RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling

RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (Full Version)

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 10:51:15 AM)
no court that I am aware of has EVER tossed out the "legitimately" enabled statutes at large. If they want to get him that is how to do it. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the law of the land. the only reason they all politicize it is to misdirect it into red herring land. typical [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/republican_vs_democrat-667.gif[/image]

SternSkipper -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 10:56:34 AM)
quote: If it is true that "Ignorance is bliss", Birthers must be a truly ecstatic bunch of people. They are happier than the population of Idaho

DarkSteven -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 11:05:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne typical showman court the only way a county could have any jurisdiction is if it were illinios presuming he claims to be a citizen of ill in the first place. secondly anything short of quo warranto they can wipe their ass with it. last if the writer of that article knows anything about what they are talking about that was a fucking "admin" hearing! more bullshit propaganda showboating. He is not eligible to be the el prezidante as he is completely disqualified under the statutes at large, 1802 immigration laws. They know it, but no one will touch it if they want to live or their family to live to talk about it. I got as far as you using the term citizen of, instead of resident of a state, and quit reading there.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 11:17:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne typical showman court the only way a county could have any jurisdiction is if it were illinios presuming he claims to be a citizen of ill in the first place. secondly anything short of quo warranto they can wipe their ass with it. last if the writer of that article knows anything about what they are talking about that was a fucking "admin" hearing! more bullshit propaganda showboating. He is not eligible to be the el prezidante as he is completely disqualified under the statutes at large, 1802 immigration laws. They know it, but no one will touch it if they want to live or their family to live to talk about it. I got as far as you using the term citizen of, instead of resident of a state, and quit reading there. without thoroughly researching it, you are a citizen of the state of your nativity first and secondly follows domicil, which I presume is illinois for him unless he declared citizenship of another state. To the best of my recollection place of residence not with standing. If neither then it would defer to hawaii. I did nto get into all the variants for the sake of the point I was making felt it was unnecessary. That being that the statutes at large are the law and he is in violation of those laws as well as everyone involved including anyone who votes for him are committing sedition against the united states.

truckinslave -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 12:11:46 PM)
quote: Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents. Do you happen to know the name of that case? Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow.

RacerJim -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 12:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents. Do you happen to know the name of that case? Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow. Arkeny v. Governor By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. Appeals no doubt will be filed.

SternSkipper -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 12:59:14 PM)
quote: Arkeny v. Governor By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. Appeals no doubt will be filed. Thanks for catching the DOUBLE FUCK-UP of the right wing activist judge who should have just written a quick opinion that the case was frivolous, or ordered the plaintiff before the bench for a hefty civil penalty payable to the defendant. The simple lesson of this case was that it shouldn't have been brought in the first place since to question had long since been answered and it was and I repeat FRIVOLOUS to accuse ANYONE who'd already made NUMEROUS attempts to appease FANATICS and establish the truth in their fat little heads.

DomKen -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 1:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents. Do you happen to know the name of that case? Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow. Arkeny v. Governor By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. Appeals no doubt will be filed. Overturned which SCOTUS case? Or are you making stuff up again.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 1:47:52 PM)
The Supreme Court ruling In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person: Is born in the United States Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States Has parents that are in the United States for business For the more in depth reading of the case... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

DomKen -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 2:00:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Supreme Court ruling In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person: Is born in the United States Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States Has parents that are in the United States for business For the more in depth reading of the case... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html The judge in question did not over rule Wong. Why do you think he did?

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 2:06:16 PM)
Im not saying he did. I dont see where the claim that the SC was overruled came from. Just providing the information that this is the ruling, and it hasnt changed.

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 2:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents. Do you happen to know the name of that case? Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow. Arkeny v. Governor By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. Appeals no doubt will be filed. Within which US? There are a minimum of 3 definitions for US

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 2:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Supreme Court ruling In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person: Is born in the United States Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States Has parents that are in the United States for business For the more in depth reading of the case... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html the 14th amendment does not repeal anything in the statutes at large, hence they remain in full force, that being 1802 immigration laws, the 14th is 1868ish or whatever. In fact the 14th never was ratified as the utah supreme court put into record. that and kim wongs parents were both bona fide us citizens. that and its a presumption by government that you are a us citizen, not mandated. there are many variants to that. citizenship in america is handled exactly the same way subjectship is handled in england under the king, which is identical to a farmer with HIS cattle. If your cow has a calf you you have dominion over it. Its your chattel. Likewise with the "sovereign" state. You are the cattle and your body and output during your lifetime has commercial value to that state so they presume you are a citizen. LOL small world indeedy! oh and if you are born in the "united states" exactly where is that? LOL Now personally. I was born in a political district known commonly referred to as a "state".

DomKen -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 2:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne that and kim wongs parents were both bona fide us citizens. No. They were never US citizens.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 5:34:26 PM)
quote: So did ohaha pledge allegiance to the united states? He never holds his hand over his heart or salutes the flag? whats up with that? Did they even swear him in? You know lots of public officials in the US today have not taken or properly taken their oath of office. I suppose this is probly all common knowledge. Wrong again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fx16ZxFB4w&feature=related and Yes, he took the Oath of Office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU

Owner59 -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 6:17:11 PM)
Ok,so the right-wing is stealing from the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist`s bag of stupidity....... What of it? General reply: "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing." Let`s fucking hope so, for goodness sake.[:D]

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 8:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: So did ohaha pledge allegiance to the united states? He never holds his hand over his heart or salutes the flag? whats up with that? Did they even swear him in? You know lots of public officials in the US today have not taken or properly taken their oath of office. I suppose this is probly all common knowledge. Wrong again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fx16ZxFB4w&feature=related and Yes, he took the Oath of Office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU since when is asking questions "wrong again"? LOL

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/4/2012 8:12:19 PM)
The statement following your "questions" speak towards the motive. [;)]

truckinslave -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/5/2012 7:45:24 PM)
quote: In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States ...... The key word there, of course, is: "citizen". There is no reference to, no mention of, no use of the term: "natural born citizen" anywhere in the decision. The two terms are not interchangeable. The case is not on point.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/5/2012 8:13:36 PM)
He was a citizen at birth... natural born. How much more natural born can one get?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875