Quote from stu:
Minor vs Happersett says no such thing. It makes no ruling in regard to natural born citizen.
Here, go and get some education . How many times do the words of James Madison father of the Constitution, need to be quoted to dimwits like yourself.
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States" James Madison, May 22nd, 1789.
It's where you are born, not where your father was born. This is a Republic, not a f'kng monarchy you tosspot. Birthright is not made paternally, handed down, as a king would.
Born on US soil is natural born. End of. It has always been fundamental in all western common law, totally understood by the founders and is made evident by James Madison.
Go and take some citizen courses you babbling brainless birther.
Quote from gastropod:
FAIL
Go read the decision in Minor vs Happersett. At minimum Minor vs Happersett states that there is doubt on whether a person born in the US to non-citizens is a "natural born citizen" Have you actually read the decision?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
With no respect,
gastropod
Much of the 1875 opinion has been scrubbed from the web by the Obama team. Scrubbing even occured at justia.com.Quote from euclid:
I just read it. It says that you are either a natural-born citizen or created a citizen by naturalization. Only two choices. It also says that if you're born in the US to citizen parents, you are definitely a citizen at birth, otherwise you might not be a citizen. But it doesn't go further than that in saying who is and is not granted citizenship at birth. It doesn't seem to be very helpful to the birther case.
I find the photoshopped BC and phony SS number much more interesting allegations. Have these been plausibly debunked?
Quote from gastropod:
FAIL
Go read the decision in Minor vs Happersett. At minimum Minor vs Happersett states that there is doubt on whether a person born in the US to non-citizens is a "natural born citizen" Have you actually read the decision?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
With no respect,
gastropod
Indeed, but a blog which changes the fundamental meaning of a sentence to say something it doesn't right in front of your eyes is never going to be that much worthy an opinion, but does leave James Madison firmly in tact.Quote from Lucrum:
Madison has a long list of worthy credentials, but I don't see any that automatically mean his opinion of this question trumps all else.
Quote from stu:
There is no mention whatsoever of the term "natural born citizen" in Minor vs Happersett Opinion, nor does the decision even allude to any description of it.
The only direction in that regard is that the term "citizen" is considered uniform.
Still, a birfer like yourself must make shit up otherwise you'd have even less than nothing
Quote from gastropod:
What a moron...typical Obama supporter...you apparently can't read. The term "natural born citizen" is used in the decision...either following the link I gave was to complicated for you or you just plain hate truth.
Quote from stu:
Wasn't talking about production of evidence.
Someone challenges a candidates name in court, they first need a valid challenge. Frivolous or malevolent, or in this case both those and a fuckwitted birfer challenge, don't require proofs against , you f'kn loon, because of what they are.
Administrative law judges as Malihi is in this case , don't have the authority to compel testimony. That would take an order from the Superior Court.
Take your own advice and "learn the law dipshit."
wtf seriously, are you being serious ?Quote from jem:
1. you were lying about whether obama needs to proffer evidence that he is eligible to be on the ballot. We do not care what you call it... what your loon mind needs to understand is that when challenged, a candidate will have to proffer some evidence of eligibility. (Unless the plaintiff does it for him.)
2. Lawyers in front of ALJ judges or the judges themselves do not have the power to issue subpoena's? Do you ever prefer truth to lies. Where did you get that b.s. from.