You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
Quote from jem:
according to the plaintiffs lawyer.
Obama's motion to quash was denied by the Georgia Court.
Obama is to appear and produce the subpoenaed evidence.
--
Obama lawyer is now making some vapid statements about Obama not having to produce anything because presidential elections are a federal matter.
Which is going to be laughed at by a state court judge... because the states run elections.
-
the upcoming hearings are going to be very interesting.
It may come down to this..
Does Obama have the duty to produce proof of eligibility or does the the plaintiff have to produce evidence of ineligibility.
The judges answer will determine who wins this round.
There will be an appeal.
I believe the answer is the following.
1. The candidate must produce some proof.
2. The georgia elector could argue against it.
3. The state or court will have to determine what evidence is need to prove NBC.
The state really does not want to define NBC.
So this could be an easy case for Obama.
All he would have to do is produce and authenticate an birth certificate.
I hope he does. I really do not want to see Hillary on the ticket. She might help the dems in the senate.
Not sure which is more retarded. Being a birther , or being a birther because you hope the birth certificate is real (doh!), so Hellery won't get on the ticket!!
sheeesh.
Quote from jem:
this is your troll bullshit at work.
Stu quotes a District Attorney in previous post and then writes the above.
stu the ignorant troll.
here is is his quote...
---
"...Where was the law currently applied? Well, where the f#k do you think the law was currently applied.
What is the law as it now stands? What the f#k do you think the law is as it now stands.
William Rawle. United States district attorney from 1791.
"every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.""
---
Notice you still do not show us where the law was applied.
Why? because you are fricken troll... you know damn well the law has not been applied to Obama or anyone else running for president.
you lie... and the facts show it.
I can't help it if you cannot comprehend what is being said and in what order it is said in.
The law IS applied and it IS applied as it stands. That is what I said and that much is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain cell.
However, it isn't obvious to you , which speaks for itself.
The law on eligibility is applied, is currently applied as it stands, in each State and by the Constitution.
As a birther you want the law altered, adjusted, or understood differently than it already is, but you'll need very strong foundation although you've nothing, no argument no grounds, not even a sensible discussion. Just some lame assed birth certificate bullshit.
You asked the asinine question..."Where was the law currently applied?"
Separate to the law being applied as it stands, is the quote from William Rawle United States district attorney 1791 who at the time the Constitution had just been ratified, and as the United States DA, explained in clear and precise terms, what natural born means as it applies to the Constitution.
- "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, .."
It's fair to say he alone, would have far more idea about what the Constitution intended by using the term natural born than any birther does 200 years later.
Not to mention all the fundamental legal maxims which have always been understood before and after the Constitution that reinforce William Rawle's statement.
As a birther and an idiot you can't even follow what is being said in the posts of this thread , can't even acknowledge the importance of William Rawle and the Constitution, but can follow what wingnuts like Taitz come up with.
That's what the facts show.
Quote from stu:
Not sure which is more retarded. Being a birther , or being a birther because you hope the birth certificate is real (doh!), so Hellery won't get on the ticket!!
sheeesh.
You are now officially a faggot as well as a troll.
What a fricken fag you are... a court is now having a hearing on these issues... Which is what I was predicting for years... because the law has not been defined and Obama has not submitted proof of anything to a state body... and you still call me a birther.
You Stu... define faggot troll.
Quote from stu:
I can't help it if you cannot comprehend what is being said and in what order it is said in.
The law IS applied and it IS applied as it stands. That is what I said and that much is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain cell.
However, it isn't obvious to you , which speaks for itself.
The law on eligibility is applied, is currently applied as it stands, in each State and by the Constitution.
As a birther you want the law altered, adjusted, or understood differently than it already is, but you'll need very strong foundation although you've nothing, no argument no grounds, not even a sensible discussion. Just some lame assed birth certificate bullshit.
You asked the asinine question..."Where was the law currently applied?"
Separate to the law being applied as it stands, is the quote from William Rawle United States district attorney 1791 who at the time the Constitution had just been ratified, and as the United States DA, explained in clear and precise terms, what natural born means as it applies to the Constitution.
- "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, .."
It's fair to say he alone, would have far more idea about what the Constitution intended by using the term natural born than any birther does 200 years later.
Not to mention all the fundamental legal maxims which have always been understood before and after the Constitution that reinforce William Rawle's statement.
As a birther and an idiot you can't even follow what is being said in the posts of this thread , can't the importance of acknowledge William Rawle and the Constitution, but you can follow what wingnuts like Taitz come up with.
That's what the facts show.
First of all we were talking about the U.S. Supreme court. Now you wish to change it to what... some fictious idea that the state have defined NBC and applied it to Obama? Are you on troll meds?
Two, even if you want to play games... All you have to do is produce one situation where Obama was vetted by a state court or state election board.
Guess what... his team would have asked the Georgia court to take judicial notice of the other states rulings.
---
besides troll... I already gave you this info from wikipedia and it speaks of rawle's quote but also shows others.
U.S. government officials in the Civil War era
[edit]John Bingham
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12]
[edit]Edward Bates
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[13][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[14][italics in original]
[edit]Treatises and academic publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that
every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.[15]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
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, âno person, except a native-born citizenâ; 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 ânative-born citizenâ is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, ânative citizenâ 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]
[edit]Contemporary interpretations
Plenty of invective as usual but nothing sensible to say.Quote from jem:
You are now officially a faggot as well as a troll.
What a fricken fag you are... a court is now having a hearing on these issues... Which is what I was predicting for years... because the law has not been defined and Obama has not submitted proof of anything to a state body... and you still call me a birther.
You Stu... define faggot troll.
So by your own admission now, the law IS currently being applied.
Thatâll be why you asked the brain dead question "Where is the law currently being applied"
Come on try again 1+1=2
Can you do it?
Quote from jem:
First of all we were talking about the U.S. Supreme court. Now you wish to change it to what... some fictious idea that the state have defined NBC and applied it to Obama? Are you on troll meds?
Two, even if you want to play games... All you have to do is produce one situation where Obama was vetted by a state court or state election board.
Guess what... his team would have asked the Georgia court to take judicial notice of the other states rulings.
---
besides troll... I already gave you this info from wikipedia and it speaks of rawle's quote but also shows others.
U.S. government officials in the Civil War era
[edit]John Bingham
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12]
[edit]Edward Bates
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[13][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[14][italics in original]
[edit]Treatises and academic publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that
every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.[15]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
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, âno person, except a native-born citizenâ; 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 ânative-born citizenâ is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, ânative citizenâ 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]
[edit]Contemporary interpretations
You are still reading things not being written. Try to learn how to read what is actually down there in words. It will help you not to make such a dickhead of yourself all the time.
You don't think a candidate has been vetted properly and is ineligible? Then take it to court. That's how the law gets applied. You think it should be different to that fine, but you've nothing to say why apart from the dumbassed groundless and confused opinions of a birther.
No one is disagreeing with William Rawle on the U.S. Constitution. Copying and pasting again , as if you were making some point or other?
Quote from stu:
Plenty of invective as usual but nothing sensible to say.
So by your own admission now, the law IS currently being applied.
Thatâll be why you asked the brain dead question "Where is the law currently being applied"
Come on try again 1+1=2
Can you do it?
what a troll you are... now you are not only and obama loon.. but a game playing loon.
I was the one who told you this georgia court might apply the law for the first time. They have not yet-- it is due to start being applied on the 26th.
Quote from stu:
You are still reading things not being written. Try to learn how to read what is actually down there in words. It will help you not to make such a dickhead of yourself all the time.
You don't think a candidate has been vetted properly and is ineligible? Then take it to court. That's how the law gets applied. You think it should be different to that fine, but you've nothing to say why apart from the dumbassed groundless and confused opinions of a birther.
No one is disagreeing with William Rawle on the U.S. Constitution. Copying and pasting again , as if you were making some point or other?
It is being taken to court --- right now in Georgia.
you and your loser loons acted like a court would never hear these issues.
you are now losing on an epic scale.
Obama's motion to quash the subpoena was apparently denied by the Georgia judge.
Wow. The implication of those comments made over 100 years ago are damning to Obama. Especially those by Alexander Porter Morse.Quote from jem:
First of all we were talking about the U.S. Supreme court. Now you wish to change it to what... some fictious idea that the state have defined NBC and applied it to Obama? Are you on troll meds?
Two, even if you want to play games... All you have to do is produce one situation where Obama was vetted by a state court or state election board.
Guess what... his team would have asked the Georgia court to take judicial notice of the other states rulings.
---
besides troll... I already gave you this info from wikipedia and it speaks of rawle's quote but also shows others.
U.S. government officials in the Civil War era
[edit]John Bingham
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12]
[edit]Edward Bates
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[13][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[14][italics in original]
[edit]Treatises and academic publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that
every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.[15]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
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, âno person, except a native-born citizenâ; 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 ânative-born citizenâ is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, ânative citizenâ 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]
[edit]Contemporary interpretations
I have to believe that the definition of a "natural born citizen" is of paramount importance to the country and should be addressed as soon as possible by the Supreme Court. I don't understand why the courts are dancing around this issue and have been for the last 4 years.
One way or another, we need an answer from SCOTUS.