Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 9:44:30 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		I never said that was redacted, may want to learn how to comprehend what you read.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 9:46:40 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 9:48:18 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the law is title 8 and the laws of hawaii in that time frame.
the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not.  mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.  there are several distinctions between citizen by birth and natural born citizen.  unfortunately it was redacted.  go fish


The residency requirement of a state has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship which is federal ...PERIOD.

Nothing on georgia, nothing on topic, nothing...derail, and pettifogging tinfoiling.

Title 8 was a republican law suspending chinese immigration for a period of 10 years signed by Arthur in the 1880s and running till 1943, missing the 10 year promise by several decades...

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 2/9/2012 9:52:24 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 9:51:20 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.


quote:

the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.


The mother was. She gave birth at 18, and was back in college by 19 in the US. She never relinquished citizenship or residency.

And, no, both did not need to be citizens. I have posted that repeatedly from the US government web site.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:01:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.


quote:

the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.


The mother was. She gave birth at 18, and was back in college by 19 in the US. She never relinquished citizenship or residency.

And, no, both did not need to be citizens. I have posted that repeatedly from the US government web site.


RE: The first quoted portion.

Tiger Woods isn't the goddamned President of the United States, Barak Obama is, and he has no Chinese ancestry in question.  And certainly not a law repealed 18 years before he was born ancestry in question. 

Off topic and derail.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:16:30 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		wtf?

Obviously you two are talking in code.

The complaint is that Obama's mother was not here for 19 years, which would have been the 5 years required by law after her 14th birthday. Considering she had him at 18, it was physically impossible for her to fulfill the 5 year requirement.

However, that does not take away from my question. And, as yet, for as long as I have been asking it, no one seems to be able to answer it.

At what point, if a US citizen, moves to another country, do they give up residency status?

How about we try this for an answer.

http://lcweb2.l.o.c.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
(take out the periods inside the l.o.c)

Or this?

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#moveabroad



< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 2/9/2012 10:18:39 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:16:38 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the law is title 8 and the laws of hawaii in that time frame.
the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not.  mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.  there are several distinctions between citizen by birth and natural born citizen.  unfortunately it was redacted.  go fish


The residency requirement of a state has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship which is federal ...PERIOD.

Nothing on georgia, nothing on topic, nothing...derail, and pettifogging tinfoiling.

Title 8 was a republican law suspending chinese immigration for a period of 10 years signed by Arthur in the 1880s and running till 1943, missing the 10 year promise by several decades...


it has to do with smuggling too, so what.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:18:26 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

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.

Your post is, of course, directly on point.
Although the U.S. Constitution does not define "natural born Citizen" it does in fact differentiate between "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" in that it states that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to serve as POTUS while any "citizen" may serve as a member of Congress.
Minor v Happersett is on point.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:21:30 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


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.

Minor v Happersett for one. Are you that ignorant?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:21:32 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 2/9/2012 10:23:00 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:25:46 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.


you seem to think the law of today changes the law as it was, it does not.


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/9/2012 10:27:32 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:28:15 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.





You would prefer they stated children of a us citizen? Back in the 1700's no one would have said it in such a way. Are you suggesting that a child born out of wedlock is not eligible to be a US citizen?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 10:40:03 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		My position is well founded. How many men admitted to having a child out of wedlock back in the 1700's? I doubt you will convince anyone that if a man could get out of paternity now, he would do so gladly. Meaning, for your argument to hold weight, not a single child born out of wedlock would ever be a US citizen. That notion on face value is ridiculous. Digging deeper, its farcical.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:01:11 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


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.

Minor v Happersett for one. Are you that ignorant?


The rulling in question did not grant the right to vote to anyone, what Minor v Happersett is about, and does not change any of the associated citizenship discussion in the ruling.

You should really stop making stuff up.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:06:07 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		You  are laboring under the misapprehension that the United States did not break away from Britian by force and set up its own government.  I can assure you it did.

Having cracked many more history books than you have, We will allow you to explicate two non-weddings in which blunderbusses were absent, in fact the bastard was common.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.  Ben Franklin and an unknown lady. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:17:15 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Try this excuse.

quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:20:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It has been proven in law that there was no need for both parents to be citizens of America.

Several times, by Tazzy and others, your efforts to cntradict what is clearly the law of the land with some ancient dictum from cases having nothing to do with the actual law regarding citizenship are untutored, off topic and a waste of everyones oxygen.

So, anything on natural born that can be traced directly to a different meaning than that which has been found recorded in books since 1560 or less?  Anything new in law changing the meaning of American Citizen(ship) since August 4, 1961?

Any actual precedent in topical AMERICAN caselaw that could reverse the Georgia ruling?

If not,  your pidgeon toed usage of dicta mentioning  the Magna Carta is devoid of use and a waste of the common good.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:24:31 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.


Which is (as I have posited from day one) the founders intent.
We always know who the mother is.........


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:30:19 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Try this excuse.

quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.


so what?

try 1401 from 1960.

unless of course you think that laws created today are retroactive LOL


oh and you forgot this:

(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if— (1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/9/2012 11:36:32 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 2/9/2012 11:35:32 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		1401 reinforces her point and makes yours null and void.  CLEARLY. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109