Detailed market commentary at The Market Ticker and Ticker Classics
(The Year 2012 In Review)
Donations accepted; we offer GOLD ACCESS for enhanced privileges. T-Shirts, caps, coffee mugs? Click here.
BlogTalkRadio - Mondays at 3:30 Central - Yes, TickerGuy has a radio show (kinda)
RSS available You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|MarketTicker Forums Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||``Shocking revelations`` coming on Obama birth certificate; entered at 2012-06-01 01:11:08|
Registered: 2009-10-09 The Distant, Glorious, Past
I'd really like to see you cite some case law...
That you do not know the Masin ruling from LAST MONTH is not my problem.
“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 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.