Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Sounds of a birther backpedaling.

You still haven't answered why you would want it tested in court for it not to be considered yet another waste of time worthy of attracting a fine , that a child born in USA on American soil by an American mother should not be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

How exactly would that be unnatural, not born or not a citizen, you goof.

i thought you asserted you knew the law and it was tested.
You are the troll backpedaling.

---

Its been my position... I think all candidates should prove their eligibility to be on the ballot... apparently at least one court so far agrees. I have no idea what proof obama has. I also do not know what the court will consider NBC. if you review the history... its not clear. It could be two american parents. It could be one parent. It might be something else.

I have never defined it, cause I knew the law has not been ruled upon by the supreme court.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from jem:

For a few years... I have opined here on et this will not be about getting obama thrown out or invalidated.

This will be about seeing whether he runs again.
I do think that in at least one state, he will be required to provide evidence to support his eligibility. If he does not I will be surprised. I have no idea what he will submit. For all i know he could have a picture of his birth happening in the hospital in Honolulu.

If that is what is needed to provide continuity to our government then that is what will be provided, and shown, by everybody, including Fox.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from jem:



4. Now it looks like a court will apply the law and test for eligibility.
Which is a victory for all.
If the court finds Obama eligible... great... who goes on the ballot in georgia. I hope they test the Republican too.

Things aren't looking to good for you jem

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=234433

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
i thought you asserted you knew the law and it was tested.

Clearly what you thought, as usual, was based on something entirely different from what has actually been said.

The law as it stands is applied.
It has been so with every president. Birthers like you now want the law of Natural Born Citizen defined by the Supreme Court only because of the current President.

Quote from jem:
I also do not know what the court will consider NBC. if you review the history... its not clear. It could be two american parents. It could be one parent. It might be something else.

If you were interested in reviewing history at all, instead of chasing birther stuff , you would have found this right under your nose in the reference you gave....

• wiki..
  Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States
  
  The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

So even with the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicating what Natural Born Citizen means , are you so seriously unable to recognize the most self-evident things for yourself, you can't define them, but expect the Supreme Court to waste time confirming the blindingly obvious, to make case law where there is no case, for birthers like you at every turn.

 

[melonduck]

Quote from stu:

Clearly what you thought, as usual, was based on something entirely different from what has actually been said.

The law as it stands is applied.
It has been so with every president. Birthers like you now want the law of Natural Born Citizen defined by the Supreme Court only because of the current President.

He wanted the USSC to define it, then he's got it.

There is already a legal precedence by the USSC since 1898.
I posted it in the previous page, but in case anyone still missed it, here's the case:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark

"The citizenship status of Wong—a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1871—was challenged, based on a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.–born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

That was the ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1898 and it specifically said the 14th Amendment "could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

Reading through the wikipedia, there are clearly some exceptions to the Natural Born clause which is the child of foreign diplomats/ministers(people that US doesn't have jurisdiction thereof meaning diplomatic immunity) or enemies of the US.

 

[jem]

Quote from melonduck:

He wanted the USSC to define it, then he's got it.

There is already a legal precedence by the USSC since 1898.
I posted it in the previous page, but in case anyone still missed it, here's the case:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark

"The citizenship status of Wong—a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1871—was challenged, based on a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.–born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

That was the ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1898 and it specifically said the 14th Amendment "could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

Reading through the wikipedia, there are clearly some exceptions to the Natural Born clause which is the child of foreign diplomats/ministers(people that US doesn't have jurisdiction thereof meaning diplomatic immunity) or enemies of the US.

you seem to be confusing... citizenship with eligibility to be President.
They are not necessarily the same thing.

To be eligible the Constitution says you must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at time of founding. It would be pretty obvious that citizen and natural born are not the exact same thing. Now, it could be born here... or it could be one american parent or two. We do not know.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Clearly what you thought, as usual, was based on something entirely different from what has actually been said.

The law as it stands is applied.
It has been so with every president. Birthers like you now want the law of Natural Born Citizen defined by the Supreme Court only because of the current President.

If you were interested in reviewing history at all, instead of chasing birther stuff , you would have found this right under your nose in the reference you gave....

• wiki..
  Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States
  
  The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

So even with the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicating what Natural Born Citizen means , are you so seriously unable to recognize the most self-evident things for yourself, you can't define them, but expect the Supreme Court to waste time confirming the blindingly obvious, to make case law where there is no case, for birthers like you at every turn.

I am now laughing. Stu the troll citing something and that something is the CRS. When I worked as a 21 year old on the hill I could get somebody over at CRS to find out anything I wanted... and typically the way my bosses wanted it.

I bet that that will really influence the Supreme Court.
decades or centuries of work by recognized legal scholars, a few hundred years of case law. Treaties and other documents... all bypassed. Who needs it, we got stu citing wikipedia citing the CRS.

 

[melonduck]

Quote from jem:

you seem to be confusing... citizenship with eligibility to be President.
They are not necessarily the same thing.

To be eligibility the Constitution says you must be a natural born citizen.

LOL no

YOU are the one who's confusing about your own confusing.

This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:

Quote from jem:
The first issue here, is that the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

1. don't listen to the moonbats he give you the definition of citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of citizen, but no natural born citizen.

2. if the court takes up the issue... the court would likely take evidence on the subject. Evidence has to be authenticated. It may be authenticate in different ways.

3. this georgia court... it will be interesting to see if any evidence is submitted by the Obama team. I do not know where Obama was born... I would suspect he will produce authenticated evidence of his birth. I hope he does.

You have moonbats like AK 47 who are sure Obama is a natural born citizen... when legally we do not even know the definition of natural born citizen.

Lets try again
This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:

Quote from jem:
The first issue here, is that the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

How about one last time?
This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:

Quote from jem:
........ United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

And I wasn't even talking about President's eligibility.

I was refuting "YOUR FACT" about

Quote from jem:
........ United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

with USSC decision in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark


and here's your post #10

Quote from jem:
Fact:

The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

Note: don't be an idiot and cite me to some link that gives the definition of U.S. Citizen. Until the U.S. Supreme Court Rules on this subject and gives us a defintion ... there is a distinction.

Fact:

Therefore only an ignorant fool has an opinion on whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and confuses it with fact.

You asked for someone to cite you a link that actually shows US Supreme Court decision, not just definition of Natural Born.

That's exactly what I gave you.

So, who's confused now?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I am now laughing. Stu the troll citing something and that something is the CRS. When I worked as a 21 year old on the hill I could get somebody over at CRS to find out anything I wanted... and typically the way my bosses wanted it.

I bet that that will really influence the Supreme Court.
decades or centuries of work by recognized legal scholars, a few hundred years of case law. Treaties and other documents... all bypassed. Who needs it, we got stu citing wikipedia citing the CRS.

I notice whenever you are on the wrong side of the argument, everyone and everything, all evidence including any facts, even common sense itself, suddenly becomes no good and wrong, except that is for you and all that's crazy.

It should be an indication you might not be right, although in your case it'll be a certainty you're just dead wrong. Again. As usual.

You're laughing, what, like fools do.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I notice whenever you are on the wrong side of the argument, everyone and everything, all evidence including any facts, even common sense itself, suddenly becomes no good and wrong, except that is for you and all that's crazy.

It should be an indication you might not be right, although in your case it'll be a certainty you're just dead wrong. Again. As usual.

You're laughing, what, like fools do.

ok... show us the weight of legal and scholarly evidence.