RE: Georgia case

RE: Georgia case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:06:58 AM)
It reinforces what I said. It's constitutional. His mother was not a citizen of the united states, but he was 'natural born' according to the meaning of the time. Had she been a citizen, he could have been president. I will however, point out once again, that I deplore the treatment of OR as AND by the caselaw.

truckinslave -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:16:16 AM)
Try reading it. Hamilton was exempt from the requirement of being a NBC by virtue of being a (mere) citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. <sigh>

mnottertail -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:28:12 AM)
No the point is that he was natural born, but not a citizen at the adoption of the constitution. Again, had his mother been a citizen of the united states, he would have been one too (which he wasn't) Look, the point is that natural born frankly meant: a bar steward in a knocking shop. (polite, moon, lucy, any limey, give out the short shrift....) Why was this so, because many of these people owned and slept with slaves, who were not citizens. If a man fathered a child by one or more of them it was taken care of by the mother not being a citizen. If a citizen woman should do such a thing, regardless of the horrific strictures of the dual standard, the baby would be given to a slave to raise as thier own, and therefore the mother not a citizen, and most of all don't tell the Robinsons.

Owner59 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 8:35:03 AM)
This is why the US Constitution was amended to include all people born in the US as US citizens,just after the civil war,no matter who your folks were. It`s very clear. This is the part of the US Constitution the republicans are seeking to change.

blacksword404 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 9:32:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: From what I have seen the problem is that part of the requirements for being natural born is that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. His father never was an american citizen. He was either kenyan or British. That only comes into play if one is born outside the US. Hawaii WAS part of the US at the time of President Obama's birth. See Tazzy's post below for details. That makes sense.

Lucylastic -> No ruling in Georgia Case , re Ballot (1/26/2012 9:43:13 AM)
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November. Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing. "It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi. "I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied. Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote. Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing. In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote. Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge

blacksword404 -> RE: No ruling in Georgia Case , re Ballot (1/26/2012 10:21:17 AM)
There have been plenty of cases dealing with this but they keep getting thrown out because the person has no standing. So there has never been an actual ruling on the issue. Hopefully that will happen this time. The first case of this kind should have been dealt with years ago.

Lucylastic -> RE: No ruling in Georgia Case , re Ballot (1/26/2012 10:29:33 AM)
They have been trying since day one, here we are four years alater(give or take a month or two) and they get a no ruling. WHy no ruling, what happens now??, will they give up? Are they nuts? are they right? are they wasting everyones time? Personally I think they should all be put in jackets with wrap around sleeves and never allowed to waste a courts time again, let alone cost the taxpayers more. What other avenue is going to give them what they so desparately want?

tazzygirl -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 10:37:38 AM)
quote: You posit that someone born a British subject is not beholden to England. England and, more importantly, SCOTUS, might hold otherwise. Something he held for 2 years. So, a 2 year old is beholden to the crown? Honestly, here is a great source for the problem with the belief of dual citizenship of Obama. http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/

itsSIRtou -> RE: No ruling in Georgia Case , re Ballot (1/26/2012 4:40:32 PM)
.... win at all costs. because they know that theres a real chance "they" are going to lose the election AGAIN.... and I feel... their last chance to bankrupt the counrty....which is what I think the GOP really wants to do to drive wages down to third world levels.... its all about profit. If u think Im nuts,... concider if wages were at even 1960 levels with todays prices? an employer could command workers work 60-hours or more to make the same take-home pay... and with the GOP wanting to repeal worker protections as part of "getting government out of the way of busness" theres alot at stake for the GOP to win.... Trying to get the pres out of the way and also many voters with trying to narrow who gets the freedom to vote is just a new form of bigotry.

Louve00 -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 4:43:16 PM)
And to add to this debacle, neither the president or his lawyer showed up in that GA court today. Mm Mm Mm [8D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 4:50:35 PM)
yep and no ruling... why???

DomKen -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 5:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yep and no ruling... why??? Because the judge knows if he rules the way he has to his 15 minutes are over.

tazzygirl -> RE: Georgia case (1/26/2012 11:43:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 And to add to this debacle, neither the president or his lawyer showed up in that GA court today. Mm Mm Mm [8D] The court was informed that he would not be there.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875