Ignoring a court order is stupid. Send the lawyer, at least.

But then, the Constitution is meaningless to Obama.

Georgia is a red state, go ahead take him off the ballot. 

   Georgia want to dredge the port at Savannah, Charleston in S.C. wants to dredge Charleston. Both want fed money to do this. Guess who will get the cash?

“You don’t want to dignify this nonsense,” said Maddow.

Then why cover it , dear?

Take your own advice.

Rachel Maddow is making a joke about the truth………remember that. 

Yeah I hear that all of the toilet paper in White House bathrooms is covered with copies of the Constitution. He is fond of telling aides that he “wipes his ass with the Constitution” before droning on and on about the joys of Fascism/Communism/Socialism and any other -ism you can think of & don’t like.

If the lawyer appears, you may very well have conceded jurisdiction which this Court clearly does not have, Big Petty. I’m surprised Litttle Andy Blighphart, with his keen legal mind, didn’t tell you that.

Maddow is now part of the cover-up of the crime of the century.

What’s funny is that if you ask any birther whether they think of themselves as racist they will say no, and yet they didn’t give a crap that Reagan’s hero, Goldwater, wasn’t born in the United States. If the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Republican state government of Hawaii, Hawaii newspapers and every intelligence agency of every country in the world agree that Obama was born in Hawaii, you birthers need to suck it up and realize Obama is a duly elected leader of the United States. 

Well, you have to admit that the truth that the birthers are all deranged is funny. 

What a bunch of ignorant boobs who posted here. I want you losers to prove you were born in this country.The only thing you’ve proven here is that we must spend too much on education to get results like you. You don’t have any kind of real facts to support your psychotic assertions about issues, so you have to subject the rest of the country to your out-and-out stupidity. It’s obviously easier on you going through life being someone who is too stupid and ignorant to know you’re too stupid and ignorant.

if its a state court, they have no jurisdiction under the constitution to subpoena in this instance 

Piece of political advice for the Georgia republicans supporting this

Your not supposed to to enforce the stereotypes people have of you or your party

I’m still more curious about his college transcripts. Why have they been so carefully buried and so fiecely protected? All of them. 

Just wondering if just maybe there is the title “foreign student” somewhere in those documents. You may call me a racist now, but answer the qiestion first – why hasn’t the smartest man on the planet (according to his worshippers) not released those transcrpts.

And while we’re at it – why don’t we see anything in writing from the Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

Just wondering. Liberal name calling will commence in 3…2…1…

Yeah, that’s probably it.

Well there is the part about being a natural born citizen which historians disagree whether a natural born citizen is defined as having both parents be United States citizens. If thats the case, Obama is ineligible. Interesting case if you ask me. 

The truth is never funny. You demean them and call them birthers but they have facts which the Obama admin won’t even dispute. They think it’s better to just give up 13 delegate votes rather than defend their position. Not funny my friend or should there be name calling for people that care about this country

Why doesn’t this court have jurisdiction? The matter at hand is access to the Georgia ballot. You lie, shyster.

And when you don’t show up to defend against a claim, a common result is a default judgment against you. Right, Kook?

What if I were to call you racist because of the party that you consult with, you wouldn’t like that. Why call them birthers? THey are americans. By the way…all of these agencies do not agree with your statement. State of Georgia gave facts yesterday that were not disputed by the other side.

FACT 1 – Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence. Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence. 

FACT 2 - 
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence. Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence. RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence. 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE IN THE TRIAL – DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is QUALIFIED while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
FACT 3 – A letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama enters into evidence

There is more even his social security number that failed e-verify is of a person that was born in 1890……..

Just because you dismiss it and think it’s a joke doesn’t hide the truth. 

Just wondering where that birther Stonepark is.  This is his kind of story.

It’s not truth they have, it’s a screw loose in their head.
The birther people fall into three categories.  One, the smart ones that don’t believe it, but play off of – two, the crazy morons that believe this is true and three, dumb, racist rubes.

No one asked.

Uh, what?  No, a natural born citizen is just that.  Someone born in the USA.  Has nothing to do with their parents.  Screw your head on straight.

This is an auto reply to the reality challenged. One, or more, of the below facts pertain to your particular area of delusion. Please do not respond as the sender believes you are beyond rational debate.

Yes we landed on the moon:
There are no aliens in area 51 (probably not anyway):
The US Government did not mastermind 9/11:
President Obama was born in Hawaii:
The globe is warming:

I’m more curious as to where all these demands are for every other every piece of paperwork, every record relating to every aspect of the lives of every other president or candidate for president for the past 50 years.

Just wondering why actual evidence that’s been presented along with people coming out to say he was born in Hawaii isn’t enough (according to people who worship the birther movement).

And while we’re at it, If you disregard race, what about Obama makes him more suspect than John McCain?

Just wondering. :)

That might be the dumbest argument ever.  

Obummer thinks he is above the law…wipes his ass with the Constitution….and the liberal left defends him and calls the rest crazy!! A ploy straight out of the book “Rules for radicals” by Saul Alinsky, another disgruntled community agitator!!

Bottom line….there is good reason why Obummer didn’t show….he couldn’t…the scam would be revealed!!

Kook?

How peculiar that you treat the Birthers eith a large degree of seriousness…

Kook?

That’s almost as funny as Orly Taitz.

She should be in the Republican Presidential Nominee Race as as maybe a moderate…

Do yourself a favor and don’t embarrass yourself anymore than you already have. Who was the last presidential candidate forced to disclose his college transcripts? Answer: None of them. Do you really know how clueless you appear to be? Of course you don’t. I’m trying to help you here. Stop it. Save yourself.

If you have been out of college for a few years, employers will not ask you for your college transcripts- they realize that there is no point as you should already have some work experience. So why all the drama about his transcripts?   Who cares?  
It’s really just a wedge issue for the right to use to highlight the “secret life of Muslim, Socialist, Kenyan Obama”.  Very scary. 

President Obama ignored these morons…

Well, that’s a surprise…

The continual flatulant stream of birther madness and the Republican Party go hand in hand…

Yes, the United States Government did not properly vet Obama.  Boy they are dumb…good thing we have Georgia to fix that, they know stuff.
As an aside you are a complete and total fool for believing the social security number falsehood which has been dis-proven by real sources.  
Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp 

If you were born here, it makes you a natural born citizen. Under your premise, the first seven of eight presidents would have been ineligible because they were born citizens of England.

Yes because Obama has a real chance of Winning Georgia.  

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by an obscure 1875 Supreme Court ruling   (Minor v. Happersett)  which deffines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth..  Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there.

Come on Gloves. I know for a fact you are smarter then that!.This whole birther thing is just another falsehood and distraction. Let’s all play fair without lies trying to make Obama not one of us (American). It would make for a better Democracy. 

You’re not only an idiot, you’re an ignorant idiot.

Maddow ignored the elephant in the room. Obama just proved he is unwilling and unable to prove he is eligible for office. He put on a good smoke and mirrors magic show last April, claiming to have ordered TWO hard copies of his alleged long-form birth certificate … except that he’s too afraid to show either one in a court of law. Why did the president NOT submit a hard copy of the birth certificate??

FACT: two newspapers in Hawaii announced his birth and the hospital the day he was born 
FACT: there was no need to do that if he was born in Kenya because he would’ve been a U.S. citizen under any interpretation of the law, so the only other explanation is that his mom secretly knew that her infant would one day be president and thus needed to cover up his Kenyan birth with phony birth announcements (highly likely, no?)
FACT: if Obama were born in Kenya, then every government agency in the world would have to be in on the secret cover-up, as well as the Republican leaders of Hawaii who certified his certificate because no one except a Russian dentist and a handful of crackpot military personnel among hundreds of thousands (and believe me, most active military think the birther stuff is a joke) seem to have any “knowledge” about this
FACT: even if he was born in Kenya (he wasn’t), he would be eligible to be the president under many accepted interpretations of “natural born citizen”
FACT: you birthers are annoyingly stupid.

Obama refused to prove he was born here. Remember the Donald Trump questions and Obama’s TWO hard copies of the long-form birth certificate. Obama refused to submit this birth certificate to a court of law. He singlehandedly vindicated Trump’s skepticism about whether it’s real or not.

And the first seven presidents weren’t born “citizens of England.” They were born citizens of the states they were born in, which James Madison explained, is primary allegiance AHEAD of British subject status. Once those states declared independence, those persons became natural-born citizens of the united States.

What is happening to this country? Do we really have that many poor souls who are too stupid and ignorant to know they’re really that stupid and ignorant?

Not if the findings are that no admissible evidence was submitted to support the claim, which is the case here.

Do not wish for punishment. I personally find him toxic. I wouldn’t want him to come back. He does sometimes appears at Dick Hertz as well as other user names from what I understand.

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by an obscure 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett)  which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there

The last candidate to disclose his college transcrpts?

Bush. And Kerry.

There was much snark from the left and their media sockpuppets about Bush’s supposedly low GPA – until Kerry’s transcripts were released and his turned out to be even lower.

Heh.

And nobody’s wanting to “force” anything. I’m just wondering why this towering intellect is so reluctant to show us his magnificent transcrpits and accept the adulation he so deserves.

P.S. – if anyone is embarrassing themselves it’s the left with their slobbering, boot-licking worship of this man. Just sayin’.

COO -COO……COO-COO.

The President IS eligible and it’s already been proven.

First it was that he was not born in the US and that a certificate of live birth was insufficient proof. Now it’s that his father was not a US Citizen and therefore the President is not a Natural Born Citizen.  Stir in some 3rd party S/S #’s and a bunch of other nonsense and what you have is basically … a group of closet racist who think they can keep moving the goal post when in fact, they aren’t even in the game. 

That shit won’t fly even if it went all the way to the right wing leaning supreme court. Most Americans wouldn’t stand for that BS.

How terribly superficial.

Were you more conversant in American jurisprudence you might know that jurisdiction cannot be waived. A default judgment without a jurisdictional basis is unenforceable. So, I live in Cotulla and am known to make the world’s best tamales, which I sell only in Cotulla, and a women from Salina drives through, returning home from some border shopping, and buys two dozen tamales. She decides to overnight in Ardmore because of rampant liberalism in Texas and checks into Motel 6. She changes into a moo and flip flops and goes to the lobby to warm up the tamales in a microwave, returns to her room, turns on FOX “News”, plops down on a groaning bed to consume her tamales and the bed collapses. Knowing that it may take several minutes to pull herself out of the bed, she stuffs three (3) tamales into her mouth for sustenance. She chews vigorously, but to no avail. As she puts strain on her abs trying to elevate, she swallows a tamale and begins choking. Having had numerous choking incidents before, she knows to begin punching her stomach. She spits out the obstructive tamale.

When she returns to Salina, she files a lawsuit in the Saline County District Court alleging negligence for: (1) Failing to warn that tamales must be shucked. (2) Failing to warm that the added weight of two dozen tamales, in hand whilst getting in bed might cause the bed to collapse. (3) Failing to warn that ingesting corn husks may result in a sore throat.

Does the Saline County, Kansas court have jurisdiction over me? Remember that jurisdiction is both subject matter and personal.

If I do not answer or appear, a I suffer a default judgment, is that judgment enforceable in Texas?

There are competing definitions of natural born citizen in the courts. Technically, you could use the same argument above to dispute George Washington’s presidency since it was unclear how it legally shook out considering he was born to British subjects.

The main point is: dozens of instances of judicial review, a review of the facts by the Congress, state of Hawaii, intelligence officials including the Secret Service, every major law association in the country, constitutional scholars, the leaders of our military, Obama’s political rivals and other governments, all say he is the duly elected president. Basically no one but a small group of crackpots who mostly get their information from conspiracy blogs believe any of this crap. Why would so many people–some of whom are spending millions of dollars to fight Obama politically–cover up for an obscure Senator who decided to run for president in 2008? If the “puppet masters” wanted a puppet, why wouldn’t they pick someone else who is qualified, according to your argument? None of it makes sense unless you believe the world is really like a poorly plotted Hollywood spy flick. 

The answer is simple: Obama was actually born in Hawaii and is eligible to be president but people are either willing to believe conspiracies that reinforce their own political beliefs or, in some case, willing to promote conspiracies they don’t believe in because it means more sheep will come out to vote for the GOP. 

Birthers have been claiming for more than three years now that President Obama will be;
Impeached, arrested, deported, removed from office and ALL legislation he signed will be nullified, invalidated for re-election State by State ….  That’s a whole lot of blustering and chest thumping for a grand score of ZERO.

Obama’s eligibility has NEVER been proven. Obama claims to have TWO hard copy of the birth certificate. Why is he afraid to show it in court??

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by an obscure 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett)  which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there

These idiots could have been in the birthing room 50 years ago and they’d still not believe their own eyes because of the hate in their souls. They should follow the advise of their phony leaders and self-deport themselves back to their native planets.

The newspapers did NOT announce a place of birth. And if he was born in Kenya, he would not be a U.S. citizen period. His mother was too young under statutory law for him to derive citizenship. The stuff about a cover-up is nonsense. The Supreme Court defined natural-born citizen as “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Obama’s father was not a citizen. Obama is NOT eligible for office. Period.

Wrong. Most candidates don’t release their grades and Bush’s were leaked. Kerry was put into a position where the press had his opponent’s grades but not his and he gave in after resisting for a long time. McCain, for example, never released his records though he did admit to graduating at the bottom of his class.

Read it for yourself: 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm 

From the story: 

“But last year, when Bush and Kerry were campaigning against each other, we only knew Bush’s grades, revealed in 1999 during his first presidential campaign by theNew Yorker magazine. Kerry’s were widely assumed to be much higher, a notion his campaign did little to quell and much to promote….

…Kerry’s grades were made public this past week by the Boston Globe, which found them in his U.S. Navy officer training school application. During the campaign, Kerry refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file, but gave the Navy permission to release the documents last month, the Globe reported.” 

You guys help out the Democrats more than the Republicans but you’re too stupid to realize that. 

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by an obscure 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett)  which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there

One of the three cases brought at this hearing is different.  It is not stating that Obama is not a citizen, but is not a natural born citizen.  The Constitution requires that our president be a natural born citizen, born of two parents who are citizens so the president would not have divided loyalties.  Obama’s father was not a US citizen, therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US. 

Media is fond of saying this has all been litigated and dismissed in courts before.  However, of the five dozen or so cases which have been brought, other than a couple of military hearings (where no evidence was allowed to be presented against Obama’s eligibility), all the cases I am aware of have been dismissed for lack of standing to bring the suits.  One plaintiff was told he couldn’t sue because the inauguration hadn’t taken place yet.  When he returned after the inauguration, the same court told him he should have brought it before the inauguration. 

In the words of Obama himself ”The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

The only elephant in the room is the one sitting on your head, suffocating the last brain cell in your body.

In a word, to answer your question, YES.

Go ahead Georgia, take the incumbent President of the United States off the ballot. Doubt if Obama is counting on your votes but taking him off the ballot just proves Obama haters hate him out of pure bigotry.

What is wrong with Maddow and others?  These people think it is impossible to disagree with, criticize or question the president without being a racist. 

Do you know what calling me a racist for any questioning or criticism of someone of another race is?  It’s racism!!!!

Perhaps if no one is allowed to question elected minorities, we shouldn’t elect any because all elected representatives need to be held accountable.  Just sayin.

reporting on stupidity is part of the medias job. 

Go ahead, let Georgia take him off the ballot. Obama isn’t counting on their votes anyway, but it will be very easy to depict Republicans as hateful racists between the behavior of Brewer & these bigots in Georgia. Keep playing into Obama’s hand PLEASE!

Why send a lawyer? This case has no basis.

If he is removed from the ballot in Georgia, other states will follow suit.

She’s covering it to expose Republican ignorance & bigotry.

Conservatives: “Frivolous lawsuits are plaguing our court system, and liberals are to blame. Wait, a birther sued Obama? He must appear in court and respect the lawsuit!”

What “facts”? We’ve been thru this a million times & birthers always get owned.

If you’re not trolling, please get help.

I am merely stating what the case is about in Georgia, nothing more or nothing less. Some people think this particular case is about whether he was born here or not, which it clearly is not.

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, Obama  is a natural born citizen and has been qualified like you aptly stated and therefore is the POTUS.

He’s done it many times & every time he does it, he makes you guys look dumber & dumber. Ever wondered why even Fox News ignores you?

Yes, it’s been proven, just not to nut job birthers.

This is fantastic! The re-emergence of Birtherism! The Republicans just keep giving and giving!

A default judgment that is unenforceable without proper jurisdiction.

Only Arizona.

K, like I said, only states that will follow suit are radical right wing states. All this will do is make it easier to prove Obama’s opponents are racists.

The Minor case is not exactly obscure. It used the NBC definition to reject Virginia Minor’s argument of having the right to vote based on being a 14th amendment citizen. The decision was unanimous and the definition it used was upheld and affirmed more than 20 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

That’s what racists usually say when called out for their racism.

Dude, stop being a racist troll. This act got old 4 years ago.

Yes, especially here in Georgia

Then why was Obama certified in 2008 to be eligible. Surely, you and I are not the only ones who know about this case. Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s in Georgia.

The Minor case is not exactly obscure. It used the NBC definition to reject Virginia Minor’s argument of having the right to vote based on being a 14th amendment citizen. The decision was unanimous and the definition it used was upheld and affirmed more than 20 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The mere appearance of an attorney does NOT ever concede any point in contention in a proceeding. If there is an issue of jurisdiction, the President’s attorney should have appeared to make the appropriate motion(s) (dismissal for lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction). The real issue here is that in an Administrative proceeding, when a party has been subpoenaed and does not appear, usually a default judgement is issued in favor of the party that DID appear. They get to make their case. They get to present evidence, in the absence of any refutation of the recitation of the facts at issue. The “non-appearance” by one of the parties IS construed as a concession of the facts at issue. The judgement will probably go against POTUS, who will then seek to have the decision vacated….The president should have sent his lawyer to contest the validity of the proceeding itself. Flaunting the authority of an Administrative Law Judge, never looks good – even for a President. Additionally, the attempt by the Administration’s attorney to have the Ga. Sec. of State “step -in” and stop the proceeding, smacks of an unethical attempt at influencing Justice, via ex-parte communications with a political body (executive) to influence another (Judicial). The only thing keeping the lid on this right now is MSM’s refusal to treat it as a significant development. It is going to be interesting to watch.

Says somone who identifies herself as a “nucklehead” …

Georgia is fixing a mistake made in 2008. Obama just proved yesterday he is unwilling and/or unable to prove his eligibility in a court of law.

Even if you were ignorant enough to start down this path once Oily Taint showed up on your side that should be enough to make you come to your senses if you had any.

Obama’s refusal to show one his TWO hard copies of his birth certificate just proved that so-called “birtherism” is justified.

Sorry Partisans, but the hearing is legal and eligibility rules can be enforced by States. If ruled ineligible and confirmed by the Secretary of State then all the other Secretary of State will have effective notice and will need to investigate.

There is a big risk here for obama. His blind supporters will get an eye-opening if the Administrative Judge rules him ineligible on the merits of the case, and not just on default. Obama will be at the Fulton County Courthouse with a no-show record on the hearing and limited grounds for appeal. 

And, no, the “Congress determines eligibility” argument will not survive in a Court appeal. 

Have fun, for now, Rachel… last laugh and all that. 

He was “certified” in 2008 by accepting perjurious self-declarations that were not checked. This mistake is being corrected now.

Obama hasn’t done anything many times. He finally had a chance to show his birth certificate in court for the first time yesterday and he chickened out. Why do you make excuses for a fraud??

Obama is going to be challenged soon in that radical right wing state Illionis. All Obama proved is that he is unwilling and unable to go to court to prove his eligibility. Expect challenges now in all 57 states against Barack “No Show” Obama. Why do you support a coward??

Yes, it has. You lost. Deal with it!

Indeed – if it is a default financial judgement, it is not only enforceable in Texas but in every other State as well. Why? Because a default judgement shows up in your credit report as a “Judgement” and that “You owe money” to a creditor and unlike a “bad debt” or “bankruptcy” which are removed from your credit history after so many years, a judgement NEVER comes off your credit report – until it is satisfied. However, your analogy is incorrect in this instance, anyway, because the case is NOT about whether POTUS is “qualified” to be President…but whether he is “qualified” to be on the Georgia ballot for re-election. It’s a Georgia case, in a Georgia court about the Georgia ballot…where is the problem with jurisdiction? So the jurisdictional basis in this case is that the President who WANTS to be on the Ga ballot, is being challenged as “unqualified” to do so. I would say your analogy would hold more water if the President didn’t CARE if he is on the Ga Ballot or not…In that case the Judgement would be ineffectual. Remember this “birther” case is unlike the others, because at issue is NOT whether Obama is qualified to be President, but whether he is qualified to be on the ballot. A much more narrow legal question, very well focused and brought in compliance with Ga. law….The Birther’s repeated failures and trials by fire are honing them into more effective litigators….

Then POTUS’s lawyer should have appeared and made motions to that effect….

Lost?? Obama the coward was a no-show yesterday. That’s only a loss for him.

Obama had his chance to prove it yesterday for the first time, and the coward bailed.

You are missing (or ignoring) the main legal question. Which is NOT, “Was POTUS born in the US (Hawaii)?”
The MAIN legal question is this: “Because POTUS’s father was a Kenyan national (documented and proven – this fact is conceded by all parties) and NOT a US citizen, can POTUS satisfy the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement of the USC, and therefore appear on the Ga ballot?”

BTW – I am NOT a “birther” but I am a student of the Law and I am very interested to hear how the courts will define what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. It seems to me there are conflicting interpretations of THAT term….This entire birther exercise is, if nothing else, fascinating.

Mencius not only do you attempt to direct the argument away for the subject but you also quote non issues: G.W. wasn’t a natural born cit..we all know that.. big deal because the framework of the Constitution was still being laid, and where B.O. was born is not in question. You may also be unaware of the INS statues involved in the case- three of which lay out the basis that Obama is not eligible.  http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

Obama admitted that his father was not born in the United States and it was verified by the State Department, and he was still certified anyway. So, the question is, can you go back and nullify a decision that has already been made as to the status of his citizenship.

It’s a bit of a throwback to when he was The Real Rabid Kook, before he became The Real Rabid Excerebrot. The latter just doesn’t flow.

Oh, and I’ve been hammering birthers for years.

It has never been resolved where Obama was born. So many things are not resolved about this stranger.

If there was no evidence to support the claim, they would have gotten a summary dismissal.

There is no requirement to do so, and tactically it is unwise to do so in some instances.

Please. The judge is a Cracker.

The issue is the Georgia ballot, Kook. Thus, Georgia has jurisdiction. There is no interstate issue at play. The judgement is enforceable in Georgia. There’s would be not reason to attempt to enforce it outside Georgia, as there would be nothing to enforce outside Georgia given that Georgia ballots don’t exist outside Georgia.

And you’re supposed to be a lawyer? Heh.

You lost because he IS President and not a darn thing you’ve ever held you breath for has happened. NADA!

Remember Edison and the light bulb,  try and try again, the truth will come out. Obama is not natural born, he`s not even natural.

US v Cooper.  US v Burr.  I guess the Constitution was meaningless to Jefferson, as well???

Georgia has jurisdiction over the Georgia ballot, genius.

There is no need for any secretary of state to do anything regardless of what happens in Georgia.

And even if birthers get everything that they want, they still have to find a way to deal with faithless electors.

But wait, you say, it is highly unlikely a wave of faithless electors will elect Obama over their respective states’ popular vote for someone else. Well, it’s just as likely that secretaries of state across the nation are going to commence an investigation that results in Obama being removed from that state’s ballot.

Now, birthers … get lives.

She’s not a plaintiff, and everyone is entitled to their day in court.

Chicago!

Most default judgements ARE unenforceable. For example, I won a case against a company who sold me their company in 1991. The owners signed a 5 year “non-compete” agreement and within 6 months of selling me their company, they were up and running another one and trying to take my clients. I sued them and it took 3 years to actually go to court. I won a judgement (not a default judgement) for 4.1 million dollars plus court costs and attorney fees and to date I haven’t seen a penny. (they were ordered to close the biz, sell the assets to pay the judgement) They declared bankruptcy, re-organized under a different name and are still operating to this day….My lawyer told me I have zero chance of getting ANY of it….My only consolation is that the Judgement will sit in the credit history of the fellow who sold me the business for ever. Or, until he pays it. He can’t buy a house or a car in his name, which is no big deal to him because he has plenty of family.

Exactly right. This is the one arrow in the Birther quiver that isn’t batshit crazy. I think it’s ultimately a loser, but that is for the courts to weigh in on. I don’t see where that term has been definitively defined.

No, your thinking comes from Fact Check. be original.  He was born in Kenya, his momma called the grandparents, they put it in the paper as proud grandparents. Also when the grandparents went to records office they picked up his live birth papers, the baby did not have to be present to do this. The mom was coming over to hawaii and needed it for food stamps

too stupid,  your brain is showing itself as stupid

No, there wouldn’t have been an issue for Washington or anyone else alive when the Constitution was ratified.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Everyone who was a citizen in 1791 was grandfathered into eligibility.

Were you the star of this film?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

So, you’re saying a prestigious law school like Harvard would ease up on or fudge the requirements needed to be editor of the law review and graduate with a law degree? You’re argument still makes no logical sense at all. What a powerful figure this President must be to have faked his own birthplace AND hoodwinked Harvard officials. It actually would be kind of impressive. I’m trying to help you here. It’s still not too late to join reality again. We have facilities on this planet to help you with your problem. Unlike your Conservative brethren, we encourage immigration to this wonderful planet. And you wouldn’t have to self-deport yourself to the planet from you came first. I think you have potential. It’s not so bad on THIS planet. Try it sometime.

There is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might
appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

“Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order,” said Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low
intelligence. “Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute
to prejudice.”
“There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of
others, particularly foreigners,” Hodson said. “Much of the present
research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional
in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information
suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to
consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups,” rather than thoughts.

http://bit.ly/AiYIfN

You are a birther?

tee hee hee

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

I want you to familiarize yourself with the case, which doesn’t contest that he was born here. Reading is fundamental, nitwit. Find your teachers and demand a refund.

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

What a bunch of morons running the country to overlook such a thing, huh?

Media, it happened this week. Obama shoed he is a coward and he disobeyed a subpoena and subsequent order from the SOS to prove it.

He’s going to be off the ballot in Georgia. He’s helping himself get on the unemployment line.

Good thing we have comment boards for the REAL AMERICANS to check up on these things.

Background:  Jane Randolph Jefferson, née Jane Randolph (1721–1776,) was the wife of Peter Jefferson and the mother of president Thomas Jefferson. Born February 9, 1721 in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London, she was the daughter of Isham Randolph and Jane Rogers, and a cousin of Peyton Randolph.

So Jefferson’s mother was born in London.  Does this mean that Thomas Jefferson was not a natural born American and therefore not eligible to be President? 

If so, are you arguing that Jefferson didn’t KNOW what the US Constitution meant by “natural born citizen”?  Or are you arguing you know BETTER than Thomas Jefferson what the Founding Fathers and authors of the Constitution MEANT when they drew up the document?

Really. 

As for those who deny the reality of President Obama’s Hawaii documentation, you were born on Mars and your birth certificates are obviously fabrications.  If you were there at your birth, why didn’t you SIGN your birth certificate?   If your parents lied to you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, what’s to say they weren’t lying to you when they told you how and where you appeared on this planet. 

As such, you are Aliens and should be sent back where you came from!!!!

Good thing we have comment boards for the REAL AMERICANS to check up on these things.

Its not where he (barry soetoro was  was born  its  about where his  father was born   obama senior was not even here on a green card explain that  you  dumba$$

They could have video of the Hawaii birth, and that wouldn’t change the merits of this particular case at all. You should get to know what you’re talking about so that you don’t sound just like that which you despise.

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

Show me where in Georgia law does it say that the popular vote on that ballot controls the electors from Georgia who vote for president and vice-president?

And yet here you are having trouble grasping the not-so-complexity of this case.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-takes-on-georgia-courts-birther-case-against-obama-its-like-dividing-by-zero/#comment-422392084

YES! I need more examples like yours to further drive the point home.

And there you are not seeing the bigger picture …

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

ps
Saul Alinsky is only a dirty word to wackos who listen to wackos.

in your dreams you commie liberal rat 

Jefferson’s mother: born in England.  Are you saying he didn’t know he was ineligible to be President, or are you claiming to know the intent of the founding fathers better than Jefferson? 

thanks for the link

barrack obama SR was born in british ruled kenya that made him a british subject.

you liberal commies always play that race card  BS  because you cant defend the asshole obama 

Wake up Rachel, you have no clue. Do some reaserch and stop embarrassing yourself!

I’ve already done all the reaserch and proved 100% that Obama is ineligible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk

I think you OVERESTIMATE the bat$shit crazy

Nope. I’m simply assessing the case. And in this case, the evidence is all stipulated to. There is no disagreement as to the evidence.

The fact that you watched it says alot.

That’s not the question at hand.

is that supposed to be a rational response?

Where has it been resolved that Obama was born here? IT HASN’T!

Obama was born in Kenya!
Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American and is a Son of the Soil of Kenya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA

Remember the Donald Trump statement, you will not believe wht my investigators are finding?  ITS HUGE.

HAHAHAHAHA

Obama answered him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA

NO, Obama is ineligible and I have already proved it 100%!

Obama is ineligible, end of story!

Get him off the ballot and out of our White House!

Well, it’s all meaningless in terms of the election outcome, as Obama has as much chance of winning Georgia as I do. But if you think the incumbent POTUS being kicked off the ballot in one of the 57 states is utterly meaningless, you’re kidding yourself.

You can’t be re-elected if you aren’t on the ballot! We will take him off the ballot in every state we can! We’ve only just begun!

know these words?
“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
nice scholarly analysis by AmusedAgain…

next question…

So Jefferson’s mother was born in London.  Does this mean that Thomas Jefferson was not a natural born American and therefore not eligible to be President? 

If
so, are you arguing that Jefferson didn’t KNOW what the US Constitution
meant by “natural born citizen”?  Or are you arguing you know BETTER
than Thomas Jefferson what the Founding Fathers and authors of the
Constitution MEANT when they drew up the document?

Have you ever actually read the Constitution? There is absolutely, positively no question that Jefferson is eligible. Do you know why that is?

To all the knuckleheads who say the President isn’t a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t born here: I guess that means the anchor baby argument from your anti-immigration friends is a fallacy as well. Otherwise, it also makes Mitt Romney ineligible because his father was born in Mexico. Anyone know why George Romney (born in Mexico) was allowed to run for president in 1968? Why aren’t you questioning that? Just as legitimate as your nonsense.

No person except a natural born Citizen, (or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Today, you are officially the most stupid person on the planet. Enjoy being in this brief spotlight. It might turn out to be the only accomplishment of any kind in your entire sad life. Don’t forget to breath.

how silly. Who do you think prints the ballots and selects the names to be on it?

“proper jurisdiction”? Is there some other place called ‘Georgia’ that will print the ballots, hold the election, and count the votes?

Evidently he was born in two different Hospitals…ouch!!

Actually, you’re the one who is misdirecting the argument, Ms. Direction. Why would the entire U.S. government, including political rivals, and the intelligence services of other governments get behind a minor senator in 2007 to help him violate the Constitution? I’m pretty sure you’re neither a legal scholar nor an intelligence agent, so  why would you think you know more than the thousands of people who have reviewed the argument and thought it was complete nonsense. Why would the CIA, Defense Department and Republican party be covering up for a Kenya-born Democrat? Here’s a clue: they wouldn’t be and they aren’t.

Clarification appreciated. Some of the other cases have been about whether he was born in Hawaii. 

And on top of all this nonsense, you morons want to align yourself with a certified nutjob like Orly Taitz? Good luck with that! At least your both from the same planet…where ever that may be.

Why should Barry Sortoro be believed on anything?  Seriously, Barry has covered his past so effectively that you have to wonder if most of what he hacks up has any credibility at all.

That you’re constantly referring to “57 states” reveals you’re not serious and have no desire to know about what you’re commenting.

Fact is, if it were proven that Barry is not eligible Liberals would ignore that.  They wouldn’t care. They typically have no use for our Constitution just as Barry doesn’t.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/earthquake-in-atlanta
 
Neither Obama nor his attorney showed up at Atlanta hearing today
and default judgements to be issued. Barack Hussein will not be on the
Georgia ballot (ineligible as not being a Natural Born Citizen) unless
the SoS changes his attitude from yesterday. This was posted on the
Internet by obamaballotchallenge.com where you can learn how to do what Swennson did in Georgia. FloHOORAY!! indeed and maybe YIPPEE, WOW, AND OMG!!!I can’t seem to wipe the smile off my face!!BUSTED…….GUILTY!!!!!

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

I think he is trying to say that there is no personal jurisdiction over Obama and thus the court cannot force Obama to appear.  I am not familiar with Georgia’s long arm statue on personal jurisdiction, but his application to be on the ballot in Georgia might meet a minimum contacts analysis, at least under the Due Process clause of the constitution. P.S., I am not a birther.

MINI Documentary – Illegal Obama “Propped Up” By Congress!

Documents many efforts by Congress to Amend the Constitution eliminating the Natural Born Citizen Clause prior to Obama being elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=youtu.be

Just the Facts.

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by an obscure 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett)  which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there.

Who Is Rachel Maddow?

http://www.breitbart.tv/who-is-rachel-maddow/

Better question: Who from Georgia actually votes for president?

Full of hate and shit I see.

You are only partially correct. The court in Minor did give one definition of a natural citizen as a person who has two U.S. citizens as parents and be born in the U.S.  However, the court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the U.S.  The court then states that there is doubt whether a person is a natural citizen if they are merely born on U.S. soil but that they did not have to resolve such doubt.  Therefore, the court left open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen.
For the record, John McCain was not born in the US and was allowed to run for president.  

Whatever you say Jethro.

They seem unable to accept the simple fact that they lost the election fair and square. I wonder what happens when their favorite football team loses.

I agree with your logic on jurisdiction Pablo. But my question is:  Couldn’t the judge rule that this issue has already been adjudicated when he was certified in 2008 to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore was eligible to run for president. He was on the ballot there in Georgia in 2008 after being certified. I’m not sure that this judge will take on the issue on redefining “natural born citizen” after he was already on the ballot in 2008.

Hey Cletus, if you really want to know, I support him because the other side is filled with people like you, for starters.

overly taint should be voted chairman of the rnc(the party of redneck dumbasses)!

Who is Jay Aubrey??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ 

W. Godbout

Never starred in any movies so I’m not going to even bother opening that link. I’m sure you & your cousins starred in a lot of homemade films together however. Probably even included a sheep, a pig, a chicken, or whatever you folks are into down there.

Why make-up pretend situations?  You have a very real situation here,  Obama IS eligible and he IS President.  And yet folks like you are the ones who, to quote you …. “ignore it” and don’t “care”.  It’s pointless to create imaginary examples when YOU can’t cope and don’t care about reality.

You are one of those guys who believes everything you see on the inter web thingie……….Right?????

Good question, sid_id. That answer is going to have to come from a judge, but I could see it happening.

stopandthink, right. They’re not going to send Sheriffs out to pick him up. But as the response to Obama’s lawyer noted, they fail to appear at their own peril. Which could well be default judgment.

You got that right!! Just when it seems that Maybe, just maybe they might sound a bit credible these loony tunes show up!!!!!

And your case got thrown out of court anyway. That’s called a win. No court in America is ever likely to take you seriously, but the more you guys push forward, it’s that much easier to call you guys racists. Keep working hard to get Obama re-elected. LOL

He didn’t bail, he just had better things to do than to dignify a bunch of dingbats.

Especially when it’s a production by WND (WorldNutDaily).  Those folks are making a bundle off of the ignorant closet racist that is the American right wing. 

Pablo, You’ve just admitted the place of birth is not in question.
“The U.S. Constitution requires that one be “a natural born Citizen” and a
U.S. resident for fourteen years in order to be President of the United
States.”
“U.S. citizenship is usually acquired by birth when a child is born in the territory of the United States. In addition to the U.S. States, this includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is provided under the 14th Amendment. Citizenship, however, was not specified in the original Constitution. It was not until 1868 that the 14th Amendment defined citizens as persons who were either born or naturalized
in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. All babies born
in the United States–except those born to enemy aliens in wartime or the
children of foreign diplomats–enjoy American citizenship under the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and
of the State where in they reside.” George Romney was allowed to run because both of his parents were U.S. citizens even though he was born in Mexico.
So, all that matters is that President Barack Hussein Obama was born here and he’s legitimate. The distinction is about being born here, as opposed to being naturalized.

I suggest, you contact your leaders and ask them to send a rescue ship — immediately — from your native planet. Your cover has been blown and your planet misses you. They are awaiting your full report as to activities on planet Earth. Happy journeys my friend from another world.

These birthers are the stupidest bunch of idiots on the planet and the sad thing is the fact that they reproduce the most and their spawn continues the familiy legacy of espousing skewed right wing extremist views and skewed religious views……..all of which have absolutely no foundation in reality.

The racial opposition to Obama is not just the result of individual madness, but a multiple front institutional assault.  The right is infected by devils operating with a plan.

You’ve got the part about the Presidents mother being to young for him to qualify for citizenship incorrect.  It would apply if he was born outside the country but, he was born in Hawaii.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

You and your ilk are dumber than a box of cornflakes.How does it feel to be an embarrassment to your country and your party?

Stupidity is the media.

mezzo, please note that “snopes” was is admittable into court as evidence of anything. Then re-read my previous comment. I specifically said “And if he was born in Kenya …” before talking about the law regarding his mother. Third, Obama failed to prove he was born in Hawaii. There has never been ANY legal proof of this claim in ANY court of law.

Actually we have America tanking. By, zero, dividing.

Sorry but Romneys dad became a US citizen before Mitt was born!

Anyone who refers to themselves as “widdlebaby” is obviously an expert at being “bat$shit crazy” … no arguments from me.

Obama forgot to answer in court yesterday. The question is why didn’t he submit your YouTube video in a court of law. Doing nothing vidicates Trumps’s statements. Thanks for being a chicken, Obama!

Yesterday’s case wasn’t thrown out. Did you forget already. The coward Obama showed he will not fight such challenges … he can’t, because he can’t win.

You just don’t get it.The father is nothing more than a sperm donor, his mother is a US citizen.She could have given birth to her son in Panama just like Mccain or any where else on the planet.Why is this so hard to understand?

He bailed like a scared “widdlebaby.” Don’t makes excuses for a coward. He likes it that you blindly believe in his lies.

He bailed like a scared “widdlebaby.” Don’t makes excuses for a coward. He likes it that you blindly believe in his lies.

Because questioning your Barry equates to racism, and victimization of Barry. So his sheep must bail little Barry out??? Is that the rationalization?

Because that anyone should question your Barry’s legitimacy to “lead” he will be re-elected? Wow. You sheep vote for the oddest reasons. No?

I think the desire to not want to be seen as racist should start from within the ranks of the NEW GOP. IF you want to distance yourself, my first suggestion is try to find a more “neutral” state to serve as the launching pad (or at least find a partner state that doesnt have the same race related history of say, an Alabama, Georgia -hell, THE SOUTH). Till then, sadly, even for the people living in the jungles of South America it is only CLEAR that the fuel for this stupidity is blind racism. Any argument to the contrary only helps us all know who the racists are by “nickname”. Plus, how do the “anti-big government” people truly feel about the thousands of tax dollars being earned by the state in the hours spent working on this BS? Oh, I forgot, spending money to help Americans is a bad thing, but spending a LOT of money to go after this muslim Kenyan president is fully worth it. The stupidity is baffling. Find a guy to beat him. Period.

No, he just doesn’t feel like appeasing a bunch of right wing nut jobs such as yourself.

Smells like Liberal fear to me! When will you Liberal Clowns WAKE UP?
This is the beginning of the end for Barack Hussein Obama, oh it will take awhile, it always takes awhile when a fish is on the hook. Rachel Madcow may as well just sit down and SHUT UP because
its no longer a media or public issue and all the crying and complaining in the world wont change
whats about to happen, the first state to actually listen to the evidence is going to reject the Kenyan
usurper from its state ballot and the ONLY WAY this can be reversed is for Obama to appeal to a
higher court, but by doing that Obama will have to give up all the evidence he knows will seal his fate and put him in prison! The SOS of the state of Georgia holds the full authority to remove Obama from the ballot and he has indicated thats what he will do if Obama refuses to produce his documents.
There will be a ripple effect from this as other states hear the evidence against Obama and unfortunately for Liberal ObamaZombies the evidence is beyond compelling.
To believe Barack Hussein Obama is a legitimate “natural born citizen” is to have a willfull suspension of disbelief…

Judge Michaell Malihi will only be making a recommendation to Georgia SOS  Brian Kemp.  If Kemp decides to ban Obama from the ballot, he can and probably will be overturned in state or federal court.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/no-obama-in-court-1318908.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/georgia-birther-hearing-obama_n_1236719.html

It cracks me up when liberals call “Birthers” ignorant when its the birthers who where right
from DAY ONE, the liberals are in full abuse mode now because they are GOING DOWN HARD!

Straight up bro, your an IDIOT…. DEAL WITH IT!

This is the real stuff that divides our country.  Who are these wackos anyway and what wacko judge would not throw the case out? We have plenty of other things to worry about.

Here we go with the “liberal fear” nonsense and the “WAKE UP” and the “Madcow”.  Seriously, you sound like a Caricature of every teabagger comment ever posted since 2008.

P.S.  You forgot to say “teleprompter”.

Why would you do that?  Clearly you are a birther.

rachel maddow is a bull dyke  thats who she is   ps she hates men to 

I keep telling myself these attacks are not racially motivated , but this kind of stuff really makes you wonder.

Mr. Romney’s father was born in Mexico, therefore Mr. Romney is ineligible.

Difference is that Eddison was smart, you guys are not. See the difference?

Why? This case isn’t going to go anywhere anyway.

It will fail there as well. Every state will laugh in your faces.

Face it, your an idiot who probably masturbates while staring at OweBama
campaign flyers! There is no reason or logic in your opinions just keep licking OweBama’s boots and the adults will make sure the truth is brought to bare on
the Kenyan usurper, we dont need your help, just get out of the way!

I guess if you can’t beat him at the ballot box, your best bet is to try and remove him.  Desperation tactics.

Dude… If you were anymore dumb and desperate you’d instantly morph into Joe Biden….

I have a psychologist i can refer you to and he writes percriptions for Paxil…

Obama is eligible to be President of the United States, and I can prove it.

Exhibit A)  He is already president of the United States.

Case closed.

Speaking of reality, life sucks for you right now, huh?

Pause for a moment and realize that you have an illness.  You don’t need to live this way.  Help is available.  Just take the first step.

To any sane person, the phrase “natural born” refers to a person who was born in the United States. Anyone who claims the opposite needs concrete legal evidence to the contrary.  Since there is none, the birthers are batshit crazy.

LOL..   Romney’s Father was born to two AMERICAN CITIZENS from Utah while they were living in Mormon Mission in Mexico….  Look it up.

Wednesday Mike Malloy did a fantastic job dissecting what this cockroach masquerading as a dentist is all about

Fair enough. Why introduce the (incorrect) information at all if your only speaking conjecturally?

the comment was a slap at Obama..  Obama made the comment that HE visited  57 States in one of his speeches…  Catch up!  The actual quote:

 
“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

If you read all the evidence placed on the record, there is no way Obama’s attorney could have defended against it. But now it IS on record, and it was a Hiliary Clinton Campaign Staffer that started the whole Birther Movement.

He can show a real, un-photoshopped live-birth longform certificate.

John McCain was the son of two natural born US citizens. 

Hey huffn, it was Obama who claimed to have visited 57 states, dumbkoff.

Right about what? The fact that a poor white woman spent 1000′s of dollars to trek to Kenya (without a passport) to give birth to her son in a primitive village?

Or right that’s he’s not a natural born citizen because ONE of his parents is foreign, like presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover <—— I guess they were ineligible too, right?

You also forgot to mention “57 states” and “Muslim”……..

It probably sucks more for you since the president is black……

The evidence is Overwhelming, 8-different house joint resolutions to change the
constitutions “Natural Born Citizens” clause were pushed furiously by democrats
leading up to Obama’s run for the presidency, two of these resolutions were Sponsored
by none other than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! Congress has known since 2003
that Barack Obama was not qualified to be POTUS.
.
LIVE LINKS TO EACH HJR and SENATE RESOLUTIONhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S2128:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:

Well, maybe you should take your complaints up with the Supreme Court since  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS swore the president into office and you clearly know more about the law than they do….

And Herbert Hoover? Clearly ineligible too, right?

The Birther controversy is nothing but a distraction and a smokescreen thrown up by the Knights Templar to put us off the trail of the real question. Did Hawaii exist prior to August 4, 1978? There is substantial credible evidence that the State of Hawaii (formerly the Kingdom of Hawaii) is a manufactured “Id-projection” resulting from a series of timed, preset subliminal messages; that in fact the territory found by the British naval explorer James Cook was the remote Pacific complex of islands that Cook dubbed “Pwyll” (Nova Cornueille). This territory was later captured by the Belgians and renamed the Lesser Belgian New Antilles, with its capitol at Nies-Bruges.

Why? The shared-hallucination Hawaii gave credence to the manufacture of an inter-dimensional extraterritorial freeport in the Pacific, known as the Interzone.

The real question people should be asking is, “Why does Obama continue to refuse to release a sample of his DNA?” Is it because his biology is completely incompatible with a terrestrial origin?

What is really COOL is that now…..a precedent has been set for other states to refer to when they wish to ban the Kenyan from the ballot.

Not the same issue at all. What is your point, other than to obscure?

AmusedAgain made just a silly claim based on ignorance? What is your excuse?

“who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, BUT WHO HAVE BEEN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AT LEAST 35 YEARS, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President YEARS”

…..  Learn to read. The resolutions called for ANYONE who had been a US Citizen for 35 years (regardless of origin of birth) to be eligible.

Not according to almost every economist out there.
Public opinion is changing too!
You must hate it.
BTW-Are you still my Huckleberry?

“you’re”

I see now huffnnoccupyn just spouts off meaningless bull shit for no reason.

I think the term is Troll. Wait till the SOS keeps obama off the ballot – heads are gonna ‘xplode111

“you’re”.

white communist  liberals using race as a weapon  you pig 

O’Henry: to any sane person “natural born” i a defined term with meaning based upon its historical and legal usage at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Any sane person would read about the debates and the discussion of this specific clause, and why it was inserted.

Yet, O’henry wants to talk about where Mitt’s father was born? diversion. Were Miit’s father, and mother, citizens at the time of MITT’s birth is the real question. If not, he is not eligible either.

The more I read these comments I wonder if the obama advisors are stuck in the same mind-warp of arguing so hard that they forget the facts and the law.

Buddy if your so ignorant that you cant see this for what it was, “a backdoor to
the office of president” then there’s NOTHING i can say or do to educate you, you are beyond help! Please tell me you have no children who are depending on you to raise them, because you are far too ignorant to raise a child, get a vasectomy and
remove yourself from the gene pool…PLEASE!

Ummmm, my point is that Herbert Hoover’s mother was Canadian…..so using the dimwitted logic of your typical birther arguing the definition of “natural born citizen”…it stands to reason that Hoover was ALSO ineligible. Did I say that slow enough for you even you to understand?

The end is near for Barack Obama! Its out in the open now and is in evidence!

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
“DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.”
.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

The court yesterday had no problem taking this issue seriously. Obama was a coward who knew he couldn’t prove his eligibility, so he punted.

you mean you didn’t know that but are spouting off anyway?

even birthers make you look, well, slow.

I think I will look elsewhere for the scholarly analysis of the words and meaning of the Constitution, like from people who bother to read.

The end is near for Obama!

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. IT COMES BACK AS “SUSPECTED FRAUDULANT”. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

so, the election constitutes the Statute of Limitations for election fraud? must have missed the memo – can you send me a copy?

Lesbians don’t hate all men…..just low-class, low IQ, pricks who use terms like “bull dyke”……

Then let him show it……

Riiiiight, good luck with that bro.

Duuuuuuh?

You are right that the court left open this possibility which has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth. However, the Supreme Court has never accepted this consensus opinion and there is no court ruling or Federal statute which establishes the consensus opinion as settled law.

In 2004, Senator Don Nickles predicted that, if these questions remain unanswered, they will someday become “a real issue”. The definition of this term ["natural born citizen"] is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue.

“you’re”

“any dumber”

Please show in the constitution where “natural born” is defined as “being born to two US citizens.”

You’ve “done all your research” by watching one youtube video?

nope, too slow. 

Yesterday I got a speeding ticket. 

I was following another car that was also speeding. The cop just laughed when I pointed at the car speeding away down the road and said they were speeding before me…

show me ANY case where eligibility for President was confirmed for a candidate with a known non-citizen parent, not one that slipped by and was discovered or confirmed later.

Link?

I would have not expected anything less from a far right winger.

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by a 1875 Supreme Court ruling  (Minor v. Happersett) which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there. 

However, the 1875 Supreme Court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen.
With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.

However, this Supreme Court has never accepted this consensus opinion and there is no court ruling or Federal statute which establishes the consensus opinion as settled law.

The issue before the Georgia court is NOT whether Obama was born in the United States or not. That question has been resolved. The issue before the Georgia court is whether Obama meets the definition of a “natural born citizen” as defined by a 1875 Supreme Court ruling  (Minor v. Happersett) which defines a “natural born citizen” as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, hence the challenge in Georgia as to whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot there.
 
However, the 1875 Supreme Court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen. With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.

However, today’s Supreme Court has never accepted this consensus opinion and there is no court ruling or Federal statute which establishes the consensus opinion as settled law.

I think the point that Huffnnoccupyn is trying to make is that you can never keep someone completely off the ballot. Every ballt has the provision for a write-in candidate, although those ballots may come in provisional form. Ergo, you can never keep someone 100% off the ballot. Now, to that end. the President may only end up with as many votes as Darth Vader or Donald Duck, but when was the last time Georgia went for a Democrat anyway?

A more concerning point of order may be that, should this judgement be upheld to keep Obama off the ballot (and, if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t make book on it once it reaches the appellate level), other states with Republican Governors or Attorneys General might see that as license to waste courts time in their states as well.

reality is meaningless to birthers.

Remember when the GOP claimed to be against frivolous lawsuits?

you lost in 2008. get over it.

“show me ANY case where eligibility for President was confirmed for a
candidate with a known non-citizen parent, not one that slipped by and
was discovered or confirmed later.”

In other words, according to you, NO ONE ever knew that Hoover’s mother was Canadian? It was never brought up? And I need to prove to you that this didn’t just fall through the cracks and that the Senate didn’t properly investigate his birth certificate listing his parents nationality? Perhaps you’re right, Sashland. Even in this technically advantage world, the Supreme Court seems to have let Obama’s eligibility slip through the cracks…..obviously they forget that the court defined “natural born citizen” in….I’m sorry, in what year?

Oh…and BTW, Andrew Jackson was VERY vocal about his IRISH parents. In fact, he often spoken about his the pride he felt for this “immigrant welcoming” country. I guess his eligibility slip through the cracks too, eh?

sorry my dear ayana but you read a story and think you know something. 

Looked it up and learned that his Mom was naturalized by operation of law at that time that made her a citizen upon marriage… BOTH of Hoover’s parents were citizens when HE was born, qualifying the definition as “Natural-born Citizen” whereby both parents are citizens at the time of his birth.Next…

Was Andrew Jackson a citizen of the US at the time of adoption? Yes, he met the rules and did not have to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Next…

“Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law that said, “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 
It dealt with women’s suffrage and the right to vote. Nothing to do with citizenship. Please use real facts.

“Was Andrew Jackson a citizen of the US at the time of adoption? Yes, he
met the rules and did not have to be a Natural Born Citizen.”

And Chester Arthur? Ooooh, I know….he “hid” his foreign parents back ground too? Oh, thanks for providing that information in regards to when the judicial or legislative branch CLEARLY defined “natural born citizen”….and promptly ignored it for “this” president….

“sorry my dear ayana but you read a story and think you know something. 

Looked
it up and learned that his Mom was naturalized by operation of law at
that time that made her a citizen upon marriage… BOTH of Hoover’s
parents were citizens when HE was born, qualifying the definition as
“Natural-born Citizen” whereby both parents are citizens at the time of
his birth.Next…”

Kinda of like when Obama’s mother married Obama’s father….before HIS birth?

“Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law that said, “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment”. 
It dealt with women’s suffrage and the right to vote. Nothing to do with naturalized  citizenship. Please use real facts. Also, they ruled that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote which lead to the 19′th amendment ending suffrage.

did you have some type of concession to make on your false charges regarding Hoover and Jackson before I take on your next bs?

“did you have some type of concession to make on your false charges
regarding Hoover and Jackson before I take on your next bs”

Are you going to show me where the courts clearly defined “natural born citizen” and explain why today’s courts are ignoring this definition?

How about everyone read the sworn court testimony(http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138) of the private detective and forensic document experts under oath before speculating. I used to not give this birther thing any weight, now give these testimonies and the amount Obama has spent; now over 2 million dollars in legal fees to block providing requested documents. Why spend so much money if nothing to hide just provide real documents and end this. It now appears those documents don’t exist read the sworn court  testimony– http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Instead of going to Wikipedia and reading a short synopsis, maybe you should have read the whole opinion. I have included a couple of excerpts if you are interested in the facts. Furthermore, the case in Georgia is using the definition in this ruling of a “natural born citizen” to contest Obama being put on the ballot there.

“It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.”

 
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea”.

Why is it that all birther bull$hit starts with I used to not give this birther thing any weight, now

and your link
Error establishing a database connection

are you seriously this stupid?

A black man is your president. a black man is your president.
Accept it, racist birther crybabies

derpty derp Alinksy derpty derp community organizer.
you guys really have no arguments left, do you?

I’d like to talk to you about a really good investment opportunity.  I’m certain you’ll like it.

Van, your linked worked for me, but again more distortion. It mentioned the below case and I addressed it. I loved the E verify coming back as fraudulent testimony. I am pretty sure that if you use the SS# of POTUS to apply at Taco Bell its going to get flagged. Anyway, this whole thing reminds me of Charlie Brown. He positive he’s going to get to kick the ball this time. Everyone one else on earth knows what’s going to happen, but he still does it. And if you think that’s an inappropriate analogy show me a victory. 

careful

with the right making fools of themselves onstage, and Obama going for another 4 years?

can you read?

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

You brought up racism.

Thank you for helping to re-elect President Obama.

What election fraud?

I thought it was Roscoe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f3CFzahrRs&feature=related

So by this interpretation of a citizen, no one whose parents were not born in this country could even vote, given that voting was the primary issue in that case, not whether or not Ms. Minor could be president. So if this lawsuit goes through, Georgia wouldn’t have to print half as many ballots this year, period. And many people will not even be able to vote, for a Republican or Democrat, for any office.

He has to prove nothing.

Like Nixon said, If the President does it, it’s legal.

It really hasnt changed since 2007 has it?

No, I am incapable of reading. One day I hope to master the art. Until then I will rely upon brilliant people like you to tell me what I must believe. Thank you for your superiority. Master: what is the meaning of life? I await you magnificent guidance. Your humble servant…

Kinda like milking the Steer.

Maybe if we do it one more time it will work.

Birtherism is pure racist. And its NOT Liberals and/or Democrats playing “the race card”. Its plain out RACIST! It rings of the “Why dont you go back where you came from?” crap that racist love to scream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI

I love this stuff. Every time Orly Taitz or her gullible fans show up on TV, a little more credibility leaks out of the Republican Party. That well is close to dry.

On the downside, sane people who live in places like Georgia see their States’ reputations slide further into the pit.

Republicans, unless you want the word “dodo” stenciled across every photo of a Party member, you need to disavow these cloddish nutbags.

These guys can’t handle real facts: they conflict with their resentment-driven crackpottery.

(P.S.: In your concluding sentence, I think you meant “led to the 19th Amendment *granting* suffrage.”)

Spoken just like the poor white trailer trash you are. For the most part, you and others who commented on your stupid post just can’t stand that it’s a Black man as President; get use to it, he will be voted in for a second term. You and the rest of your racist counterparts got four more years to spew your racist hatred.

If you have hundreds of lawsuits hitting you at the same time, are you going to defend yourself — and have to needlessly spend money on attorneys — or do you simply ignore them? THAT’s why he’s spent so much money. Because he had to. And in the end, he didn’t hide anything. Or don’t you recall when he went on live TV and showed his long-form BC for the entire country to see? Geez, people. Don’t you have actual lives?

Take it from me: the Supreme Court (even this Court, with its preponderance of wingnuts) is not going to write new law to make Orly Taitz and her gang of goofballs happy.

They (generally) respect precedent (a serial process, meaning new precendent supersedes previous interpretations) and good sense, two things anathema to the birfer movement.

I think the larger question is what do YOU smoke.

I think the larger question is, what do YOU smoke?

Keep in mind the year was 1875 when this Supreme Court ruling was issued. Women did not have the right to vote, much less be president. The 19th ammendment was not ratified until 1920. They eventually ruled against her, denying her the right to vote. The issue in the Georgia case is based upon the definition they interpreted a “natural born citizen” to be. The 1875 Supreme Court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen.

With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.

However, today’s Supreme Court has never accepted thisconsensus opinion and there is no court ruling or Federal statute which establishes the consensus opinion as settled law.

I believe the judge in the Georgia case could simply rule that this matter has already been adjudicated due to the fact that in 2008 Obama was certified to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to run for president.

No, if you scroll all the way down in the Georgia transcript posted by one of the nutters here, you’ll find that the Hawaiian chronsynclasticinfundibulum issue you raise above was indeed submitted by Ms. Taitz, as additional evidence that Obama couldn’t have been born in Hawaii, since it’s in an alternate, non-physical universe.

Case closed!

I think rather than “overwhelming” you might use words like “underwhelming,” “silly,” “pointless,” “idiotic,” and “pure-D nuts.”

Then you’d be at least approaching the truth.

Hello sid_id,

I did read the decision. Link below, but I thought wiki captured it well. The decision contains your quotes word for word. They also acknowledge the 14 amendments grant of US citizenship by birth alone, but question it, but state clearly that the question NOT to be decided by this case. Which means its not “defined”. That being said its a pretty sad statement that you people are relying on a supreme court case that validated classes of citizenship and was consider so egregious it was overturned by a constitutional amendment. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the case, but for the sake of argument say I do, are you advocating reinstating all of the decision or just the part that suits you. Oh, I will admit this. I said end suffrage. Meant to say given.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html 

Clearly you’re an idiot, Henry. I’ve done so here, repeatedly and fervently. You could look it up.

I don’t believe it’s the hate in their souls as much as the rocks in their heads.I also wouldn’t have them self-deport when then can all board the Noot piloted moon shot and become the first moon colonists.Oh,wait,that’s not going to work either.You can’t hear an ECHO CHAMBER IN A VACUUM.NEVER MIND!

I’m disappointed that Maddow would put Orly Taitz in the spot light. She has sold out to tabloid sensationalism. 

I did, thank you may correction is in a previous response. Thanks

No, not so much frivolous lawsuits as the litigation lottery.

You are correct – the ‘Natural Born’ clause was based on racism as practiced by our Founding Fathers, remember slavery was legal. They felt that foreigners were not loyal to the United States and sought to keep people with foreign allegiances out of the WHITE House. See, its all racism. They even wrote in the Constitution that only whites can be elected President, right? but they did it a sneaky way because they did not want to address slavery openly since they were so ashamed. OK, sure…

But it is still the law. And, a good one. America is still properly prejudiced against foreigners or their children occupying the highest office.  Soooo, OK, we’re racist to support the views of our Founding Fathers.

Still does not change the law whatever motivation you assign. Good intentions, bad intentions, racist Constitution or not just does not matter. The law says ‘natural born’; for some reason it is not just “citizen”. 

Your silly charge fails Mr. Silly.

Previous response…………………….

Hello sid_id,
I did read the decision. Link below, but I thought wiki captured it well. The decision contains your quotes word for word. They also acknowledge the 14 amendments grant of US citizenship by birth alone, but question it, but state clearly that the question NOT to be decided by this case. Which means its not “defined”. That being said its a pretty sad statement that you people are relying on a supreme court case that validated classes of citizenship and was consider so egregious it was overturned by a constitutional amendment. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the case, but for the sake of argument say I do, are you advocating reinstating all of the decision or just the part that suits you. Oh, I will admit this. I said end suffrage. Meant to say given.

As you clearly know from personal experience. Didn’t they tell you how dangerous it was to suddenly stop taking your medication?

Exactly right, sid_id.

I suggest, you contact your leaders and ask them to send a rescue ship
– immediately — from your native planet. Your cover has been blown and
your planet misses you. They are awaiting your full report as to
activities on planet Earth. Happy journeys my friend from another world.

That’s a damned funny thing to hear from “MoonColonist”

A half black/half white man is president. I know a real black guy I’d trade him for tomorrow.

Myself, I’m doing a little dance.

Although, it looks like my fave, Gingrich, has cratered too soon to be the ‘Lican nominee, which would have been more fun than Romney.

Of course! Everyone recognizes that Lucifer was the first community organizer and wants another one!

Have you ever read Rules for Radicals?

And of course, your credibility — as an anonymous Internet poster clearly out of your depth — is higher than Obama’s.

That all you have to argue with is a little zinger, and that your only argument is ad hominem tells me that you’re conceding.

If you keep discussing this with them,they’ll just keep sticking around.How many times do I have to tell you “YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID”.

I just want to know why does e-verify flag Obama’s Social Security number as fraudulent?

Satan spawn!!

Clearly you’re unaware that this comment is grammatically challenged…..sweet irony.

you mean the same Roberts who refused to hear any birther challeges. LOL

That would also make Romney ineligible as well, His dad was born in Mexico!

What ever you say your Eminence.

That would make Romney ineligible as well. Wasn’t Romney’s dad born in Mexico?

Van, your linked worked for me, but again more distortion. It mentioned the below case and I addressed it. I loved the E verify coming back as fraudulent testimony. I am pretty sure that if you use the SS# of POTUS to apply at Taco Bell its going to get flagged. Anyway, this whole thing reminds me of Charlie Brown. He positive he’s going to get to kick the ball this time. Everyone one else on earth knows what’s going to happen, but he still does it. And if you think that’s an inappropriate analogy show me a victory.

if you belive that your high.

First of all, I am not one of “you people” that lives in Georgia and is contesting this in court.

Furthermore, the 1875 Supreme Court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen. With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.

However, the consensus opinion, through widely held, remains only an opinion. Today’s Supreme Court has never accepted this consensus opinion and there is no court ruling or Federal statute which establishes the consensus opinion as settled law.

I personally believe the judge in the Georgia case could rule that this issue has already been adjudicated due to the fact in 2008 Obama was then certified to be a “natural born citizen” and was ruled eligible to run for president. He was also on the ballot in Georgia, so I think this would set the precedent.

I state once again, I am not from Georgia and I think this is a waste of time and abuse of the judicial system. I have tried to remain impartial in my description’s of the current case and the 1875 case, I’m sorry if you thought it seemed otherwise.

On a side note, the case in Georgia has nothing to do with the right’s of women to vote but merely the definition they used for a “natural born citizen” in their ruling. The people who brought this case in Georgia have singled out that defintion and are trying to prevent Obama from getting on the ballot there in 2012.

However, let’s be tactical rather than think of ourselves as the interface between the ineducable and the rest of the world.

The taint of this dumb-cluck madness (or “taitz” of madness) both smells and sticks.

Republicans without the self-respect to repudiate this nonsense get splashed and begin to give off unpleasant odors.

This is a plus for sensible and progressive people together.

So let ‘em foam, I say.

How could she resist?

He did it specifically to piss YOU off.

It’s always the misinformed, brainwashed UNCLE TOMS to say something stupid to make the red-neck racists comments seem viable.

OK, I apologize for the “you people” comment. A post is not an insight into every aspect of ones opinion. I just felt the post was misleading. The truth is its a long long long opinion. You can take a lot from it. And I agree nothing is going to come from this hearing. Its just another show by Taitz. 

If the Hillary campaign couldn’t make the birth certificate stick , I doubt this will!

I don’t know what he is smoking, but all I can say is stay away.

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
doubts.”

This court decision explicitly does not attempt to solve the question of someone like Obama. So, the Court affirmed that children of two natural born citizens are decidedly natural born citizens themselves, but left the other question open. It’s entirely possible, under this ruling, that someone like Obama would be considered a natural born citizen. (which I guess, unless there’s another decision which answers the question, means that it’s still an open question… hm… Though I’m pretty sure I was taught at every level of my education that “natural-born” meant “born here.” Why would they teach that, and why would almost every American be under that assumption, if the question is unresolved?)

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children *born in a country* of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
citizens…” (emphasis mine)

It looks like to me, based on the information you provide, that the location of the birth DOES matter. Says it right there. “In the country of parents who were its citizens.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Out of ALL of your relentless posts, only 1 like and its Duke chestnut.

tee hee hee

Gingrich would flame out BIG.
and Too bad he brought out Romney baggage now.

I agree, this is nothing but a show. At the hearing on this issue in Georgia, I read that Taitz instead of facing the judge when she was presenting her argument, instead turned and faced the audience. She was quickly admonished by the Judge to turn and face him. Alot of people on here seem to think that because Obama or no one from his legal team was present at the hearing, the judge will enter a default judgment in her favor. I disagree with that logic. Precedent was established in 2008 when he was certified to be a natural born citizen and was ruled eligible to be on the Georgia ballot for the presidential race. If this judge does decide to go the other way though, Obama’s lawyers will quickly appeal and it will end up in the Supreme Court where it will be expedited for a hearing similar to the Bush/Gore fiasco in 2000 in Florida. There is no way they will rule against him.

 get help

I just curious as to how this anti-American racist was even given citizenship in our country.  She is an alien.

 He did use the new one “Just get out of the way”

I would imagine that it is meaningless to the people in Georgia that the US Supreme Court has already refused to hear any case regarding the President’s birth in Hawaii.

And just why do you think someone would have the correct Social security number of the president?  If someone tried to do an e-verify on the right number, I sure hope that it would question their right to use that number.
@facebook-1488585777:disqus 
It would not be unusual for a mother to include minor children on her passport using the same last name as she has. 

When will you racists finally give up and accept facts?

A case would have to have been brought to Roberts et al (=SCOTUS).  He couldn’t initiate and act unilaterally.  That’s not how it works.

BO knows he’s not eligible, and that’s very disturbing:  A Constitutional law lecturer who usurps, then on day one of term seals all personal records by Executive Order.  

I think we are more on the same page than I thought. Tired of the flaming all around to be honest. This will be my last post on the issue. I agree with your observations of the trial. My only disagreement is the end result of the trial and its just option not fact. I think you are over thinking it politically. My personal call is that based on the judges demeanor during the trial he will not move forward. He looked upset. That’s a  polite description. If by chance he does and it goes to SOS of Georgia. He’s not going to want that kind of attention national. Game over politically. No more national ambitions. I call it at that level. Its a bluff. No Supreme Court. Have a good night sid.

Unlike Obama…She is legal.

How would that piss me off?? He’s willing to risk getting left off the election ballot in Georgia and he proved he is a coward. I’m supposed to be mad about that?? 

The last time Georgia attempted to secede from the federal union, it didn’t work out so well. I don’t think it will this time, either.

Taking Obama off the election ballot = seceding from the federal union????

The refusal has been based on denying citizens the right to challenge the eligibility of an elected official. The ballot challenge in Georgia gives voters the statutory right that these other courts chose to deny. I think the people in Georgia would be sickened to know that these other courts deny those rights.  

The law of the land is against you sid. US Code Title 8, S1401 contains 8 definitions for who is considered a natural born citizen (citizen by virtue of birth). This old court case cites examples of who would be a citizen, but does not define citizenship except for the purposes of argument, and this definition is by no means exclusive. The law as it is currently codified and applied is clear: a person born overseas to one citizen parent is still a natural born citizen, as is one born on US soil.
Birthers just twist in the wind and don’t realize it. M v H is being used as deflection to confuse and protract this artificial debate.

Ever heard of the nullification acts? It’s a slippery slope.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were talking about Obama…

Here’s the real facts, right from the USSC ruling:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born
citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,
with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of
parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,
citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

That’s a few minutes of my life I’ll never get back. Thanks loads.

That’s the most pointless and irrelevant thing I’ve read since Pablo’s last post. As for the content of the video: who cares?

Breathless forboding tones do not a conspiracy make. Except for crackpots and birfers (terms that are generally considered synonyms).

Yes, a precedent for pissant public officials from podunk to ruin their careers by confirming their idiocy.

However, there is a court ruling which defines “natural born citizen”.  That would be Minor v. Happersett, and say a “natural born citizen” was understood by our founders, at common law, to mean the child of two citizen parents. 

Take it from you?  Who the heck are you?  No new laws are needed.  They already exist and just need to be enforced. 

No, I think that’s you projecting.

Funny, I recall Obama saying, while in Hawaii, that he was in Asia. 

Because. It. Doesn’t. Matter.

The law says born on US soil = natural born citizen (except for the children of diplomats). Obama’s father could have been from Alpha Centauri, and it wouldn’t change a thing.

Unfortunately for you, senate resolutions are not codified law. 

Article II, Section I, Clause V of the US Constitution is though.  So is Minor v. Happersett.  Read them.  Educate yourself.

The secret of life (if not the meaning) is: “don’t be a fool.”

Grammar NAZI.  Go figure.

Obama is not masquerading as a dentist.  He’s masquerading as a US President.

You’re right.  They aren’t. 

The wackos are those who continually cover for the usurper in chief.

No, because birferism makes all rightwingers (especially those without the self-respect to reject such nonsense) look like geeks.

By which I mean the classical definition of “geek,” the guy who bites the heads off live chickens in circus freak shows.

Sane people love birferism, because it makes it that much more likely that their fellow sane people will win more elections than the nutbags the wingnutariat trots out.

You list some people who were grandfathered under the “natural born citizen” clause
like Thomas Jefferson (Art II, Section I, Clause V). The other’s parents were naturalized citizens before those
persons were born with the (probable) exception of Chester A Arthur who
lied, obstructed and later burned his personal papers just before he died.

Try again.

another grammar nazi

He didn’t need to.  Obama already did.

I think they understand it; they just can’t* accept* it. Remember, we’re talking of people here who don’t exactly have everything bolted down securely.

Oh yeah, let’s start in NY or MA or CT or CA or IL – are those states “neutral” enough for you?

Race baiting is the last refuge of scoundrels who have no argument.

Really???  Almost every economist?  So glad you enlightened us. 

Yes, public opinion is changing.  More people are hating the usurper every day.

No, it’s the result of racist delusions of statist race baiters.

It’s amusing how the race baiters only see things as black or white.

Madcow? 

Not to mention ALL references to Minor v. Happersett SCRUBBED from JUSTIA prior to the 2008 elections.  Nope.  No conspiracy there either.

Except…it’s not a production by WND!!!  It’s Congressional record. 

Are you one of those guys who believes what he reads on the internet thingy only when it meshes with your narrow worldview? 

Are you one of those guys who puts his finger in his ears and goes “la la la la I’m not listening” when someone refers to Congressional facts? 

More race baiting.  More same old same old. 

You don’t think Obama had dirt on Hillary?

Madcow IS tabloid sensationalism.

A black man born to two US citizen parents is totally eligible to run for POTUS.  For example, Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, Alan West.  Obama is not.  What an ignorant statement.  The race baiting is nothing more than projection.

I love the tagline to the story.  “dividing by zero”. 

Yes, Zero is very good at dividing our country.

I love the tagline to the story.  “dividing by zero”. 

Yes, Zero is very good at dividing our country.

OK, does militant feminist homosexual work for you?

If they want to ruin their careers by pursuing the truth, and if there’s nothing to the Obama NBC issue, then you and the big Zero have got nothing to sweat, right?

100% true. 

You’re chastising an anonymous internet poster yet your screen name is “expatpatriot”??? 

Precious.

George Romney was born to 2 US citizen parents, which made him a US citizen at birth.

More ignorance.

Speaking of knuckleheads, please go back to the moon where you belong.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS was not responsible for vetting Obama.  That was supposedly done by Pelosi & Reid. 

Funny thing is, their certification only said that Obama was eligible, not “constitutionally” eligible to run for POTUS.  Certifications for previous presidential candidates included “constitutionally” part.

Pelosi and Reid should be thrown in jail along with Obama and the rest of the criminals.

“The law says born on US soil = natural born citizen”

Really?  Where?

Herbert Hoover’s mother was Canadian..and a US citizen at the time of little Herbert’s birth.

Sorry Ayana, Obama Sr. was already married to his wife in Kenya, which was documented by the United States  INS – which make any marriage in the US invalid.  So Obammy SR never was a US citizen.

NEXT

Try Minor v. Happersett.  Clearly defined.

Yep,  Chester Arthur did a really good job at hiding his eligibliity also – just like Zero.

Why would the law of the land be against me? I am not from Georgia and had nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

I am not a birther and I personally believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and is the POTUS.

Obviously you mistook my observations on the 1875 case in the wrong way.

Like I stated earlier, if you had only read it, this is a waste of time and an abuse of the judicial system.

1874.  Minor v. Happersett.

The courts do not decide eligibility.  Do some research.

Why is it that Obama apologist butt kissers are race baiters? 

Yep. Because my credibility is based on what I say, not on who I call a liar.

It’s not even a fine distinction. Pretty obvious, actually.

Perhaps I should have phrased it “non-crackpot interpretation of law says . . . ”

Here’s a nice summary: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

If they want to ruin their careers by lapping up Orly Taitz’s vomit, that is entirely their lookout.

And the only reason I’m sweating is because it’s 105 degrees where I’m sitting right now.

Hate much? The Republicans do not have a viable candidate.
Obama will be president for four more years. Deal with it.

Obama is President of the United States. Deal with it. He will be president for another four years as well.You have no one that can even come close to beating him.

Don’t blame the messager.  There are some sick people out there.

The unemployment rate is now 8.5 down from 9.1 in July.Personal income increased $8.5 billion.For the year to date:
The Dow is up 539.40 points, or 4.4 percent.
The S&P 500 is up 68.46 points, or 5.4 percent
The Nasdaq is up 213.16 points, or 8.2 percent

In potential 2012 match-ups, it’s President Obama 46% and Mitt Romney 42%. However, if Newt Gingrich is his Republican opponent, the president has opened a double digit lead, 49% to 39%

The simple facts are there are people out there that would go to any limit to try and discredit the president or to get their face in front of a camera.  The liberals did some of this with Bush  although I do feel to the degree conservative extremist have to this president.  If you call they did the same thing to Clinton and oh by the way led by you guest it good old NEWT.  Who he says now he work with Clinton  to blance the budget and all that time he was trying to make him a one term president. 

Romney’s grandmother was impregnated by Pancho Villa during the revolution. The Romney’s hopped the border when Pancho and his wife wanted custody of the child, whom they wanted to name Jorge Villa.

Villa’s ghost is pleased with his grandson’s plundering of companies as a venture capitalist. “Meet” Romney, as he is still called in parts of Mejico, is living up to the standards of his true grandfather, Pancho.

She is this really well informed and entertainting pundit on MSNBC at 9pm weeknights.

You should see a mental health professional.

You do realize it’s state law that dictates this right?  Oh wait… Conservatives are too damn stupid to to know the Constitution beyond the 2nd and 10th Amendments.  Your opinion is noted as moronic. Have a Nice Day 

To:  sid_id

”
I believe the judge in the Georgia case could simply rule that this matter has already been adjudicated due to the fact that in 2008 Obama was certified to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to run for president.”
Can you provide PROOF that Obama AT ANY TIME was “certified” to be a “natural born citizen”.

THANKS
REPUBLIC RISING

Awwww. Such cute baby talk. Birferism. You little sheep have your own language, to go with your own facts, to fit your own history. The trifecta of the brainwashed clowns.

Mike Berlon:

“I think that if the Secretary of State made the decision to take the President off the ballot, no one’s really going to jump up to help us.”

Look, candidate Obama and his attorney didn’t show up to this hearing for one reason, and one reason only…they screwed up their PTO so badly, they couldn’t even enter candidate Obama’s COLB into the record. Every action take by them since the submission of their PTO has been an effort to naviagte around their hopelessly defective PTO, nothing more.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Birthers are the most moronic chumps in the history of politics.
Great examples from many of them posting here, humans just don’t get any dumber than birthers…….well the tea baggers are on the same level.

 Another birther drone.

You DAMN RACEIST – why you have to interject race into this issue?

There has been illegibility challenges before with white presidents. This has NOTHING to do with race (which by the way he is an ARAB not a Negro according to his family in Kenya and they should KNOW better than anyone else including Oblamer) it has to do with transparency, eligibility, Truth, Honesty, etc.REPUBLIC RISING

sid_id:

I don’t think that was the actual question before this Administrative Court. In fact, Judge Malihi made a “Finding” in this case, click here to read all of Judge Malihi’s findings: 

Finding Number 8:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has set been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

sid_id:
I don’t think that was the actual question before this Administrative Court. In fact, Judge Malihi made a “Finding” in this case, click here to read all of Judge Malihi’s findings: 

Finding Number 8:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has set been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

sid_id:
I don’t think that was the actual question before this Administrative Court. In fact, Judge Malihi made a “Finding” in this case, click here to read all of Judge Malihi’s findings: 

Finding Number 8:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has set been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

sid_id:
I don’t think that was the actual question before this Administrative Court. In fact, Judge Malihi made a “Finding” in this case, click here to read all of Judge Malihi’s findings: 

Finding Number 8:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has set been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

ex animo
davidfarra

Dear Ms. Taitz:

…we have received a copy of the subpoena that you sent … commanding him
to produce certain documents and attend a pretrial deposition on January
25, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. Our client will not be attending the
deposition nor will he produce any documents as you have requested in
the subpoena. Under the Rules of Procedure for the Office of State
Administra­tive Hearings subpoenas may be issued “at any place within Georgia.” See Rule 616-1-2-.1­9. There is no provision allowing the issuance of subpoenas out of the state of Georgia. As such, the subpoena is not valid.

===

So again, key points:

* Orly sent these subpoenas, not the judge.
* She sent them to people who were under no legal obligation to reply.

Oh, and:

* This particular reply is from Joe Arpaio.

Permalink
 |
Share it

The link you referred to has an order signed by the judge dated January 3rd, 2012.

This is the case I am referring to which references the 1875 Supreme Court opinion. It took place on January 26th, 2012.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/no-obama-in-court-1318908.html

divide by zero

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 – section 301.  Read it and weep.

Take it from me.  That court case has been superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Look it up.  Section 301.  

tee hee hee

whatever that guy is smoking, i don’t want any!!  

Remember the year is 2008:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Committee. As Chair, her duty was to sign the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination. DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.” Nancy Pelosi signed the DNC’S Official Certification of Nomination swearing that Barack Obama was the “Duly Nominated” canidate for President and he was LEGALLY QUALIFIED to serve under the provisions of the United States constitution. That document was then forwarded to state Democratic party chairs, who in turn delivered the document to election officials (some of whom were Republicans) so thatthey could print the name of Barack Obama, the party nominee, on stategeneral election ballots.  
 Under the laws in every state, the law requires that the party candidatemust be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Once state election officials receive the Official Certification of Nomination, the name of the nominee for President from the major political party is entitled to appear on the state’s general election ballot.

So, your PROOF would be that all 50 states certified Barack Obama met the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and therefore hewas on all 50 states general election ballots. (By the way, he won).

To this day NO ONE has proven that Barack Obama did not meet the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution to serve as President.

So, my question to you is; what PROOF do YOU offer that he did not meet the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution.
 
Ok, now we fast forward to 2012:

David Welden, a citizen of Georgia, filed a complaint under Georgia law challenging the qualifications of President Obama to appear on the 2012 Georgia ballot for the office of President. He then contacted Liberty Legal Foundation and requested their assistance. They have been representing him in this action since December of 2011. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an opposition to Obama’s motion to dismiss and the Georgia court agreed with them and on January 3, 2012 the Judge denied Obama’s motion. The court’sopinion clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Weldon to challenge Obama’s Constitutional qualifications. This ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other court challenges to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office have been dismissed.

Additionally, this just in:

Several Alabama citizens have filed a lawsuit within the Alabama Circuit Court to “prevent certification of President Barack Obama for 2012 Alabama ballot access pending final hearing based on factual evidentiary hearings.”

Naah, I’d say “birferism” pretty much nails it.

However, I live in the real world, so I understand how you might see it differently from whatever fantasyland you inhabit.

Just like the Iraqis conceded when GW Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” just because he said so, right? LOL!

Mike Berlon Lied ! 
No court in the land has determined Obama’s citizenship…they refused to hear the case!
…and that’s not a ‘determination’, that’s a cop-out!

No case has been allowed to get past the pleading stage, all cases have been dismissed on technical grounds of mootness, lack of standing, etc. No case haze been allowed discovery to send subpoenas for documents.

Go to American Thinker and look for an article that talks about a friend of Obama’s that owned a legal search engine that blocked any reference to the SCOTUS case that says to be a natural born citizen both parents at the time of birth must be US citizens. Obama has admitted his father was a Kenyan citizen. Hence Obama is there are a number of reasons Obama and his attorney did not appear for a number of reasons.

If Obama is not allowed on the ballot it will raise questions about his eligibility in many other States. Many of the cases file the first time Obama ran were dismissed on the technical grounds of mootness, or that the claim was too late. That is not the case here and there is also the sister State judgment act that could impact Obama in other States. About time this issue was given the light of day and Obama compelled to show if he meets the standard or not.

Does not pertain to the eligibility of an individual to be President, the highest standard in the Nation. Read it and educate yourself before posting.

Actually the question of where Obama was born has not truly been resolved. To pick a nit. In ?Hawaii in 1962, a Hawaiin resident could walk in off the street and say a baby popped out at a luau and could on their signature alone obtain a certification of live birth.

Obama claims he was born in a specific hospital, but no records have been produced to prove that. So the question remains, was Obama born in Kenya and his grandmother walked in and got a birth certification of live birth.

The only way to see if that is a possibility is for Obama to produce the original birth records, which he has refused to do. Is the original birth certificate the type the hospital issued with a doctors signature, or the type his grandmother signed for (which is so why did Obama lie?).

The laws in Hawaii were changed in 1972 to not allow a resident to sign for a birth certificate with no evidence. Lucky for Obama his grandmother could sign for a birth certificate in 1962.

Instead of making yourself sound like a fool, why don’t you offer up some proof.  If Obama cannot prove his citizenship,  how can you?  It seems as though they that you refer to as ‘moronic chumps’ can ask a simple question (i.e. “Where’s the birth certificate?”) but a smart guy like yourself cannot give a simple (an honest) answer.

I’ll pray for you.

Could you please tell me when that question was resolved?  Which of the 60 lawsuits was it?

Common law also considered a natural born citizen to be one born of two parents who were citizens.

The other part of the clause says those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible for the presidency.  That is how Jefferson qualified.

DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. The term “natural born citizen” has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama’s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!

—Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for those interested:
–”Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator – Official Proof 1 ( Layers )” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
–”Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4″ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c
–”Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/
–”Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324153/
–See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
–See evidence that Obama is using a Social Security Number (SSN) 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him but to someone else (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
–I stop giving more links because there are so many good articles on the Internet done by reliable experts proving, without the shadow of a doubt, that Obama’s birth certificate that he posted on the White House web site is a forgery!!!
—Just type the keywords Obama birth certificate forged in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why the Obama long form birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is simply a forgery!!!
—Do a search in http://www.youtube.com by typing the keywords Obama birth certificate fake and you will see videos demonstrating why the Obama birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is a forgery!!!

—Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii to check it directly. In particular, it is indispensable to assess if even this original long form birth certificate in Hawaii is truly genuine that is if it is not also a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama might never have been born in Hawaii!!!

2) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.

Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain’s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.

FIRST CONCLUSION:
—Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
—Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
—THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

DEFINITION OF A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:
If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
In particular, read:
—”The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html  

SECOND CONCLUSION:
—If you are a rational and honest person, no matter your political affiliation, you surely will be forced to conclude that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no doubt legally that a “natural born citizen” indeed requires that the President of the USA MUST HAVE two parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of Obama’s birth.
—The Constitution of the USA is sacred to any American citizen AND it applies to every single American citizen, no matter one’s political affiliation, no matter one’s color of the skin, no matter what!!!!
Therefore, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF LAW LIKE ANYBODY ELSE (NOT ABOVE IT!!!) AND IN PARTICULAR OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA LIKE ANYBODY ELSE (NOT ABOVE IT!!!)!!!!
—You now have the facts fully on the table concerning what a “natural born citizen” truly is, you cannot evade the truth about these facts!!!
Now, what path are you going to choose?
1) Keep Lying and hiding the facts, hoping that they will disappear by themselves!! Or
2) Choose to acknowledge these facts fully and be determined to fight for the truth?
The choice is yours! But the Constitution of the USA is at stake!!!

1. The self-proclaimed “experts” who have declared Obama’s birth certificate a forgery are nothing of the sort.
2. There is not and has never been a requirement that natural born citizen must have two US citizen parents.
3. You’re a lunatic.

Go to American Thinker and look for an article that talks about a
friend of Obama’s that owned a legal search engine that blocked any
reference to the SCOTUS case that says to be a natural born citizen both
parents at the time of birth must be US citizens.

There is not SCOTUS case that establishes any such definition. There’s a SCOTUS case that Birther loonies falsely claim establishes that definition, but they are wrong. And the American “Thinker” claim that a search engine is blocking references to that case is nonsense.

Obama has already proved his citizenship. And your Bin Laden conspiracy theory proves you’re even nuttier than the average Birther.

Maybe because the Social Security number you’re entering has no actual connection to Obama. He’s never used that SS# and the “stolen SS#” crap is just another Birther lie.

“Two US citizen parents” is not and has never been a requirement.

These self-proclaimed “experts” are just charlatans. Their testimony is worthless. As is your false claim that Obama has spent $2 million to block providing the documents that he’s already provided.

It’s you Birther loonies that are race baiters.

And that statement does not in any way establish a legal definition requiring two US citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

In Hawaii in 1962, a Hawaiin resident could walk in off the street and
say a baby popped out at a luau and could on their signature alone
obtain a certification of live birth.

No, they could not.

Also, hospital-issued birth certificates are not legally valid. They’re meaningless pieces of paper that exist only as commemoratives. Only state-issued birth certificates are valid proof of place of birth.

Minor v. Happersett establishes no such thing.

Chester Arthur never concealed the fact that his father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth. It was a widely known fact at the time of Arthur’s run for vice president and throughout his presidency.

Obama’s approval rating is steadily climbing. Unemployment is steadily dropping. These are real-world facts. But you live in a fantasy world where everybody hates Obama like you do.

Minor v. Happersett has no relevance to Obama’s eligibility.

Something that’s been proposed repeatedly for decades. Not so long ago, there were many Republicans backing the idea out of a desire to run Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The “evidence” is flagrantly false. And no, it was not a “Hiliary Clinton Campaign Staffer”who started the Birther movement. It was simply a guy who says he voted for Clinton.

Funny thing is, their certification only said that Obama was eligible, not “constitutionally” eligible to run for POTUS.

Given that there is no other kind of eligibility, how is there any difference there?

You should be thrown in a straitjacket.

He already has.

Questioning whether the president is American, and thus questioning whether he’s actually the president, is not legitimate.

Don’t hold your breath. Or better yet, do.

The Constitution requires that our president be a natural born citizen, born of two parents who are citizens

No, it doesn’t. The Constitution says nothing about “two parents who are citizens”.

There’s no such thing as a “14th Amendment citizen”. There are natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. That’s it. And the court specifically acknowledged that Minor was a natural born citizen. Their ruling was simply that it didn’t matter, because the Constitution does not guarantee the right of all citizens to vote. At the time, it was perfectly permissible under the Constitution to deny women the right to vote.

No, neither of them disclosed their college transcripts. Bush’s grades were revealed because somebody illegally leaked them.

I’d say you birthers are the fools.
The state of Hawaii laughs at you perhaps more than me. And the GOP Gov. there just shakes his head in disgust at people like you. One more time, sucker…….Obama was born in Hawaii and it is up to you to prove that fact false…….good luck birther boy.

As far as your other far fetched paranoid conspiracy theory……I’ll let you step in that pile of steaming tea bagger moron dung all by yourself!

That question was resolved in 2008 when all 50 states certified Barack Obama met the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and therefore was on all 50 states general election ballots. (By the way, he won).

Under the laws in every state, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Once state election officials receive the Official Certification of Nomination, the name of the nominee for President from the major political party is entitled to appear on the state’s general election ballot. To this day NO ONE has proven that Barack Obama did not meet the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution to serve as President. All courtchallenges to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office have been dismissed. So, my question to you is; what PROOF do YOU offer that he did not meet the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution.

The issue in the Georgia case is based upon a narrow definition they opined a “natural born citizen” to be. The 1875 Supreme Court also says that there are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in theU.S. to be a natural citizen.

With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.

In addition to the Georgia case, an Alabama court has announced that it will hear arguments as to whether Obama is in fact eligible to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot. Several Alabama citizens have filed a lawsuit within the Alabama Circuit Court to “prevent certification of President Barack Obama for 2012 Alabama ballot access pending final hearing based on factual evidentiary hearings.” By agreeing to hear the case, the Alabama Courts have effectively stalled any efforts by the Democratic Party to place Obama on the ballot. At the same time, the Alabama court also is recognizing that ordinary Alabama citizens do in fact have legal standing to question and challenge Obama’s eligibility. In the past, judge after judge have ruled that ordinary citizens did not have standing, stating that they were not sufficiently harmed by the actions of the defendant and therefore had no legal right to bring their cases before the courts.

The Hiliary Campaign Staff rumour has a life of its own.

Those who submitted Obama’s paperwork to the states left out the customary paragraph asserting that he qualifies.  The cases seeking a ruling on eligibility were dismissed for “lack of standing” and not on the merits.  One filer was told he lacked standing because Obama had not yet been inaugurated, but when he refiled after the inauguration he was told he should have filed before it.  No court has ruled on the adequacy of Obama’s documents or on his actual eligibility.

The personal writings of the founders further support their specification that presidents must be natural born citizens indicate that this arose out of concerns about dual allegiance if one parent were not a citizen.  . 

That is the Supreme Court’s and common law’s definition of a natural born citizen.  It is the natural born citizen requirement that appears in the Constitution.

Questioning whether he is a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution is certainly legitimate.  Otherwise why have the requirement?

Given that it’s proven beyond any rational doubt that he is a natural born citizen, no. It’s not legitimate to question it. Asking such a question proves you’re irrational.

No, Sleepy, it is not. Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. Only those born outside of the US need US citizen parents to be natural born citizens.

Then our founding fathers were lunatics also.
Read this and weep…
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
“to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship
through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child
can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be
raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return
in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign
influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen
indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.”
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations
for a definition, 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 that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners
or representatives of foreign Governments.”*

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a
natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship
through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law
whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had
become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a
citizen father.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
Read it…..weep!

Obama was absolutely born in Hawaii…that didn’t make him a natural born citizen. Obama’s father was a “temporary sojourner”, he inherited his British citizen ship from the father and naturalized because of the mother’s citizenship. Do  your own home work!l
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a
natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship
through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law
whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had
become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a
citizen father.

He is a citizen. Not a natural born citizen who could be President.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

I heard all that crap before. YAWN!!!!!!
Again, birthers are some of the biggest morons in the history of politics.

Don’t tell me what to do!
And  I laugh at you…….and every other birther.

Like every other birther luntaic, same shit, different sandwich.

What you link to is not the actual definition of a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is simply anyone who is at birth a citizen of the United States. That includes everyone born on US soil.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
OK let’s play the race card here and get your facts straight.
If the President born on US soil becomes the citizenship of his father by law is he a natural born US citizen or a naturalized citizen or a British citizen?
The founding fathers did not intend for anyone with dual citizenship to be President of the United States because the father could remove the child raise him in a foreign land and return with concepts foreign to America. Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia. You are what you were when you were 7.

Finally…someone who understands the founding fathers!
These people have been running around in circles looking for every excuse in the book to justify why this man should be President. When the founding fathers knew he should not be.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born.

That’s patent nonsense. Every nation has its own rules for citizenship, and not all of them have it passed down by bloodline. Nor does every nation use the concept of “natural born citizen”. Your claims of this being some universal worldwide rule are nuts.

LOL!!
Good luck birther boy!
Maybe that little prick Ron Paul will spew some lame birther accusation in the next circle jerk gop clown act posing as a debate.
Funny how hopeless the birthers are.

First of all I have to ask, why is this birth certificate thing racist? Is it because Obama is black? That, is just plain ignorance and is taking away from the issue. Race has no basis in this. Either he is or he isn’t qualified by the constitution. He is obviously educated and good on him for that. I am white and many of my closest friends are black or Mexican born naturalized citizens.
I don’t like Obama. I think he is worthless as president. He is worse than Carter and I thought that was all but impossible.  He has done nothing for this country that is good. Our debt continues to sky rocket because of his idiotic ideas and spending beyond the country’s means.

Sid_id:   ”it has led to a consensus opinion that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural born citizen”, regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship acquired at birth.”

link? wikiwiki?

“consensus”? link?

NAME OF HOSPITAL:
Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
LINK TO IMAGE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVIDED BY WHITE HOUSE:
http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/birth-certificatelongform

To this day NO ONE has proven that Barack Obama did not meet the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution to serve as President.

As usual the MSM gets it wrong. This has nothing to do with GOP it is simply a constitutional fraud being perpetrated by a manufactured man and his benefactors.  Somebody has spent a lot of time and money creating BHO to take over this once great country. Several republicans are not NBC either and will get the same challenge if and when the time comes.

All you have to do is listen to the evidence that was presented by Mark Hatfield and Irion at the Ga hearing and if you’ll pay the slightest bit of attenrion you’ll understand the evidence and if you have an IQ above 60 you’ll get it.

You need to read Minor a little closer. She claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen and the court rejected her argument by defining her as a natural-born citizen.

“The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, ….”"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.”"The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.”The Wong Kim Ark case went further and said specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizens:”In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”"  

Obama had a chance to prove his birth certificate is authentic in a court of law last week and the coward refused. Not one time have any of his alleged BCs been presented in any court of law. The idea is that a legal certificate is self-authenticating and qualifies as a “prima facie” evidence in any court proceeding, yet the coward has gone out his way to avoid showing it any court proceeding. 2+2=Fraud.

This one was confirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases, such as The Venue and Shanks v. Dupont, etc.

To this day NO ONE has proven that Barack Obama did not meet the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution to serve as President.

Rachel Maddow never lets the facts get in the way.  Anyone, even in a case with no merit, would be best advised for Obama to show up for court.

Rachel Maddow never said that part of the case which involved Obama’s father not being a US Citizen. 

Rachel Maddow has coined a new term.   Maddowed.  A manner in explaining a news story without any facts or merit as to convey a point that does not exist.

Wow dude, what are you like 12 years old or something?  Doesn’t really matter if he is or isn’t he’s still the worst president in the history of the good old USofA.
 In one year he will be gone!! May God Bless America and keep us from being destroyed by Obamanation..

Wow, are you really that full of jive ass canards?
I am not a dem, didn’t vote for Obama, will not this year.
But again, the birthers are likely the biggest morons in the history of politics.
And without a doubt the Dumbya/Cheney regime was the worst 8 years this nation has been forced to endure besides 8 years of that putz Reagan.. Did you vote for those chumps? Probably.

What ever happened to GOOD journalism????   Rachel Madcow, people like you are the reason I don’t watch ANY MSM, heck I don’t even watch ANYTHING ON THEIR NETWORKS.  Gone are the days when reporters REPORTED.  A GOOD REPORTER “REPORTS” I can make up my own mind, I don’t need you to tell me what to think.  Dumb broad!!!!!

Definition of consensus: General agreement

According to an article published by the Yale Law School, there is near-universal acceptance of the consensus viewpoint.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133663
(Look for this – One-Click Download – opens PDF file)

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009):
“The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” 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)”.
http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/41131059-crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions-with-ocr.pdf

On April 10, 2008, the U.S. Senate expressed a non-legally-binding opinion that John
McCain is a natural born citizen, eligible to serve as President. The Senate’s opinion was based, in part, on the belief that John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. (Senate Resolution 511)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

However, according to his long-form birth certificate and short-form Certificate of Live Birth, John McCain was born in the City of Colon, which is part of Panama itself. Colon was never a part of the Panama Canal Zone, and was never under U.S. administration. It was always under exclusive Panamanian sovereignty and jurisdiction. Regardless of where he was born, McCain acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, by descent from his parents. However, he did not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth on U.S. soil,
even if McCain had been born on a U.S. military base.

In 2004, the Senate drafted Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act (it gave a
definition of “natural born citizen”), but it never became law.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2128is.txt.pdf

It is important to note here that the reason it never became a law is because Congress may not change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. The Constitution is changed only through Supreme Court rulings or a Constitutional Amendment, not through laws that Congress enacts unilaterally.

So, to break it down in a nutshell here are the two opposing arguments (I have purposely left out any references to his allegedly “forged birth certificate” and his “stolen social security number” because those issues are nothing but a sideshow created by carnival barkers).
This is the real and only substantive issue:

Obama supporters: They believe in their opinion there are only two kinds of American citizens, naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called “naturalization”. A natural born
citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and therefore acquired U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship he might have also acquired at birth.

Non-Obama Supporters: They believe in their opinion that –“anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen” — is not consistent with historical fact and Supreme Court precedent. During the Constitutional era, when a child acquired dual (both American and foreign) citizenship at birth, such child might be deemed a “citizen” but was not a “natural
born citizen”. The term “natural born citizen” referred only to persons who were at birth, citizens of the United States exclusively and were not citizens at birth of any other country.
They also argue that both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens (Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, which he has admitted and been verified by the State Department).

Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which viewpoint is correct?

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question.
If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

This could all end by doing one thing. Let a team of experts examine the Birth records of Obama and Virginia Sunahara, this to enclude the  microflim. This would prevent a lot of court cases.

To break it down in a nutshell here are the two opposing arguments (I have purposely left out any references to his allegedly “forged birth certificate” and his “stolen social
security number” because those issues are nothing but a sideshow created by
carnival barkers).

This is the real and only substantive issue:

Obama supporters: They believe in their opinion there are only two kinds of American citizens, naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called “naturalization”. A natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and therefore acquired U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship he might have also acquired at birth.

Non-Obama Supporters: They believe in their opinion that –“anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen” — is not consistent with historical fact and Supreme Court precedent. During the Constitutional era, when a child acquired dual (both American and foreign)
citizenship at birth, such child might be deemed a “citizen” but was not a “natural born citizen”. The term “natural born citizen” referred only to persons who were at birth, citizens of the United States exclusively and were not citizens at birth of any other country. They also argue that both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens (Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, which he has admitted and been verified by the State Department).

Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which viewpoint is correct?

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United
States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

Something that most people don’t know….I watched the US Senate debates between Mr. Obama and Dr. Alan Keyes on WLS the ABC affiliate in Chicago, IL. Mr. Obama admitted that he was born in Kenya when asked by Dr. Keyes. I know what I heard! 

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

What I find most interesting about Madcow’s rant and the various (mostly off base) comments here is the attempt to change the subject. The sometimes frenzied, almost manic attempt to change the subject. Taitz is only one of many players, for starters. And the complaints are legally valid, and have NOT been voided by ANY other decision. And now, after the hearing, the major point is that Obama (et al) ignored (at a minimum) a LEGAL and VALID subpoena for no other reason than that they didn’t want to. This is a flagrant, egregious and unquestionable VIOLATION of LAW. Throw names like carzy, birthers, whatever- naaa-na-na-naa-naaa-, around all you want (widdle babies!) but you cannot erase that fact of history. This is akin to the goofy “birth certificate” nonsense. Obama has never, to ANY legitimate authority, presented a valid certified real “long-form” birth certificate. He has produced a variety– as in MORE THAN ONE– of “certificates of live birth” which are virtually useless. NONE of those, for instance, could even get him a driver’s license in Hawaii after March 5, when he would need (drum roll please) a real “Birth Certificate” and those other things would NOT be enough. FACT. And no one has to claim that he was not born in the U.S., or that he is not a “natural born citizen”. The “birther” thing is IRRELEVANT. The FACT is he hasn’t proven his basic identity. If you still don’t understand, try this Fact: with the Cert’s he’s shown thus far Obama could NOT apply for Social Security benefits at retirement. That is a FACT.

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

Something that most people don’t know….I watched the US Senate debates between Mr. Obama and Dr. Alan Keyes on WLS the ABC affiliate in Chicago, IL. Mr. Obama admitted that he was born in Kenya when asked by Dr. Keyes. I know what I heard! 

You DO know that Pelosi did NOT equally certify to all 50 states?

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

Only the United States Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion or the Georgia court) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. If the Georgia court denies Obama access to the general election ballot there, obviously Obama will appeal and it will be kicked up to the Georgia Supreme court (who may or may not issue an opinion), but  ultimately it would end up before the United States Supreme Court (depending on the outcome in the Georgia court). If the Georgia court decides in Obama’s favor then we are left in limbo as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.

DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. The term “natural born citizen” has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama’s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!

—Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for those interested:
–”Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator – Official Proof 1 ( Layers )” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
–”Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4″ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c
–”Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/
–”Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324153/
–See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
–See evidence that Obama is using a Social Security Number (SSN) 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him but to someone else born in 1890 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
—Just type the keywords Obama birth certificate forged in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why the Obama long form birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is simply a forgery!!!
—Do a search in http://www.youtube.com by typing the keywords Obama birth certificate fake and you will see videos demonstrating why the Obama birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is a forgery!!!

—Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii to check it directly. In particular, it is indispensable to assess if even this original long form birth certificate in Hawaii is truly genuine that is if it is not also already (!!!) a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama might never have been born in Hawaii!!!

2) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.

Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain’s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.

CONCLUSION:
—Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
—OBAMA REFUSED TO SHOW UP AT A GEORGIA COURT WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO BY THE JUDGE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO BRING SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT OBAMA IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND THAT HE COMMITTED SEVERAL FRAUDULENT ACTS THAT PROBABLY COULD BE SANCTIONNED BY A JAIL SENTENCE!!!
—Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
—THIS HUGE DECEPTION BY OBAMA IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

DEFINITION OF A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:
If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
IN PARTICULAR, MAKE SURE YOU READ:
—”The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html  

YES YOU CAN!!! YOU, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU CAN FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH!!!
CONCRETELY, WHAT CAN YOU DO IN YOUR STATE TO GET JUSTICE AND TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA?
1) Contact your governor, your senator, your elected representatives, the attorney general and any appropriate officials and ask them to put in place a legal process to ensure that Obama is on the ballot of your state ONLY IF OBAMA HAS PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE GEORGIA CASE AND THAT OBAMA HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE.
More, PLAN TO ASK FULL DISCOVERY ON OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN HAWAII AND ON OBAMA’S FRAUDULENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER THAT HE USES!!!
2) In case your state would not have appropriate laws to do what is indicated in point 1) just above, ask the appropriate officials in your state to create a law that will grant your state the same rights than the state of Georgia has to fully check a candidate BEFORE he is put on the ballot for any elections, in particular for the coming election for the position of President of the USA.
To conclude:
—IF THE STATE OF GEORGIA HAS A LAW TO FULLY CHECK CANDIDATES’ REQUIREMENTS BEFORE THEY ARE PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR VARIOUS ELECTIONS, SO CAN YOUR STATE TOO!!!
—YOUR ACTIONS LOCALLY IN YOUR STATE WILL ENSURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS FULLY RESPECTED AND THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!
—AS OBAMA THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE LAW BY NOT SHOWING UP IN COURT IN GEORGIA WHEN HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO BY THE JUDGE, ONLY TO AVOID HAVING TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT SURELY WOULD HAVE PROVED HIS LACK OF ELIGIBILITY TO BE ON THE BALLOT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA (NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT OBAMA PERPETRATED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE), YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS A LEGAL AND MORAL DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS RESPECTED FULLY AND APPLIED FULLY TO ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY TO OBAMA WHO BELIEVES THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW AS HE HAS RECENTLY DEMONSTRATED IN GEORGIA!!!

Georgia law requires all candidates to be eligible to hold the office in order for them to be on the ballot.  Is there anything wrong with that law?  I don’t think so.  The Georgia Secretary of State followed the law when the issue was raised by sending it to an administrative law court to gather the necessary evidence.  It is not the Secretary of State’s fault the lawyer for Obama and the Democrats did not show up.  What were they afraid of?  Does not showing up demonstrate a position of strength or weakness?  I think the attorney did not want to be known as the lawyer who lost to the Birthers.  He was just running scared.  Guess what?  You can’t win if you don’t show up.  Obama will not be on the ballot in Georgia for this primary.  And now that the Birthers have a strategy that wins, you can expect them to replicate it in other states that have similar laws as Georgia.  I’m not sure, but I think that would be most states.  What will the Democrats do if Obama will not be on enough ballots to be re-elected?  

That Yale article proves nothing of the sort – it argues for “reinterpreting” the clause…

“consensus” is not something that one “side” can declare – it depends on people with views on both sides of the issue agreeing, in a vast and substantial majority, to become a “consensus”. One writer’s declaration of consensus does not make a consensus. 

However, this may be a moot point since the record of the hearing only contains evidence that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country of two citizen parents per historic and constitutional debate records. The “consensus” opinion is not in the hearing record. My read of Georgia State law is that any appeal of the SOS final decision will be based only on the record. 

Then, when obama jumps to Federal Court, as threatened, the issue changes from ‘definition’ to States rights and ballot law. Some will find that the record is supportive of States rights on this item and it will be very hard to overcome case law – obama has ignored this at his peril. The president’s attorney has some attitude that a Federal Judge is going to come in and tell Georgia that they have no rights in the matter – I don’t think its going to be that easy. The timing should get very interesting as the appeals can stretch out past the election date.

it is a very interesting exercise in the study of Constitutional Law, but the words “natural born’ were inserted for a specific purpose and with a specific meaning. Let’s see what the SOS does…

Right. Obama proved two things last week. A) He’s a coward and B) He won’t fight to defend his eligibility. It’s time to challenge him in all 57 states.

Thanks for your response and opinion,
I guess I interpreted the Yale article differently than you did, my take on the article was this: Since today’s U.S. Supreme court has never accepted this “consensus opinion” and there is no court rulings or Federal statute that establishes the “consensus opinion” as settled law, the Yale article was indeed arguing for reinterpreting the clause to provide a clear legal definition that could withstand any consitutional challenges.
My definition of “consensus opinion” is that the majority of people including many legal scholars believe the definition of a natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and therefore acquired U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship he might have also acquired at birth.

Thanks for your reply. I’m really trying to get to the core of the question and I appreciate your approach to look at the details. 
My main point is that the question is not one of “consensus”, rather it is a question of law, and as such, we should be able to look at relevant history and legal records objectively and directly without call to some ‘higher authority’. Many people are making claims and assertions based on their own opinions or on partial reading or selective quotes. Takes a bit to sift through the competing claims.

Seems to me after my review of what I can find and what makes sense that it boils down to what the definition of “parents” is: are both required to be citizens at the time of birth to confirm “natural born” status, is it from the father only per history and common law, or can you now “reinterpret” in the modern era to mean born of ONE parent who is a citizen, or just being born here is sufficient to be called “natural born”. 

Facts, common law, history, case law, evidence, Constitutional debate records, Senate Records, etc. should be the basis for the understanding, not what someone would like it to become… our modern sensibilities may think it would be more “fair” if everyone born domestically had all of the same rights but the historic and legal record does not support that sentiment.

I guess we would have to start with the Georgia case since  the court’s opinion clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Weldon to challenge Obama’s Constitutional qualifications.

Here is the crux of their case:

Barack Obama — regardless of where he was born — has dual citizenship — he acquired British nationality (his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, but was from  Kenya which was still under British rule), his mother was a U.S. citizen thereby granting him dual citizenship at his birth. His citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

The plaintiff in the Georgia case is relying in part on this United States Supreme Court opinion Minor v. Happersett issued in 1874. I am not positive, but I think they are using this case as well: Wong Kim Ark (1898), In the majority opinion from the 1898 case, Justice Gray quoted an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a U.S.-born child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien (foreigner or one with dual citizenship). In Binney’s opinion, both children were U.S. citizens by birth, but only the U.S.-born child of a U.S citizen was labeled “natural born”.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), was a case about a woman from Missouri who was denied the right to vote and appealed to the Missouri Supreme court and eventually the U.S. Supreme court. Her case relied on the definition of “citizen” as per the 14th. ammendment specfically stating that –”As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and all the ‘privileges and immunities’ that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States”.– The 1874 Supreme Court took on the difficult task of defining what a “citizen” was vs. a “natural born citizen” eventually defining two classes of persons. One class consisted of U.S.-born children of two U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consisted of all other U.S.-born children. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. The Court distinguished “natural born citizens” from “aliens or foreigners”, suggesting that a “natural born citizen” is one who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen-which Obama is due to his dual citizenship). The inference being that this second class is merely “citizens”.

It is this narrow interpretation of a “natural born citizen” in the 1874 case that the plaintiff is relying on in the Georgia case. Here is an excerpt from the opinion and a link to the whole opinion. (First link is 1874, Second link is 1898).

 ”The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

As of today there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen and even the 1874 court says the Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. You would think that with all the controversy surrounding this issue that Obama would ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his “natural born citizen” status.

Who is Obama?
Read the Obama TImeline by Don Fredrick.
20,000 footnotes.

Obama is an Indonesian citizen. He is not an American.

Sid
you said in a previous post “I believe Obama is a natural born citizen”

Obama says his father was a British citizen at his birth. AND, his Indonesian school records state “Indonesian citizen”

Just what part of that is natural born??

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2012/01/20/the-perfect-political-trade-obamas-college-transcripts-for-mitts-tax-return/

Actually, the Birther “experts” themselves have introduced the birth certificate into evidence, in order to give their perjured testimony that it’s a forgery.

There is no such thing as a “14th Amendment citizen”. That’s a made-up designation. There are only natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

Regardless of his father’s status as a British citizen, regardless of his Indonesian school records, regardless of the case pending in Georgia, regardless of your opinion, MY PERSONAL OPINION is that he was born in Hawaii in the United States of America, thereby making him a natural born citizen. If you have any further questions as to what my personal opinion is vs. legal opinion, feel free to contact.

No, it was not.

And seriously, are you trying to claim that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over foreign nations too?

The jig is up,and pretty soon he will be …………………………….gone!

It really seems strange that none of you people have even mentioned S.511.It was drafted by Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama for John McCain. They all conceded that even though he  was born in a foreign country,  McCain was a NBC because he had two parents who were citizens .They did not extend that decision to Hussein Obama.Make sure your brain is engaged, before you open your mouth. Why don’t you spend some time reading Vattel’s Law Of Nations.

thats why they wanna censor the internet, to force us to watch this political puppets

The 14th amendment granted citizenship to those born on US soil. That said, it just said Citizenship, not Natural Born Citizenship which is required to be President or VP & only these offices. The 14th amendment doesn’t define citizenship by type or say anything about Natural Born Citizenship.

To Sid, explain this news article, in which it says Obama was born in Kenya. It was an AP article when Obama ran for Senator.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

As a matter of fact, their strategy has been replicated in 5 other states — Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois and New Hampshire. However, the case in Alabama was dismissed and I believe (not sure) it was dismissed in New Hampshire. The case in Arizona was filed in the 9th. Circuit Federal Court. In one of the filings they have requested an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to ANY state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president. However, don’t be fooled, Obama still has an ace up his sleeve. Only the United States Supreme Court (not any state court or even the 9th. Circuit) has the Constitutional authority to answer the question about whether or not he is a “natural born citizen” thereby qualifying him to be constitutionally eligible to run for president. President Obama can merely ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his “natural born citizen” status. My gut feeling is they won’t rule against him.

I’ve never defended I’ll-Bomb-Ya in my life. I’m neither liberal nor commie.

You do that.

Do you believe that your nonsense will be any more credible if you write in all caps?

Yep i voted for them both and loved every minute of it.  Looking through here trying to find some intelligible written by you but can’t. so who did you vote for since everyone that has been president or is running for it is such an idiot or whatever other names you want to call them.  Apparently you got offended at Obama being the worst president ever.
Must have hit a nerve or something.  A few people have asked you for an intelligent reply with your thoughts on all of it and all you can do is throw out meaningless garbage.
show some if you got some or just keep tossing out hoodlem messages. that’s ok too. That really helps the Dems for you.

Figured you voted for those war criminals. And not offended you called Obama the worst POTUS ever, he really sucks ass. But the fact is the assholes you voted for,likely twice, were without a doubt the worst to ever occupy the white house and history will reflect that fact. Helps the dems for me? I am not a dem and the gop is worse. The nerve you hit is yours, it is the ignorant wingnut nerve, and it isn’t firing. When anyone calls Obama the worst president ever it is likely they are clueless as the heel on one of my shoes. Clearly you’re in that camp.

President Obama spent just 4 years in Indonesia (age 6-10) when his mother married an Indonesian man. He attended both a public school and a catholic school. The man to whom his mother was married was not his father, although he is the person who enrolled him in school, providing history with documentation of this event. Please cite credible references for your comment, “You are what you were when you were 7.”

That’s because McCain was born outside the USA. Obama was born inside the US. The rule is EITHER born in the US, parental status doesn’t matter OR born outside the US to at least one citizen parent. 

The Senate Resolution only applied to McCain. Otherwise, SR511 means that only people born to citizen parents in 1936 in Panama Canal Zone are eligible. 

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:”  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

Also, I have read Vattel. Birthers miss this part: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

Spam. And incorrect spam at that. 

Georgia subpoenas aren’t valid outside of Georgia. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Georgia Secretary of State were issues the same subpoenas, as were half a dozen federal agencies, a news station, and even someone outside the country. None of these answered the subpoenas. 

The State of Hawaii says that the documents Obama received are valid birth certificates. Of course the SCANS can’t be used to get a driver’s license, but the actual physical paper birth certificates would work for any purpose. The State of Hawaii hasn’t said the images contain false information — the information IS the same as they have on file. 

Just because YOU don’t accept them as valid doesn’t mean that the people responsible for proving identity — particularly Homeland Security and the SSA — don’t. He has a valid US passport that says he was born in Hawaii — therefore he presented proper documentation to get it. He served in the Senate — therefore he presented valid documentation to the Secretary of the Senate. He files his taxes, and the IRS accepts his returns. He’s proven his identity. 

Virginia Sunahara? The child born the same day in a different hospital with a completely different Birth Certificate number? 

Birthers said that Obama could end it all if he just released his long form birth certificate. That didn’t work out, did it.

Alan Keyes says the exchange never took place. (You’d think if it DID happen, Keyes would be the first to jump on it since he DID sue Obama over eligibility in the now-dismissed case Keyes v Obama.)  
The exchange you “saw” wasn’t about natural born citizenship. It’s here on the C-SPAN debate at 45:30 http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/184058-1. 

The exchange went: 

OBAMA: I don’t need Mr. Keyes lecturing me about Christianity. That’s why I have a pastor. That’s why I have my Bible. That’s why I have my own prayer. And I don’t think that any of you are particularly interested in having Mr. Keyes lecture you about your faith.What you’re interested in is solving problems like jobs, and health care, and education. I’m not running to be the minister of Illinois. I’m running to be its United States Senator.

It would require the submission of hard copies of the alleged birth certificates to show that the testimony was “perjured” as you characterize it. If Obama, the coward, ain’t willing to defend his own eligibility, he’s not going to go after anyone on alleged perjury charges.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between natural-born citizen and what it called “citizenship by birth”:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

“But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.”

There really aren’t 2 opposing viewpoints. The idea that 2 citizen parents are required only dates back to 2008, when a part-time lawyer published on his blog a deliberate misreading of the Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett (1875). Birther latched on to that case without understanding much about actual law. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that there are 2 kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Naturalized means that the person was born an alien and became a citizen by act of law. Natural born means born a citizen. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly said that the language of the Constitution is the language of English Common Law. In the Constitution, terms are understood to be the same as in the ECL except where they specifically define a term. (Treason, for example, is defined differently and spelled out in Article III Section 3. Natural Born citizen and natural born subject meant the same thing except for the form of government (monarchy v. republic). Since 1608 (Calvin’s Case), English Common Law held that born in the country made a natural born subject, even if the parents were foreigners, except in 2 cases: children of ambassadors or ministers, or invading armies. In the controlling case US v Wong Kim Ark (1898 — AFTER Minor v Happersett), the court laid out the history of citizenship at birth in great detail. They said:It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

The Georgia State Law on ballot challenges in Administrative Law Court isn’t like a jury trial. The judge can and does look to the law and prior cases, and other pleadings in the case. He isn’t limited to the evidence submitted, the testimony, or the record. If 5 witnesses claim the Sun rises in the West, the judge doesn’t have to accept that as fact. The defendant can still submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Feb. 1st. 

In addition, the ALJ only makes a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. The SoS can reject the recommendation. 

I predict Obama will be on the GA Ballot. He’s already on it as the absentee voting has begun. 

Cal, you’ve misread my comment. I didn’t say anything about the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over foreign nations. It does however note where U.S. jurisdiction applies and does not apply in the cases it presides over. That’s why it so frequently references the law of nations and other international law.

The point I was making, that you misunderstood, is about children inheriting the citizenship of their fathers.

The Venus (1814: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Shanks v. Dupont (1830): “If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.”

Is there some part of “naturalizes” you’re not understanding?? Vattel distinguishes that from natural citizenship.

For a comprehensive history of the Natural Born Citizen clause, the Congressional Research Service published a memo in Nov. 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

You miss the point. The criteria they used for McCain embodies a principle that excludes Obama … being born to citizen parents (PLURAL).

Vattel also says that a monarchy is the best form of government, that only nobles should bear arms, and that if a nation is short of women, it’s fine to go kidnap them. Vattel was writing a book of philosophy — he gets things wrong. When he published his “Law of Nations” in 1758, England had been giving natural born subject status to anyone born in the dominion of the King for 150 years. So Vattel says England naturalizes the child of a foreigner, England says they are natural born. My point is that Vattel is not the US Constitution: although his writings on international law did influence the Founders and Framers, it’s not US law. 

McCain and Obama are 2 separate and independent cases. The criteria for McCain depends on his parental status since he wasn’t born in the US. The criteria for Obama depends on his place of birth since he WAS born in the US. The cases are mutually exclusive. 

If 2 citizen parents plus birth in the US were required or 2 citizen parents regardless of place of birth were required, then place of birth would be completely irrelevant. We would be a jus sanguinis nation. That’s not the case at all. As Justice Scalia said in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS - Oral Argument, we are jus soli. 

You have to actually READ SR 511. It doesn’t say that the only way to be a natural born citizen is to have 2 citizen parents. (Neither does Minor v Happersett, for that matter.) It lists the facts of McCain’s birth, and says therefore McCain is a natural born citizen. Because of the totality of facts, not any single fact, the Senate said McCain was a natural born citizen. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

The Supreme Court said the definition for natural-born citizens is found OUTSIDE of the Constitution. They did not get their definition from English common law. It’s a verbatim match of the law of nations and the court rejected that children of foreigners are considered to be natural-born.

No, buffoon, it would not. Any certified copy has exactly the same legal weight as the original.

First off, your verbatim match of the law of nations should be “Law of Nations” as it refers to a particular book, one by Vattel. It’s not common law. It’s a book. 

Minor v Happersett was an 1875 case. It said that one way to be a natural born citizen was to be born in the country to citizen parents. It said that there were doubts about other combinations, but that the court didn’t need to solve those doubts for this case. A few years later, they solved those doubts in US v Wong Kim Ark. Minor isn’t cited for it’s definition of natural born citizenship, other cases are. Thats because the case is a voting rights case and didn’t need to define anything more than Virginia Minor’s situation. 

Stop relying on Leo Donofrio. He lost his birther case in 2008 without even mentioning 2-citizen parents as he hadn’t made it up yet. His objection was dual citizenship. 

Look at Miller v Albright, US v. Villato, 
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, Perkins v. Elg, Schneider v. Rusk, and read Wong Kim Ark. 

No, the Supreme Court did not make any such “clear distinction”.

The Supreme Court never defined natural born citizens. The court most certainly never rejected the idea that the children of foreigners can be natural born.

That’s because, unlike McCain, Obama isn’t foreign born. He was born in the United States.

Also, Vattel’s “Law of Nations” has no bearing on US law.

Yes, Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia, and in all 49 other states. Excluding him from the ballot would be illegal, because Georgia doesn’t have the authority to judge the eligibility of candidates.

The fact that Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen is irrelevant.

It is relevant because being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN one must be born to two citizen parents. Obama needs to be a natural born citizen to be POTUS.

Do you agree?

Obama has never allowed any person to view his original birth certificate in Hawaii.

The questions about his fake selective service application, social security number, birth certificate, name change, no old girlfriends, and no grades or transcripts released has not been settled at all. Obama does not want it to go to the courts where the truth will come out.

You can lie in politics but Obama can not lie to a judge.  So Obama does not show up.  Obama believes that this will help him finally show he is qualified to be POTUS .  Obama is a lawyer himself but thinks he is above the law.

I think if Obama had evidence he would show it.

Obama keeps passing himself off to be a black man,, fact is he’s as much of a white man trapped in the black skin of a black man, and probably resents that fact. He is Rev. Wright, Al Green, Saul Alinsky, anybody but himself. I don’t know who that is..Problem is that he doesn’t know either, and we all have to deal with whatever performance he is ready to do. Not much of a nutural born leader, let alone a real “citizen”

joking: Law of nations doesn’t need to be capitalized. It is frequently cited by the Supreme Court without it, such as Shanks v. Dupont, which cited Vattel by name. You’re getting distracted by unnecessary minutia. As for the law of nations being common law, Blackstone disagrees: “…therefore the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.”

The Minor case didn’t one way to be a natural-born citizen was to be born in the country to  citizen parents. It said this was one way to be a citizen … for which there was never any doubt. It then exclusively characterized this method of citizenship as natural-born in satisfying what the term means in Article II of the Constitution.

The doubts about “other combinations” were simply doubts about citizenship. There was no doubt that these other combinations were purposely not characterized as natural-born.

Wong Kim Ark only dealt with doubts about 14th amendment citizenship and it made it very clear that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. It relied on the Minor definition for NBC by quoting it and affirming that Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was born in the country to citizen parents. Why do you think they did that??

Your Donofrio deflection is a fail. Donofrio didn’t cite Minor in 2008. Look it up.

You’re making a pretty bold assumption about having TWO different criteria for natural-born citizenship. What do you base this on other than your circumstantial misunderstanding of the McCain resolution?? What legal source has ever been cited for using different definitions?? And you’re making a strawman assumption. I never said the place of birth was irrelevant in regards to McCain. The Senate resolution made a point of saying he was born on an American military base. If you think there’s something controlling in Nguyen vs. INS, quote it. I’m not going on a goose chase to see if there’s something there to support your errant belief.

cal, the only way Obama can prove his PDF is a “certified copy” is to show it in court. Any jackass can claim something is certified outside of a court. It doesn’t mean anything.

I just cited the specfic language that says NBC is defined outside of the Constitution and “citizenship by birth” via the 14th amendment is defined BY the Constitution. They are distinct and separate types of citizenships. It’s why the court said children born in the country of citizen parents were excluded from the operation of the birth clause of the 14th amendment.

Cal, the definition used by the Supreme Court was characterized in a self-limiting manner … “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The court went on to explain how those persons and their children could become citizens:”Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States …”

The Minor court’s argument fails without this distinction. What other purpose would it serve to emphasize parents being citizens??

Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship? I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They did not want that.They wanted natural born Americans.
Mr. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?——
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.I don’t think you’re disagreeing.It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

—————————————————————-
There’s less evidence for the foreign-born child of citizen parents, hence the Senate Resolution in McCain’s case, but legal scholars such as Laurence Tribe and Ted Olson (whom I respect) have made a strong case for McCain’s citizenship. Obama’s case is much more rock solid. As the Supreme Court chose not to address any of the eligibility petitions, there wasn’t enough interest to muster 4 justices to accept any of the cases. 

joking: You’re destroying your own point. Scalia says NBC was to exclude some Englishmen … that describes Barack Sr., the British Kenyan, who would have went back to raise his family had his wife not divorced him. Instead she married an Indonesian and moved away with him. And Scalia is ASKING a question about jus soli. He’s not saying that NBC is only defined by jus soli criteria. Under the Minor definition, we know specifically that is a combination of jus soli AND jus sanguinis.  

You are correct with the case here in Georgia pertaining to the President of the United States. My question now is, since the last republican debate, Mitt Romeny stated that his father was born in Mexico.  Will his name be added to the ballet in GA or does the same rules apply?

Good post

A new twist:  The ruling that states both parents have to be born in the US to run for president, my question now is, since the last republican debate, Mitt Romeny stated that his father was born in Mexico.  Will his name be added to the ballet in GA or does the same rules apply?

The 14th Amendment explicitly refers to all citizens, so that’s a completely nonsensical assertion. The Supreme Court has never defined natural born citizens, period.

No, a natural born citizen does not need to have two citizen parents.

Where are you getting this from? A natural born citizen DOES need to have two citizen parents.

Obama even said so in signing John McCain’s Senate Resolution regarding McCain’s natural born citizen status.  Go read it. 

What are your requirements for a natural born citizen.  Only the POTUS is required to be a natural born citizen. Except for Obama!

Senate Resolution 511 in part,

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an
American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore,
be it

CitizenS means both parents

Even Obama agrees

Vattel isn’t the only author who wrote about International Law AKA the Law of Nations. You sound like you think the Law of Nations in the Constitution means that book. It doesn’t. Vattel doesn’t think his philosophy book is the only source either. He defines The law of nations as: 
The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights. 

Of course Leo didn’t cite Minor in 2008. He hadn’t invented his theory that Minor was the controlling case at that point, otherwise he would have used it. If he thought his theory was real. 

Can every anchor baby run for president?
Not only McCain but Goldwater were challenged by left wing nuts, so if this is a stupid case, I’d say there’s a lot of it going around.
I don’t think all states allow write-ins
Finally, if this is stupid, which definition of Bill Clinton’s “is” are you all using here?

The 14th amendment does refer to all citizens, but the birth clause does not apply to all persons born in the United States. The Supreme Court explained this very clearly:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

And the Supreme Court very clearly defined NBC, period:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

What part of “These were the natives, or natural-born citizens” do you not understand??? 

That’s a lot of strawmen in one post. A) I didn’t say Vattel was the only author who wrote about the law of nations, B) I haven’t said anything about the law of nations reference in the Constitution itself, C) I haven’t said Vattel ever thought his book was the only book on the law of nations, and D) Donofrio did NOT invent the “theory” that Minor was the controlling case on natural-born citizenship. You’ve punted everything I actually posted, so thanks for conceding the argument. 

No, the judge couldn’t rule that this issue has already been adjudicated in 2008, because (1) it wasn’t “adjudicated” so there is no court precedent, and (2) at the hearing nobody introduced any evidence of certification in 2008, so the judge couldn’t officially see it. And (3) even if the judge could see it as a “public record”, the 2008 paperwork is deficient because it omitted the language certifying that he was “qualified” — but somehow it was allowed to slide on by.

Appearance of a lawyer concedes personal jurisdiction (i.e. that the defendant was served), but subject matter jurisdiction can always be challenged.

Arpaio’s lawyer said a weird thing, as (presumably) the subpoena was “issued” in Georgia but “served” out of state.

Minor did leave the question open, since that case was not about a prospective President but about a voter, who only needs to be a “citizen”. So the bit about “natural born citizen” was dicta, not holding.

I think Romney’s case is different because his parents immigrated to the U.S. and became U.S. citizens through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), before Mitt was born. So, at Mitt’s birth in the U.S. he was born to 2 U.S. citizens, whereas Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

Thanks for your response and input
.However, I disagree with the assertion there are not 2 opposing viewpoints, just because you or I may disagree with someone else’s viewpoint does not equate to meaning their viewpoint fails to exist.

Even though the court laid out the history of citizenship at birth in great detail in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in their decision they merely ruled that Wong was a U.S. “citizen” at birth not a “natural born citizen”. They went on to say that Wong was a citizen, because at the time of his birth, his parents had “permanent domicile and residence” in the United States and was “carrying on business” in the United States. President Obama’s father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident. He was visiting the U.S. temporarily to obtain an American education. The Court also mentioned Wong’s parents were subject to the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 between China and the United States. That treaty granted Chinese immigrants the right to change their “home and allegiance”. Obama’s father was not of Chinese descent and was not subject to any treaty which allowed for a change of “home and allegiance” other than by naturalization. So, even if Barack Obama’s circumstances at birth were identical to those of Wong Kim Ark, the Court’s ruling would at most, only confer “citizenship” to the President. It would not confer “natural born citizenship”, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office.

Having said that, some would argue that even though the Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, the Court’s reasoning seems to imply that he was, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. The Court’s reasoning was based largely on the English common law rule. According to the majority’s opinion, this rule was in force when the U.S. Constitution was being written and thereafter continued to prevail in the United States.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Fuller argued that the majority was factually incorrect on this point, regarding the rule of English common law. The minority and majority disagreed not over a matter of law, but over a matter of American history
.
Today, many share that same opinion of Justice Fuller’s on American history. Common law did not continue to prevail at the Federal or national level and that common law could only be made a part of our Federal system by legislative adoption. In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that “English common law did not control at the national or Federal level after the United States gained its independence from Great Britain” and that “common law is gone”. “The Federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now”.

President Obama has a duty to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his “natural born citizen” status.

How did you let the birthers f… you up so bad?

Minor didn’t leave any questoins open. The definition it cited for natural-born ctizenship was exclusive and self-limiting, and it was used A) to reject Virginia Minor’s claim of citizenship via the 14th amendment and B) to satisfy what the term NBC means in Article II of the Constitution. The definition and the holding (which is based on citizen parents) was cited and affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Cal: where do you get that State don’t control ballot access – that is the system throughout the country, and that right is supported by obama in cases there when they argue that the CA Secretary of State does not have any obligation to ENFORCE the State’s ballot requirements.

If not the States, then who would judge the eligibility of candidates? Congress, after the fact? The Parties themselves? The Supreme Court?

Georgia State law specifically provides this authority to the GA Secretary of State as cited in the rejection of obamas request to halt the hearing. 

Do facts matter (to you), or do you just like to dangle bait and see what bites on the dead worm?

hey sid_id;

I’ve been trying to understand if obama can get around his mistake of entering no evidence at the hearings. I think it was a HUGE tactical error. Someone mentioned that they can still make the post-hearing filings of fact and conclusions of law but my read is that this is a review of the evidence presented with an analysis of the law and proposed findings for the Judge to accept or reject. BUT, no new evidence.

Have you found any commentary on this issue of evidence  (or lack thereof) enetered into the record (now closed) and post-hearing filings? Have you read if obama is going to make any post-hearing filings? (due today). 

I read in GA law that any appeal in State Court of the Secretary of State’s decision will be limited to evidence in the trial record. 

Oh, sorry for the mis-ID. I thought you were Birtherus vattelus constitutionalia, not Birtherus vattelus originalia. My bad. 

OK, try to find Minor cited as controlling for the definition of natural born citizen between 1898 and 2007. Not for privileges and immunities, but for natural born citizen. I’ll wait. 

OK, then Minor’s definition should be cited in Supreme Court cases after WKA. Please give us some of the cites. Minor is cited for privileges and immunities of citizenship, not for it’s “definition” of natural born citizens. If it were controlling, there’s be citations. Got any?

Yes, any “anchor baby” can run for president.  Expect to see Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio (rumored to born before his parents naturalized), and others run in the future. Also expect to see renewed interest in the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment AKA the Hatch Amendment, that opens the eligibility to naturalized citizens who have lived in the US for more that 35 years. That was championed by Republicans in 2003-2004.  

Mark  McCain, George Romney, Goldwater, Lowell Weicker,  George B. McClellan, and a few others were questioned because they were born outside the USA. VP Charles Curtis, Al Gore, and Goldwater were questioned because they weren’t born in a US State (Kansas Territory, DC, and Arizona Territory respectively). Obama, Chester Arthur, and Andrew Jackson (who was safe under the Grandfather Clause) were all questioned because of rumors they were born outside the US. 

There’s been NOTHING along the scale of Obama’s birthers. I don’t think it’s a Republican/Democrat issue or a Conservative/Liberal issue, it seems more a xenophomic/isolationist issue. 

Obama’s lawyer (Jablonski) submitted a copy of Obama’s birth certificate in his letter to the Secretary of State. (I don’t know if it was a certified copy or not, we’ll find out soon.) The Administrative Law Judge isn’t limited to the record at the hearing, he also can consider any filings up to that point. He also said that the parties had until today to file their Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law briefs, and some lawyers think that includes the defense. The ALJ also researches the law himself. He’s been pretty thorough in past challenges. 

I follow this on TheFogbow.com forums, as do most of the parties on both sides. The entire record can be found there. EXTENSIVE commentary by anti-birthers, including many lawyers. Much shorter is www.obamaconspiracy.org/. 

Right, so a natural born citizen is one born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.  I see you read quite a few Senate Resolutions. 

The VP also needs to be a natural born citizen. But that’s a person born in the USA, parents don’t matter. Like we all learned in grade school — anyone born in this country can grow up to be president. 

The Supreme Court doesn’t issue advisory or declaratory decisions. They have turned down the opportunity to hear eligibility cases  16 times. 
The language of the English Common Law is certainly used today.  ”According to the Supreme Court, words and phrases used, but not defined, within the Constitution, should “be read in light of British common law,” since the U.S. Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.” 3 Footnote 3 – Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). See also, more recently, Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000), where the Supreme Court noted that the meaning of an undefined term in the Constitution “necessarily requires some explanation,” and that “the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdfScalia is a big Blackstone fan: JUSTICE SCALIA: I wouldn’t — I don’t use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/postsAnd what does Blackstone think about natural born? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html 

Your premise is flawed. The NBC definition applies to a narrower set of circumstances than is required in most citizenship cases. This doesn’t mean it is any less valid. Minor is also cited for more things than just the privileges and immunities of citizenship.In 2002, it was cited in Kentucky in Mondie vs. Commonwealth for this phrase: “It is the province of this Court under the constitution to decide what the law is and not to declare what it should be.”In 2004, Largess vs. Supreme Court of Mass.: “are each presumed to have been “Republican” within the meaning of the Guarantee Clause, see Minor v. Happersett,”

And of course it was cited in Ankeny v. Daniels in 2009 by the Indiana Court of Appeals, although this court contradicted themselves on their citation. They admitted without realizing it that the Minor case shows that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship:”In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. “

Yes, a military base as well as an embassy are considered American Soil.  The fact is Obama is not a natural born citizen but he is a citizen if born in Hawaii.  This is enough.  Consult an attorney and read the Constitution!  Stop making excuses!

Thank you sid_id.  Very well said.  It is claimed that the Supreme Court ruled on this in Habberset v Minor (I probably spelled it wrong)  The problem is Obama did not show up in court and may not have standing for an appeal.

They went on to say that it was still a subject of debate whether those of foreign parentage born on US soil were also natural born citizens. But since that wasn’t relevant to the case at hand, the Supreme Court didn’t (and couldn’t, since it can only rule on the case it’s actually hearing) make any attempt to settle that debate. Thus, they did not give a full definition of “natural born citizen”, because it didn’t matter to the outcome the case. And yes, the birth clause of the 14th Amendment absolutely applies to everyone born in the US.

No, that’s not what the Minor ruling said at all. The Minor ruling was that voting isn’t an inherent right of citizenship, and thus denying some categories of citizens the right to vote is allowed even under the 14th Amendment’s privileges and clause. Neither the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment nor the definition of natural born citizen were relevant to the decision.

Also Obama has a clearly forged selective service application which would make him unable to hold Federal office.  It was back-dated and like his Social Security number, he was not present in the state when applied. 

There are so many questions about Obama that need to be known.  I mean not even ONE girlfriend said she went out with him.  He is like a Teenage Jesus being delivered from the media.  I would like him to show all his records in court and be a natural born citizen.  I just think Obama is hiding something.

There is Federal laws which defined immigration status and since Obama’s mother was not 19 at birth, Obama can only be a Citizen.  From what I read the laws have changed a bit since 1961.

Where are you getting this from? A natural born citizen DOES need to have two citizen parents.

Nope. A natural born citizen simply has to be a citizen of the United States at birth. The “two citizen parents” idea that you Birther loons have concocted has no legal or historical basis in this nation. That’s why Chester A. Arthur, who everyone at the time knew was the son of a British subject, was able to become VP and then president without any problem.

Obama even said so in signing John McCain’s Senate Resolution regarding McCain’s natural born citizen status.  Go read it.

No, he said no such thing. The Senate resolution in no way said that two parents are necessary. It noted that both of McCains parents were US citizens, but in no way suggested that was necessary.

Georgia state law does not grant authority over the qualifications for federal office.

Military bases abroad are not considered American soil. Embassies are, but not military bases.

It says “citizens” because both of John McCain’s parents were US citizens. That in no way implies that this is a requirement for being a natural born citizen, any more than it implies that being born on an American military base is a requirement. It simply spells out the specific circumstances of John McCain’s birth, and declares that those circumstances are within the definition of a natural born citizen.

Of course, this declaration had no legal meaning anyway. Senate resolutions are not laws, and thus are not binding in any way. The resolution simply stated that it was the opinion of the Senate that McCain being born outside the United States didn’t have any bearing on his natural born status.

Thanks michaeljustgreat

There is also immigration law! 
Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952

If Obama can not prove he was born in Hawaii as he failed to in Georgia (Yea Obama must follow the law ) to even show up, Obama is not even a citizen!

I know the Obots do not consider legal matters binding to Obama!

Obama has admitted that he was born in 1961 to a mother alleged to
be an American citizen who was 18 at the time of his birth, and a father
who was a Kenyan national and a British citizen, not a U.S. resident.

Pursuant to Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and
G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I. A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944), the
federal statute in effect at that time, the candidate could not acquire
American citizenship, because he was born out of the country and only
one parent was an American, and she was disqualified under the Act
because she did not have five continuous years of residency following
her fourteenth birthday before the child was born, as she was only 18.
Sen. Obama could not have become an American citizen except through a
naturalization process at the time of his birth.
The immigration
laws in effect at the time of and as amended five years after Obama’s
birth simply did not allow for citizenship at birth for children born
abroad to a U.S. citizen parent and a non-citizen parent if the citizen
parent was under the age of nineteen.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=4098.0
Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a
resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were
over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the
Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in
late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born. The law
confers U.S. nationality on a child born outside the United States only
under certain circumstances, including: “(7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after
attaining the age of fourteen years.” Thus Obama was not only not a
natural born citizen, he was not even a citizen of the United States.

Yes, I agree.  Obama should not have signed on to something he did not qualify for himself. What a hypocrite!

We will find out soon what the court says, but I doubt very seriously Kemp will do anything but certify him for the Georgia general ballot. That is if he has any political ambitions in the future.

Thanks for the correction

All the legal jargon aside, I personally believe that he is probably a natural born citizen. But yet, you are right, why hide it? Why not  just come out and provide all the documentation that eveybody is questioning and put this behind you once and for all. This has been going on for well over 4 years now and it doesn’t look like it will end anytime soon.

Cal, I AM NOT A BIRTHER LOON! I JUST WANT OBAMA TO SHOW HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND STOP HIDING HIS RECORDS.

I AM TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH.

OBAMA IS HIDING FROM THE TRUTH.

OBAMA COULD HAVE ENDED THIS LONG AGO AND SAVED MILLIONS.

JUST SAYING

Social Security Number and Selective Service Application are frauds!

Not sure what is going on!

Youarejoking liste some very informative sites that will keep you up to date. But Obama does not lose his right to appeal on jurisdiction and points of law, he would not be able to challenge the evidence presented. However, I think SoS Kemp will certify him for the general ballot. I don’t think he has the balls to do anything but just that, especially is he has any political ambitions in the near future.

Thanks, I agree he can appeal but I also think he is going to be limited by the evidence in the record. You may be right about political and personal motivations impacting the SOS but I am not sure that it is so clear that he has no authority. 
Terry v. H seems definitive BUT Georgia law has a conflict between that interpretation and the law that says all candidates for Federal office can be challenged. The former ruling leaves a strange legacy if left as a ruling authority – there would be no method for assuring that Presidential candidates meet ANY qualifications. 
I’m hoping the SOS pays it straight and follows the law and evidence wherever it leads… which should be the State, then Federal Supreme Court. Just issue a ruling (some said obama should request this now of the Supremes and end the issue): what does “natural born citizen” mean in our Constitution? 

Do you know if they obama filed finding/conclusions of law? Anybody have a link?

I don’t think Obama filed anything at all, except at the very beginning to request a dismissal. I read the plaintiff’s finding/conclusion just a little bit ago that they filed today. You can find it on the lawyer’s website.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

No. No he isn’t. He was born in Hawaii, and never gave up his citizenship. 

How is an already debunked conspiracy theory “the crime of the century?” 

No, actually, the supreme court found just the opposite. United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 

No, he was definitely born in Hawaii. 

Sorry, I’m not the one needing an attorney. Military bases abroad are NOT US soil. They are part of the host country and governed by a Status of Forces Agreement with each country. A SOFA says what laws apply on the base. The whole reason GTMO was chosen to house enemy combatants was because the US Government claimed it wasn’t part of the US. If all bases were US soil, that argument wouldn’t even have been brought up. (The Supreme Court said the US exercised complete jurisdiction and control over the base, unlike other bases, as we are there against the wishes of Cuba.)  

Here’s what the US State Department says about birth on US military bases:  Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:   (1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. (2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.  (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987).  See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729  F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984)http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

Your idea of natural born citizen similarly doesn’t hold up to reality. 

OK, I was only wrong about military bases.   Maybe McCain new he and Obama were not natural born citizens and did not want to be disqualified.

Any relevant citations for Natural Born Citizen? 

Ankeny quoted Minor correctly, I don’t see where they contradict themselves. 

Obama’s side hasn’t filed FF&CL yet, but the plaintiffs have each filed a rough approximation. (In Orly’s case, very rough.)

The Supreme Court doesn’t issue advisory opinions. 

He was not born out of the country, moron. He was born in the US state of Hawaii. And he has proven it, by providing a copy of his birth certificate. Which was also mailed to the court in Georgia. Thus, the law you cite is completely irrelevant.

If you believe Obama is unqualified to to any aspect of his birth, including his status as a natural born citizen, you are a Birther. 

The IRS accepts Obama’s tax returns under the same number as the one on his Selective Service Application — or  it was the same until Orly published the number all over the known universe, he’s probably changed it by now. If the SSN weren’t correct, the IRS would bounce the return. 

You may not be sure what’s going on, but the IRS and Homeland security (Obama has a valid passport) don’t seem to have a problem with Obama’s identity. 

I am not a birther, just want the truth.  I mean can I say you are a deather?  It is a term used to prejudice a point.

The word “whereas” means “Taking into consideration the fact that”. So SR 511, in all of its “whereas” clauses, never says “whereas 2 citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen.” It lists facts that apply to McCain. McCain had 2 citizen parents. 

Obama was not being a hypocrite when he cosponsored this bill.  PLEASE learn a bit about what you are asserting as factual. 

Maybe, but Obama did not prove it in court.  Obama must allow an original birth certificate, not a copy to be reviewed.  A request has been made to do so in court.  Evetually it could granted.  No one has seen the original.  At least McCain released his.  I just hope Obama will do the same and get this over with.

Obama seems to be hiding something by not showing up in court. 

That is not smart.

Deathers are people who claim Obamacare has death panels. I am an Anti-birther. I am also not a Democrat, I’m a Teddy Roosevelt Republican who hates how the birthers are making fools of a once-great party. 

Only some birthers object to the term. Otherwise there wouldn’t be birthers.org or the Birther Summit. 

Actually, McCain never released his. The ones on the web were part of the Plaintiff’s papers in a McCain’s birther lawsuits, but they aren’t authentic. (McCain had birthers long before Obama did)

Obama did send a copy of his birth certificate to the GA Secretary of State. Obama isn’t hiding anything by not appearing in court, he’s refusing to legitimize 3 frivolous lawsuits. 

Also, the actual paper certified long form birth certificate was passed around to the press last April. Savannah Guthrie took a picture of it. Factcheck.org also handled and photographed the certified short form BC. 

Actually where Obama was born has not been resolved. It has the appearance of resolution. The only way to resolve the question is to see the original birth records the State of Hawaii is holding, or any records from the hospital may have. In 1962 when Obama was born there were a number of different types of birth certificates available including certifications of live birth. There was a form available that Obama’s grandmother could have walked in off the street and signed a form on her word that Obama was born at her house with no witnesses and she would be given a certification of live birth.

Now Obama has claimed he has the form of a birth certificate that was issued by the hospital, which should include the name of the doctor and witnesses. What Obama has produced to date does not answer this fundamental question.

If the records the State of Hawaii or the hospital are holding are the type his grandmother signed for, with no independent witness signatures, Obama has the burden of proof to show he was born at his grandmother’s home. That may be a problem now that his grandmother is dead and his mother is gone. There would also be the question of why has Obama lied about this issue and said he was born at the hospital, rather than saying his grandmother signed for a birth certificate?

The issue is that Hawaii in the 1960′s (up to 1972 when the laws were changed) did not require witnesses to issue a birth certificate, the only requirement was a signature of a Hawaiian resident. There remains an that open question that Obama needs to answer by producing the original birth records.

Wrong again. Oily Taitz demanding the original doesn’t matter. The copy holds the same legal weight as the original.

And the birth certificate McCain released? It was a copy too.

Can every anchor baby run for president?

Yes.

Not only McCain but Goldwater were challenged by left wing nuts

No, they weren’t. The question was brought up, but nobody “challenged” them on it.

The opposite would be born outside of the country to foreigners. Where do you see that mentioned as the NBC definition in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark?? 

What part of “The Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens” does NOT strike you as a relevant citation?? The 14th amendment IS part of the Constitution, so this specifically says the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The only guidance that Ankeny could have derived in defining natural-born citizenship would have to come from an amendment it admitted did NOT define the concept. It’s a contradiction.
 
Also, the Ankeny court said that Minor contemplated scenarios where both parents were citizens or foreigners … while saying the question was left open for parents who were both foreigners. If the Minor court contemplated the scenario, it means they didn’t leave the question open. And they didn’t leave the question open because they cited the Nationality Act of 1790 for defining citizenship for people who did NOT meet the definition of natural-born citizenship.

Cal, I have direct quotes: Read ‘em and weep: It’s time you wake up and learn something:

“The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.”

Virginia Minor used the 14th amendment to claim that she is a citizen of the United States. The court says “in OUR opinion” she did NOT need the amendment. The court then discusses how person were citizens with the provision in the 14th amendment. That’s when it cites this exclusive self-limiting definition: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens. Later, it reiterates that Minor’s citizenship did NOT come from the 14th amendment.

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. ”

Here’s where Minor specifically defines NBC:

“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Citations mean subsequent court cases that refer to the case for specific reasons. Like this, from Wong Kim Ark: 

In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. 

That’s 4 cases cited for the Framers knew the common law, and one for the Constitution is written in the language of the common law. 

What cases cited Minor for natural born citizenship? 

Contemplating isn’t the same as deciding. The Court in Minor wasn’t briefed by the parties on the Natural Born Citizen issue. The outcome of the case didn’t hinge on whether or not Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen, or your mysterious X other kinds of citizens. The court looked at what they had, did a bit of research, decided something was interesting so mentioned it, then described Minor’s situation. That’s why it’s considered dicta and not holding in that case. 

Sorry, but this is entirely false. The court said nothing about anything being a subject of debate regarding natural-born citizens. It said there is doubt about whether persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents are citizens or not. In other words, this means there’s doubt about the birth clause in the 14th amendment. The court said there was no doubt about persons fitting the definition of natural born citizens. And this definition did matter to the outcome of the case. It is based on citizen parents which is affirmed in the Syllabus (which was quoted by Fuller in Ex Parte Lockwood) and in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.

Minor syllabus: “2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.”

Women born of citizen parents are citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. This means the 14th amendment does NOT affect those persons born in the country to citizen parents.

Ex Parte Lockwood: ” In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since …”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States …”

Answer this question. Why do these court emphasize citizen parents?? It’s not just that Minor was born to citizen parents (although Ark emphasizes she was), but that ALL women born to citizen parents are citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment. Why do these court emphasize this criteria??

Joking, I’ve already cited cases that cited Minor. I can’t help you if you aren’t going to be honest enough to admit what has been cited already. Second, your citation on the “common law” is misrepresented. The phrase the court uses is “in LIGHT OF the common law.” That means it is considered, but it does NOT mean it is binding legal precedent. And none of that overrides this simple definition:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

And you’re absolutely wrong about the Minor case hinging on her being a natural-born citizen. They rejected her claim of being a citizen under the 14th amendment. I’ve cited this very comprehensively in a reply to Cal. What is the court’s point in emphasizing citizen parents if not for how it applies to the NBC definition?? Try to answer that question. 

You are right that Obama should just go ahead and produce everything that is required of him to get this matter settled once and for all, I don’t understand why someone would let this go on as long as it has. However, the consensus opinion amongst most of the population and those in Congress, legal scholars and even the media, is that it has been resolved. Aside from all the legal jargon, my personal perspective is that it has been resolved as well.

OK, I went through the thread and found 3 cases that you list as cites to Minor. Mondie v Commonwealth, Largess v Sup Ct of MA, and Ex Parte Lockwood.  Lockwood uses Minor for voting rights for women, not for the definition of NBC. Mondie was for the role of the court, not for NBC. Largess was for the Guarantee Clause in relation to state vs. federal government. I looked them up. NONE of the 3 cite Minor for the definition of natural born citizen. Were there other cases I missed? 

Here’s what I’m looking for, but for Minor: 

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, US Supreme Court 1920
It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.

Your turn. 

If you take out the Natural born citizen language, does the holding still make sense? If so, it’s dicta and not part of the rational for deciding the case. 

The Minor case is about: The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.The holding was: Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

The discussion about natural born citizenship is secondary to the actual holding. Had Virginia Minor been a naturalized citizen, or born of alien parents, would the case read substantially the same? Yes, it would have. That’s why Minor isn’t cited for natural born citizenship after WKA was decided. 

Hey Lib’s you are a bunch of F**king idiots. You can dog the so called birthers all you want but at least they make a case. All you people do is Blaa Blaa Blaa. This would be normal for you just hang on folks cause soon your Jesus will be just a lying shit. You will see such and I will party my ass off. You don’t get the Constitution and you never will, because you want to change it. So to all of you F**K off and Die a slow miserable death commie pricks.

You have to show an original if requested in court.  You are joking because it only counts in court if you want to legally win a case.  We can all talk and this does not mean anything but Obama should never refuse to show up in court.  Obama is hiding something.  It could be a crime not to show up too.

Factcheck is associated with Obama.

Obama can not show his birth certificate in court for some reason.

I’m not concerned about obamas citizenship nearly as much as I’m concerned that he has multible social security numbers and aliases can anybody tell me why he has social security numbers that were issued to people who are now deceased

there are other issues that are being addressed in this court case
besides “natural born citizen”. There are accusations of fraud on all
documents presented by Obama.  there are numerical sequence issues with
the birth certificate and questions of the use of photo shop. as much as
everyone wants to discard this issue, for some reason, it just will not
die. It seems as though many people want it to die, but the only way to
truly make this issue die is to address each issue and prove why it is
either correct or incorrect. everyone wanting to put this issue to bed
without answering  all questions are the ones that are keeping this
issue alive. Answer the questions so the Russian dentist will be
satisfied.

He doesn’t. The list is from a skip-tracing service that links “associated” data. For example some of the numbers are family (Michelle and the girls). One is Sen. Sherrold Brown, the guy who had the same office after Obama. Some are garbage data (like 999-99-9999), most of which appear after 2008. If you ran your report, it would probably look similar.

 Both of Romney Grandparents were US citizens. That makes Romney’s father a US citizen,no matter if he was born in Mexico or Tibet.
His mother was born in the US so Romney is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

Sorry, but this is entirely false. The court said nothing about anything being a subject of debate regarding natural-born citizens. It said there is doubt about whether persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents are citizens or not.

No, it said there was doubt about whether such people are natural born citizens.

This is false. It only said there was doubt where such persons are CITIZENS. The characterization of natural-born citizens was used exclusively to characterize ONE class of persons. Read it. You’re trying to insert words into the text that simply are NOT there.

YouAreJoking is the typical liberal scumbag making shhit up.  Don’t believe anything he says.  That’s how evil these Obama loving creatures can be.  He doesn’t even know what the numbers are or has access to any database to confirm anything.  These Obots are scared shitless and they should be. The social security number Obama used at the White House and selective service records are not his and do not pass E-Verify. He is fraudster.

Obama doesn’t have the correct paper work to be placed on the Georgia ballot..This case comes down to election laws of the state..  Inorder to be placed on the ballot Obama must prove that he is a natural born citizen..It doesn’t matter if other elections were held and he was elected to office…..The simple fact exist that he must prove these document to the state inorder to be placed on the ballot…

Obama doesn’t have the papers needed and he knows it..  Why hasn’t he even alowed his school records released..Could it be that he used a false SSN and obtained school funds using someone elses numbers or that he states on his applications that he was born in another country?

Myself I hope when Obama loses come November and on 1/20/13 the next President orders the state of Hawaii to release Obamas records and all his schools records.. Obama won’t be president and only a private citizen then..   WE THE PEOPLE will get to see if this sock puppet is a true American or the fraud that alot of people believe him to be..

First off, I’m a Teddy Roosevelt Republican and not a liberal. 

But the actual documents produced by Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey have been on the web for a couple of years and introduced in court cases by Orly Taitz. People in various online communities have analyzed the documents. 
Here’s Neil Sankey’s list of records:
http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20976501-Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers.pdf

On page 8, for 713 HART SENATE, Obama is listed with SSN starting 282-80. 282 is Ohio. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm  Sen. Sherrold Brown in the current occupant of 713 Hart Senate. http://www.electionsonthe.net/oh/pickaway/electoff/district.pdf

Pages 24 and 28 — SSN starts with 999, a sequence that doesn’t exist in the SSA system. 

ETC. 

I’m certainly not scared. I just object strongly to the campaign of lies, rumors, and misinformation from people claiming to care about the Constitution but try to bring down a constitutionally elected president. Many birthers aren’t just anti-Obama, they are also anti Romney, Santorum, Rubio, and Jindal for similar eligibility nonsense. 

Maybe someone should point out that Orly Taitz’ “expert witness” is also the author of several books about pyramid energy, octahedronal crystals and the 8th dimension. I am not kidding. http://www.vectorpub.com 

So, Go Georgia!

So sorry Jeff, the judge just ruled that President Obama is a natural born citizen and thus is eligible to be on the GA Primary Ballot. 

Breaking news – 
Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html

A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month’s Georgia primary.

So that makes the Birthers 0 for 100 in their lawsuits.

The official scorecard is 0 for 99, as she only includes cases in courts. These cases were in an Executive Branch Administrative court. If they take the case to GA Superior Court, that might be 100. 

There’s also been 8 ballot challenges now dismissed. 

So Neo, since we weren’t at war with anyone and the cold war ended under Reagan, how is he a war criminal?  Tell us, who was a good president in your eyes.  You’ve hit no nerve of mine. I know Reagan was the best president in my lifetime.  I know Bush wasn’t the best but he was not the worst either. I’m not sure how anyone can compare Obama as not being the worst. Carter runs a very close 2nd.  Nixon was an idiot but didn’t do near as much damage to this country as these other two crackheads.
I’m asking for some intelligent spillage from you. Haven’t seen it yet.  Tell us all in your infinite wisdom, who was the best president in the last 50 years.
I’ve got a really good clue about this president. I serve under him the greatest military force the world has known. He’s clownshow who has done nothing but bring our country into the gutter.

i downloaded his birth certificate from the us governments website, imported it into photoshop and was able to track the EDITED changes showing it was manipulated. The guy who editied is a real hero for duping obamas staff into thinking it was just a jpeg. This is a fact.

obama needs to address the issues…i downloaded his birth certificate from the us governments website when it came out,
imported it into photoshop and was able to track the EDITED changes
showing it was manipulated. The guy who edited is a real hero for
duping obamas staff into thinking it was just a jpeg, it was a session file. This is a fact.

You are a moron.  Suggesting that someone else read the facts insttead of reading them yourself is the pinnacle of stupidity.

No.  You are incorrect.  Voting is the right of every “US Citizen” not every “Natural born” US citizen.  US citizenship can be acquired through other means than birth.  Natural born status can only exist if both parents are born in the same country.  Natural born citizenship is a requirement of the U.S. presidency according to The Constitution.  You might want to try comprehension exercises so you can understand the words you are reading.  The issue is about allegiance and it is quite obvious that both Barak Hussein and Michelle Obama have no allegiance to this country.  They have sold us out at every opportunity to foreign interests.  Have you seen the price of gas lately?  Why do you think the middle eastern leaders are all Obama fans?  Furthermore the birth certificate submitted by the Whitehouse is a stone cold fake and has been proven in a court of law.  There are Photoshop layers in the document as well as multiple syntax errors that were not part of the American vernacular at the time the supposed certificate was created.  The word African American or even African was not used to describe anyone on a birth certificate when Obama was born the terminology of the era would have been negro or negroid.  The mistakes are obvious to anyone who does their research. A 6th grader can open the document in Photoshop and reveal the edit layers I refer to.  This is not rocket science.  Pay attention before your country is ripped out from under you.  This administration is not adhering to the Constitution and we have a usurper in The White House.

”
Obama has never allowed any person to view his original birth certificate in Hawaii.”

Apparently, you are not conversant with the law. The HI Dept of Health website details who has the right to have, or view, BC’s.

As for academic records, simply put, you don’t have the right to them. That’s been a Federal Law since the 1970′s. Deal with it.

“The questions about his fake selective service application, social security number, birth certificate, name change, no old girlfriends,”

Do you have proof that he has a fake selective service application? Not just internet rumor?

As for the social security crap. There was a general, US, search for people with the same name, and various spellings of Obama’s. The fact is that there are more people named Barack Obama that are citizens of the US than our President. Not even one of those other names, or the SS#’s used, have been verified to belong to our President. Not even one. 

Obama released his state-issued, state-certified BC. That is all that is actually needed. He didn’t even need to let anyone other than the Speaker of the House see it.  Certainly not the general public. Because of all of this crap, and it IS crap, he wrote and asked the State of HI to make a copy of his original record. Since that is not what they are certifying anymore, all the could do was send an uncertified copy. Anyone who knows about these kind of records already knows this. The argument that either of them are fake is just plain stupid. As to the photo-shopped layered crap, that’s not the way files work. No matter how much you wish to believe it.

What name change? Obama was never adopted by his step-father (remember, his Father was still alive) so there was no name change.

No old girl friends? What leads you to believe this? That the ones that he had are discreet? Personally, I find that refreshing.

I have watched for decades as the demand by the public for politicians to release more and more private records has grown. I have been disgusted by the demands and I have been disgusted by the politicians giving in to them.

You do not have the right to any of what you are demanding from President Obama. At all. I have let him know many times that I agree with his stance.

He has produced what is required of him. A state-issued, state-certified BC. That is ALL that is needed, and it need only be issued on the current form that the State of HI issues them on. That has been done.

You are repeating false information. Is this deliberate?

In the copy of the original record that was processed by the Department of Health, the birth record was signed by Obama’s Mother, as well as the Doctor that delivered him. His widow, a year ago, verified that that was his signature.

Look, I’m sorry that you don’t like Obama. But this unreasoning hatred, and lack of reality, has reached it’s “use by” date. These are old arguments that have been thoroughly shot down by evidence.

If you don’t believe by now that Obama was born in HI, you never will.

I have acquired (imported) documents into PhotoShop many times. Yes, there are layers. What facts lead you to believe that this is unusual?

 Where do I start. I’ll go over a few. 

Obama’s fake SS# from CT.  The number is from CT.  I think it is in March 1977 when Obama was in Hawaii.  The investigators have located the person before and after Obama’s fake SS# to pinpoint the date.  Obama did not pass E Verify as it came up with a miss-match.  Read about Susan Daniels who looked into this.  Obama was never a resident or set foot in CT . It is a very easy to see how Obama has a fake SS#.  It is not a Hawaiian SS#

Do not be an Obot.  Just look at the facts.

Obama had to be adopted by Soetoro since his school application in Indonesia had him listed as Barry Soetoro.  Indonesia only allowed citizens of that country to attend school their.

Obama never lived with his biological parents because they never lived as man and wife in the same house!

You can go research this information yourself and stop living in DENIAL.

I have nothing in this game but to find the TRUTH!

 Right on! Right on!

 Yea, Hitler had the same record but it was not right either.  The truth will come out one day!

This is the worse legal ruling.  Read it.  It makes no sense.  Obama does not show up to court and has although Georgia requires the burden of proof on Obama.

Obama is destroying the US to keep his fake self in office.

The truth will come out in time!

The ruling makes perfect sense. Obama has already proved that he’s eligible. He didn’t need to show up.

Obama is the Boy King so he does not have to show up.  Any other human would show up because the POTUS is not a dictator. OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT LIKE ANY OTHER HUMAN.  Obama is above the law.   Obama never proved he was elligable anywhere.  I hope he is and he should at least release a certified copy of his fake birth certificate and put this matter to rest.  OBAMA NEVER RELEASED A CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, JUST COPIES WHICH ANYONE COULD MAKE!

IN TIME THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.

OBAMA HAS ALSO HAD NO GIRLFRIENDS COME FORWARD.  OBAMA HAD ONLY ONE FAKE GIRLFRIEND IN HIS FAKE BOOK THAT BILL AYERS THE TERRORIST WROTE.

OBAMA IS GAY (NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT)

No, moron, Obama has released a certified copy of his birth certificate. That’s what the copies you’ve seen are. Obama could not be held in contempt because there was never any requirement for him to attend.

Cal, why call names, I am not a moron.  Obama sent a copy of his birth certificate to the Georgia Hearing.  Under rules of evidence an original may be examined.  It is easy to forge any document and this is why a review of the original is usually granted.

Obama did not show up to the hearing and therefore Obama has no basis to appeal any decision.

This case is unusual because it is like a boxer not showing up for a fight and then winning a decision.

I would hope that Obama’s birth certificate exists and would like it to be put to rest viewing the original.

OBAMA IS GAY (NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT)

You’re not a moron? I’ve yet to be convinced of that.

There is no need for the original birth certificate to be examined, because the copy has the exact same legal value as the original. Nor does a Georgia administrative court have any authority to subpoena documents from the Hawaiian government. And it didn’t matter that Obama didn’t show up to the hearing, because the birth certificate alone was sufficient to disprove all the Birther arguments.

 So if I agree with you I am not a moron?

It is a matter of law if a copy is introduced into evidence, a inspection of an original is common and often granted. Obama gets no special treatment.

The Georgia case was the first to accept the case on its merits.
In Georgia by law, Obama has the burden of  proof he is eligible to be a candidate. (Please read the law.) Obama should have been disqualified because he failed to show up.

Eventually the truth about the fake SS#, Selective Service Application and birth certificate will be shown.  Obama could be out of office when the truth is found. But it will be found.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-wasnt-obama-in-contempt-of-court/

Exactly! I believe that the majority of the misinformation came from Phillip Bergs initial filing, and the birthers have run with it as though it was factual.

They, also, don’t seem to realize that taking a step-parents last name, without being adopted, was not unusual. For instance, my cousin took his step-fathers last name when he married my Aunt. It wasn’t until my cousin was in High School that the schools started insisting that the students legal names were to be used. There is nothing sinister about it, it was simply wanting to have the same last name as the rest of the people that they were living with as a family.

The birthers have chosen to not believe the State of HI. They, apparently, believe that the State of HI is issuing fraudulent documents, which is preposterous. Unfortunately, for the birthers, they have no evidence to back them up.

Most States change the forms that they issue birth certificates (aka COLB’s) every few years. Usually only in design. But they ALL have the same required information: Name of Child, Names of Parents, Location of Birth, Date of Birth, Certificate Number. Once this information is printed out on whatever form the State is currently using, it will be certified as being true, with the date that it was currently issued. All of this information has been added to the State records database. In most States (I don’t know
if there were any States that didn’t) the records were double, sometimes
triple, checked to make sure they were done accurately. And the majority of
States (I believe only one doesn’t) use those databases instead of going to
the books of records, finding the correct record in that book, making a
copy and certifying it as accurate.

Linking to Wing Nut Daily? Hilarious.

It is not in fact a matter of law that inspection of the original document is required. A certified copy like the one Obama submitted is more than sufficient.

And the case was decided on the merits. Obama proved his eligibility without needing to show up for the hearing. You just don’t like the results, so you want to pretend they were invalid somehow.

The truth is that there is no fake Social Security number, there is no fake Selective Service application, and there is no fake birth certificate. The truth has been known all along, except to loony Birthers who refuse to accept it.

Legally you are wrong regarding rules of evidence and it will be played out on appeal.  I can disagree with a different idea but I hold everyone to the same standard. Obama according to Georgia Law has the burden of proof to show his eligibility.  Obama has shown nothing in court.  How can you disregard the article I sent you?  I mean  I am on a Rachel Maddow site.  Maddow is not my favorite source and I never brought this up to discredit you.  What if a future candidate who you opposed never shown up in court? Would you take the same position?  The fact is Obama never showed anything cause he never showed up for court.  Contact a lawyer and they would be shocked at what happened.

Obama did provide his birth certificate. There was no need for him to appear in person to do that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

And there will be no appeal. Orly Taitz will attempt to appeal the decision, and she’ll be rejected.

 Cal, why does not Obama just allow someone to review his original birth certificate in the Hawaiian vault?  I would like to get this issue out of the way.

Speak to an attorney regarding rules of evidence and you will learn viewing an original document is regularly granted.

The case has been appealed.

The truth will come out in time.

Why the hell should he? It’s irrelevant. And Taitz’s appeal will fail, because it has no valid basis. Just like everything else she’s done.

Read about Obama Selective Service Application.  Believe this or your lying eyes.  You could review other sources too!

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

 http://suzyrice.com/2008/11/did-obama-fake-his-selective-service-registration/

Total bulls**t, and you know it. You just don’t care that it’s false. It attacks Obama and that’s good enough for you.

Posting nonsense twice doesn’t make it any more creidble than posting it once.

 Cal, I am trying to show you objective proof and you act emotionally.  I am interested to find out why Obama has a CT SS# when he should have an Hawaiian SS#.  Does it seem odd at all?  And the same with his Selective Service Application.  Why do you think Obama has a CT SS# ?

He doesn’t have a Connecticut Social Security number! Why the hell do you think he does? That’s a complete fabrication. Some random Birther (who doesn’t actually know what Obama’s SS# is) made up the idea, and the rest of the Birthers have run with it for no apparent reason.

 Cal, Obama claimed the CT SS# on his tax returns.  It is public information.  A “Birther” did not fabricate the number.  Why are you in denial?  I am not sure why Obama has a CT SS# but I would like to find out! Obama’s CT SS# was issued in 1977 but then was first used when Obama was 25yrs old.  The SS# before and after Obama’s was tracked down to identify the approximate date of Obama’s.  Be OBJECTIVE regardless of your politics.  These are facts!

No, crazymind, Obama did not claim a CT SS# on his tax returns. And Social Security numbers are never provided to the public.