``Shocking revelations`` coming on Obama birth certificate in forum [FedUp]
Ben
Posts: 6205
Incept: 2009-10-09
The Distant, Glorious, Past
"Parents is referenced, meaning two citizen parents are required to confer natural born citizenship."
Clearly no one here understands that more recent rulings supercede older rulings until an appeal is heard to settle the matter.
That's how law works. It's X until someone rules Y at a later date and then an appeal is heard to settle X or Y or Z.
Quote:
“Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
regardless of the status of his father.
As I have written many times, you all selectively chose your support to justify your bias and you ignore more recent rulings that you simply do not like.
Your point of view is based upon bias, prejudice and irrationality.
Ignoring the more recent rulings for ones from 1874, or 1795, or 1790, or..., because you like and prefer the conclusion from 1874 more than the recent ruling, that's just illogical. It's also contrary to how law works.
You are biased, you then engage in logical fallacies and poor reasoning and debate form to seek justification for this bias, and this negates your arguments because of the poor logic therein.
I am 100% convinced that no matter what any court in the USA rules, you will still hold your biased and prejudiced opinions because you are right and the law is wrong.
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
Please quote either a recent a recent Supreme Court case that supersedes Minor v Happerstett that talks about the issue of citizenship. I will research the Fed Statue that was in force when Obama was born and give you the cite.
I am 100% convinced that no matter what any court in the USA rules, you will still hold your biased and prejudiced opinions because you are right and the law is wrong.
That's the same "law" that threw Bill Clinton in prison for perjury, Charlie Rangel in prison for tax evasion, and Jon Corzine in prison for misappropriation of client funds, right?
Quote:
"There is no law in McMinn County."
----------
==== If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?
A hearing has been scheduled in a Florida court to allow attorneys representing the White House to support their claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.
Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from both sides of a challenge to Obama’s name on the 2012 state election ballot.
Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.
Attorney Larry Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
Klayman told WND that during a hearing today on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.
Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875. Lewis ordered further briefing on the issue before the hearing.
Here is the informationto which I was referring. It primarily deals with children born overseas, which makes it important as to where exactly Obama was born. Heck even his grandmother says he was born in Kenya.... Anyway, here you go:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Immigration and Nationality Act, TITLE III, Section 301, Paragraph(g).
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date”
Jack_crabb
Posts: 2425
Incept: 2010-06-25
Peoples' Republik of Maryland
Quote:
Clearly no one here understands that more recent rulings supercede older rulings until an appeal is heard to settle the matter.
That's how law works. It's X until someone rules Y at a later date and then an appeal is heard to settle X or Y or Z.
That is an arrogant statement, and demonstrably false.
Quote:
As I have written many times, you all selectively chose your support to justify your bias and you ignore more recent rulings that you simply do not like.
Your point of view is based upon bias, prejudice and irrationality.
Yet your view is correct, and you have no biases.
Quote:
You are biased, you then engage in logical fallacies and poor reasoning and debate form to seek justification for this bias, and this negates your arguments because of the poor logic therein.
I am 100% convinced that no matter what any court in the USA rules, you will still hold your biased and prejudiced opinions because you are right and the law is wrong.
I'd really like to see you cite some case law instead of spewing a bunch of bull****. Seriously, I generally respect your posts and your opinions, but Pika-steph (and others) are owning you in this particular thread.
“The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position
The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated;
We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.
The petitioners legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.
The above are selected, verbatim, passages from the ruling.
Now, I fully expect all of you to simply dismiss this. This is a ruling, it's case law, it's from a few weeks ago.
A few weeks ago.
That's fine, but that means you disregard legal rulings from case law that you do not like.
That means that you are biased, prejudiced and that your arguments are illogical and irrational.
Your beliefs and interpretation of the law are just wrong with regards to Obama's father's status. You want one thing, the current ruling rules another.
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
Ben
Posts: 6205
Incept: 2009-10-09
The Distant, Glorious, Past
Quote:
So If I'm a stupid judge and I rule that Obama should be King because he is acting like one— that would make it so? REALLY??
Yes. Until it is overturned, that is what The Law is...a collection of prior rulings. In your instance it would never pass even a cursory review and would be struck down in a matter of hours by another judge/court.
The Law is just - The Law.
It isn't 'Right', 'Ethical', 'Moral', 'Just', 'Smart', 'Sensible' or 'What I/You Want it to Be'.
It is simply a collection of rulings that make the rules for a society. It's just one long program. Do this then that. Do not do this or...
And currently the most recent ruling in this matter, vis-a-vis Masin, from a few weeks ago, is that Obama's father's status is a non-issue.
Quote:
and here I always thought that the CONSTITUTION had the FINAL SAY on what is legal or not
thanks for clearing that up Ben
/sarc
You are welcome. Yes, you are wrong.
The Constitution is not to be invoked by YOU to selectively discard what you do not like in the legal code and collected case law.
In order for a law to be changed, a judge must rule using the Constitution to over-turn. If they do not, then the law remains.
You do not get to overturn laws/rulings in your head because your interpretation of The Constitution says that you can ignore the laws/rulings you do not like.
Also your interpretation of The Constitution is wrong and contrary to what case law, legal rulings, and other rulings, such as Masin, have decided.
You want YOUR interpretation of the Constitution to supersede current case law. Well, that's not reality. The case law interprets The Constitution to mean something other than what you believe it to mean, what you want it to mean.
That is not how it works and to want your interpretation to be the one accepted when it is contrary to current case law; that is irrational and illogical and a belief system based upon your bias and prejudice.
I get it.
You think X, and you don't care that the current courts rule otherwise.
That's fine, but then I can fairly call you illogical and biased and engaging in a goal-seeking belief system not based in reason, reality or The Law as it is currently composited.
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
Ben
Posts: 6205
Incept: 2009-10-09
The Distant, Glorious, Past
Your bias continues to blind you.
I am wasting my time.
This is from a case law ruling. It is law, IOW.
Quote:
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.
Do you understand the above passage is taken verbatim from a NJ Court ruling? Ergo this is case law.
You want the ruling to be other than it is.
Well, a judge in NJ ruled otherwise.
So do you accept the rule of law when you do not agree with the ruling, or not?
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
further — this would be akin to an EX POST FACTO LAW as this is the ONLY ruling of its kind and all the others BEFORE it stated that BOTH parents be US Citizens
so what you are saying that this judge's ruling supersedes all other rulings before it AND the Constitution AND is OK that it is Ex Post Facto
----------
Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Mahatma Gandhi
Whewt
Posts: 2295
Incept: 2008-03-17
Lake Bonneville Shoreline!
In the NJ citation above, the judge ruled that IF BO were born in HI, he would be a NBC regardless of the status of his father. However he did not rule that BO WAS born in HI and therefore is a NBC. Recall that no BC was before the court and it was stipulated that the electronic BC that the WH issued was not being admitted as evidence. That is why the Photoshop expert was not allowed to testify concerning the validity of the WH digital BC copy.
Because US v Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply here, if it did, Obama lawyers would cite the case as to why two citizen parents are not needed to confer natural born citizenship.
wrt whether both parents needed to be citizens, explicitly cited Wong Kim Ark to make the case that both parents do NOT need to be for a person to be an NBC.
It's literally in Masin's ruling brief. He literally cites this case.
It applies here, because a judge in a court of law applied it and cited it.
What you want or believe is irrelevant.
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
Wearedoomed
Posts: 3584
Incept: 2009-01-14
slightly red state
Comrades! Please, do not be fooled by all of those evil capitalist pigs who cite the Constitution. As well, all of the talk about the lack of a ruling at the appellate level is mere propaganda; a first-level state judge is enough to support our righteous cause. Trust that our Glorious Leader has nothing but our best interests in mind, and also that He is our One True Leader!
Now, Comrades, join together in the celebration of our national anthem. You are hereby commanded to stay well away from the portrait of Chairman Obamao, and you must also clean up when you finish. Arise!
----------
And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Ben
Posts: 6205
Incept: 2009-10-09
The Distant, Glorious, Past
Quote:
All of those...who cite the Constitution.
Irrelevant.
It only matters if a judge cites the Constitution in a ruling. You armchair judges are irrelevant.
You are entitled to your opinion but that does not mean that your arguments matter, are real, are truthful, comprise the law, or are logical.
Especially when you simply ignore a very recent ruling, because the level of the court does not meet your standards.
Well, that's not how the law works. It does not matter what level the court is, or if said level meets with your contempt; it just matters that one DID make a ruling.
----------
"Why are you going to learn French?" "Because I'm going to France," says Joe. "I'm from the future. You should go to China."
The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist."
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."
"Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President."
She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."
Avianphlu
Posts: 3951
Incept: 2008-12-03
Ulster NY
ben these arguments are futile imho
to me, he is a proven liar, document forger, obfuscator, communist, agitator, illegal drug user admittedly, conspirator to defraud the public, the list goes on and on.
all these make him morally and ethically unfit to serve as commander in chief.
RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
