war without any approval but the un's, and recently sent 12,000 of our troops over to police said country as they try to take back what was stolen from them....and the only thing people can come up with... Is that he isn't natural born? How about making the case that he has the policies of Satan to start off with

Unless of course he started this birthed stuff himself, as an intelligent person would. (Avery ruthless, intelligent man)

reply to post by IFeelForty


Nope.

It's just one of many ways a group of well-funded right-wingers are trying to destroy someone, someone they don't care about, but someone who has the power they want.

This is the John McCain "n**ger baby" thing all over again. This is Whitewater all over again. It's not Watergate. It's also not a distraction from the left.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Oh horse #, he should've been impeached by now if that's all they wanted. Damn well have the grounds for it for Christ sake

I'm guessing the whole Birther issue is just something made up by the evil liberal media and George Soros so people won't see what a horrible president he has been? Sometimes I can't help but laugh hysterically at some of the stuff I read on here, the sad thing is, that some of you may believe what I wrote. Deny ignorance indeed.

reply to post by IFeelForty

I agree, his citizenship doesn't matter,

See, that's where we differ. I think the issue does matter to a lot of Americans.

I am not a "birther", because I don't believe in the birth conspiracy. Let's just all agree--he was born in Hawaii.

The issue of the definition of "natural born citizen" is actually NOT about any type of birth conspiracy. It's about interpreting the phrase in the Constitution that lists requirements to be president.

NO ONE, even Obama, would disagree with one fact: his father was not a citizen when he was born.

There really IS a question about what the framers of the Constitution intended when they specified that a president must be a "natural born citizen".

An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]

Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:


If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[20]

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice each time it says "parentS" or "child of "citizenS". Plural.

I know that someone is going to reply with their OWN links, showing opinions that say that being born on American soil is good enough. I've seen them. We could debate this all day.

My point is this: everyone--please STOP dismissing this case as the "crazy birthers" who hate Obama. That is certainly not how I would characterize myself. I think this is an interesting Constitutional question, even though I doubt that anything will come of this case--even if a judge in Georgia DOES rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen based upon his interpretation of the law, the Constitution, and other court cases/precidence.

So yes, his citizenship DOES matter.

Originally posted by IFeelForty
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Oh horse #, he should've been impeached by now if that's all they wanted. Damn well have the grounds for it for Christ sake

Bull#. State one legitimate reason for impeachment.... Legitimate not some racist birther tea bagger crap.

Here's another shining example of ATS failing to deny ignorance.

Newt Gingrich: "Let's allow terrorist attacks to happen." - Ron Paul ad

Found to be totally taken out of context by page 2 yet ignored for 5 more pages until the thread died.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Unfortunately, for you at least, most historical and scholarly research on the topic says a child born "in" the United states is only required to have one parent be a US citizen. That's fine by me, if you are born in America, to an American, you are a natural born citizen, especially, IMHO, if that American citizen is the mother that carried you around for nine months. Sort of like how you are only really Jewish if you are born by a Jewish mother.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


I have to ask though, what's the point? As you have pointed out the definition of natural-born citizen (personally I interpret it as anyone with birthright citizenship). The reason that part of the Constitution was included was to keep wealthy British subjects from coming to America and buying power. Now it's true that Obama's father was a British national. However, Obama's parents had divorced by the time he was two. He never met his father. He was born in America and spent most of his life here. While I could understand the argument if he was born overseas and spent most of his life there, the truth is that Obama is as American as me or most of the members on here.

According to the video, the lawyers are to submit briefs on February 5th. The judge will make a ruling some time after that.

This whole birther thing has gotten ridiculous. It won't surprise me if the decision goes against Orly Taitz, et al and they find themselves in court facing malicious litigation charges and disbarment.

Personally I dont think obama is a true American citizen, we have all seen his bogus birth certificate and we know that the hospital denies knowledge of his birth there.

In addition, I would like to point out this fact, conspiracy theories only exist when important questions are not answered. Therefore there is definately a conspiracy theory here, and indeed a conspiracy to hide the truth it seems. We also know the sherriff investigating the birth certificate issie has had his life threatened, so someone wants him to back off.

That said, I dont know if the judge has stated if Barry is not allowed to run. But IMO and in the opinion of the law which clearly states no "non-American person can be president" he certainly should not be allowed to enter the race until such matters are properly cleared up.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl




His citizenship IS important, I agree with you.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
There really IS a question about what the framers of the Constitution intended when they specified that a president must be a "natural born citizen".

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]
en.wikipedia.org...

This phrase could be interpreted a couple different ways.

"Those" born of "citizens"... Yes, they are both plural, but they were talking about people of the country... plural. So naturally, both words are plural, because there are potentially millions of people ("those") and millions of parents ("citizens"). If you're talking about an individual, it could be a child of a citizen. It could be said that I am a child of a citizen, so I am included in this phrase.

If both parents' citizenship was important, then wouldn't Vattel have said "Those born of two citizens"?

I know that someone is going to reply with their OWN links, showing opinions that say that being born on American soil is good enough. I've seen them.

It's all just opinion, as the Supreme Court has not ruled on this case.

But a lot of people talk about the intention of he founding fathers and the purpose behind their wording... Do you really think they intended for a person, born of a natural-born citizen, on US soil not to be considered a natural-born citizen? And if so, wouldn't they have made that distinction?

My point is this: everyone--please STOP dismissing this case as the "crazy birthers" who hate Obama.

There is no reason to take this seriously. And most of the movement ARE just people who want Obama out for whatever reason they can manufacture. Obama was born of a natural born citizen on US soil. There is no question about his status as a natural-born citizen.

"All persons born or naturalized..." in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. - 14th Amendment.

There are two kinds of US citizens. Born (born here naturally) or Naturalized (not born here, but became a citizen through a process.)

Obama was BORN here, not naturalized.

I don't know what will happen in this case. I doubt this judge or the Secretary of State can make the decision to remove a president from the general election ballot, but it doesn't matter if he's on the Georgia primary ballot or not. He will be the Democratic Nominee.

As a poster above stated, look at his damn policies! Stop dancing to this engineered kabuki theatre. You actually think voting matters anyway?

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Unfortunately, for you at least, most historical and scholarly research on the topic says a child born "in" the United states is only required to have one parent be a US citizen. That's fine by me, if you are born in America, to an American, you are a natural born citizen, especially, IMHO, if that American citizen is the mother that carried you around for nine months. Sort of like how you are only really Jewish if you are born by a Jewish mother.

No one is arguing that he is not a citizen. Not even me.

Edit: Of course, I know that there ARE those who are questioning if he is even a citizen at all...that is not the issue here, however, which is what I meant.

Chester A Arthur's Dad was born in Ireland.

And he was a Republican.

It wasn't a secret and was not in anyway seen as controversial.

Birtherism is political propaganda. Nothing more.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by IFeelForty

 

My point is this: everyone--please STOP dismissing this case as the "crazy birthers" who hate Obama.

The birther movement started as soon as Obama became a serious candidate for President. They have tried and tried and tried to find ANY evidence that he is not eligible to be president. They have even manufactured such 'evidence' more than once.

They have NEVER produced ANYTHING that supports this assertion. These attempts are so ridiculous at this point they are merely amusing.

So yes, his citizenship DOES matter.

Agreed. And he is one.

As has been stated, the Constitution provides for two types of Citizen - Natural born (born on US soil) and Naturalized (born elsewhere).

The birthers want to introduce a third type, not in the Constitution - Born here, but not really a citizen. This is pure hokum.