It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




As for the rest we are all entitled to our opinions and mine is based of the information available.


Yes, and as the saying goes: we are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.

You claim to base your opinion on the information available, and yet your opinion has clearly been formed BEFORE you had any information available to actually base it on. So now you deny and/or ignore any information that contradicts your per-conceived opinion.

In fact your opinion is based on fear and prejudice.



I dont trust Obama and dont think he has been honest about his past.


That, of course, is your privilege. And trust or distrust doesn't have to be based on logic or fact. However it is just not reasonable to invent lies and ignore facts in order to try and rationalize your personal lack of trust.

Just say you don't like Obama and don't vote for him. You don't have to lie about him, you don't have to slander the entire public service in Hawai'i, make up lies about Hawai'ian law, make up lies about Social Security processes, whatever.



A state court ruling has no basis on anything but the state in question and even then it has nothing to with with defining what a natural born citizen is (since its a constitutional issue its either Congress or the federal courts).


There is a reason why the plaintiffs in Ankeny did not appeal to SCOTUS and that reason is exactly because they KNEW that if SCOTUS took it on that the decision would be confirmed - and then you and your mindset companions wouldn't be able to say that it 'only' applies to that one State decision.

In fact, several FEDERAL courts in perhaps dozens of cases have cited EXACTLY that state case as PRECEDENT so that they do not have to go through the same determinations all over again. You moan about never getting exactly these questions judged on their merits in real court, but when it happens you reject it.

That is the exact opposite of forming your opinions based on the information available - that is allowing your preconceived opinions, your prejudices, filter out the information you are afraid to acknowledge.




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
There is a reason why the plaintiffs in Ankeny did not appeal to SCOTUS and that reason is exactly because they KNEW that if SCOTUS took it on that the decision would be confirmed - and then you and your mindset companions wouldn't be able to say that it 'only' applies to that one State decision.



The reason they did not appeal to SCOTUS is because it was a state court case, not a federal one. The highest appeal would be heard by the Indiana Supreme Court.

If you don't know the correct 'answer' don't invent one and don't lecture others on 'inventing' answers.

Also Obama earned all the distrust he's gotten -- and more -- by releasing his long form birth certificate ONLY at Donald Trump's request...and three years late...

...and after mocking ordinary voters (and soldiers) who requested to see it three years prior.

There is something seriously wrong with his character. Obama has not earned any trust.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: rnaa
There is a reason why the plaintiffs in Ankeny did not appeal to SCOTUS and that reason is exactly because they KNEW that if SCOTUS took it on that the decision would be confirmed - and then you and your mindset companions wouldn't be able to say that it 'only' applies to that one State decision.


The reason they did not appeal to SCOTUS is because it was a state court case, not a federal one. The highest appeal would be heard by the Indiana Supreme Court.


Which... Indiana Appellate Court
H DISMISSAL AFFIRMED
Finding Obama is NBC
Petition for Rehearing DENIED
Indiana Supreme Court
Transfer to Ind. Sup. Ct. DENIED

Denied as birthers had nothing but lies!


Also Obama earned all the distrust he's gotten -- and more -- by releasing his long form birth certificate ONLY at Donald Trump's request...and three years late...


Obama did not have to release any BC's... funny how Trump refuses to release his long form BC... What is Trump hiding?

In fact a presidential candidate does not even need a BC!

Birthers claimed Obama did not have a US BC.... Obama released it.

Birthers then claimed Obama did not have a long form BC, then Obama released that.

Birthers then claimed that they were forgeries, and remember, no expert has examined Obama's BC's!

But as we have seen, none of the birther crap is about any document Obama released...



edit on 20-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

First, Trump can bite me. I don't trust anything from that man.

Secondly, thank you for supporting my point that the case was heard only in state courts and only appealable in the state supreme court, as well.

However, it hinges on a federal/constitutional question that should be decided by SCOTUS.

It was also argued by non-lawyers, so it's pretty much meaningless as far as sound litigation goes.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
However, it hinges on a federal/constitutional question that should be decided by SCOTUS.


IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN A FEDERAL COURT, Obama is a natural born citizen!


It was also argued by non-lawyers, so it's pretty much meaningless as far as sound litigation goes.


That is because real lawyers realise all birthers have is crap, and avoid birther cases.

No matter how you try and distort reality, Obama is a natural born US citizen and the legal POTUS!



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
However, it hinges on a federal/constitutional question that should be decided by SCOTUS.


IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN A FEDERAL COURT, Obama is a natural born citizen!


It was also argued by non-lawyers, so it's pretty much meaningless as far as sound litigation goes.


That is because real lawyers realise all birthers have is crap, and avoid birther cases.

No matter how you try and distort reality, Obama is a natural born US citizen and the legal POTUS!


You would certainly not be privy to any reason an attorney might decide not take up a case on the natural born citizenship issue. I have no doubt the media ridicule and lack of financial gain are plenty of deterrent, alone.

The media ridicule, however, is enough for me to completely distrust Obama's claimed birth narrative and documentation.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
In fact your opinion is based on fear and prejudice.

Not even close and I don't appreciate the insinuation. Resorting to personal attacks of this nature is bull # and you should know better than to accuse a person of being prejudice. I think you should apologize.



originally posted by: rnaa
That..........make up lies about Social Security processes, whatever.

I didnt invent any lies so again knock the petty BS off. Secondly I was correct about the SSN and the area location. As I pointed out, and you apparently missed / didnt read it, at the time he got his SSN the first 3 numbers denoted the issuing state. The new randomization / non state specific SSN's came into effect in 2011.

The tax reform act of 1986 required social security numbers to be listed for children. Prior to that act people used an honor system when reporting their children on tax forms. Also in those days people delayed getting a SSN for their children until the age of 14 since it was used primarily for income / tax uses. A SSN is require to be eligible for government programs.

42 USC 405 - Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments




originally posted by: rnaa
There is a reason why the plaintiffs in Ankeny did not appeal to SCOTUS and that reason is exactly because they KNEW that if SCOTUS took it on that the decision would be confirmed - and then you and your mindset companions wouldn't be able to say that it 'only' applies to that one State decision.


State court rulings only apply to the state. Only after a ruling by the State Supreme Court can it be appealed to a federal court. Federal appeals rulings only apply to the states in their circuit. Those rulings can be used as a precedent by the other circuits who can agree with it or they can issue a conflicting opinion in which case its headed to SCOTUS.



originally posted by: rnaa
In fact, several FEDERAL courts in perhaps dozens of cases have cited EXACTLY that state case as PRECEDENT so that they do not have to go through the same determinations all over again. You moan about never getting exactly these questions judged on their merits in real court, but when it happens you reject it.

I do because I don't think hes been honest about his past.

Secondly all court cases dealing with Obama revolve around the assumption he was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't then the rulings do not apply. The rulings do not settle the entire issue. It only settles the issue from the assumption of where he was born.

Here is your "hundreds" of court cases -
* - Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections
* - Paige v. Obama et al.
* - Fair v. Obama
* - Farrar (et al.) v. Obama
* - Voeltz v. Obama
* - Allen v. Obama
* - Purpura v. Obama
* - Tisdale v. Obama
* - Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana
* - Hollander v. McCain (This one should have never been used for an Obama argument since it was never a constitutional question. McCain is a US citizen and qualified to run for President because Congress passed a law dealing specifically with people born in Panama with US Citizenship - 8 USC 1403 - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization - § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

Obama's mom had him when she was 18. Did she reside in the US for 5 years as required or did she live in Kenya with her husband for those years?



originally posted by: rnaa
That is the exact opposite of forming your opinions based on the information available - that is allowing your preconceived opinions, your prejudices, filter out the information you are afraid to acknowledge.

Again BS. I am not prejudiced and using the race card and trying to label people as prejudiced who think info is being withheld is sad.

Parts of his family say he was born in Kenya. Why would they make that claim?
Why won't Obama release records on where he went to school?

What you need to get through your head is I want to make sure the man in office is legally allowed to hold that office. The court rulings don't address some of the important issues being raised. They ruled based solely on him being born in Hawaii and ignored the claims raised in the lawsuits.

I am not going to accept the word of his supporters. I will continue to look for answers regardless if its Obama, Cruz or Clinton.

People bitch all the time about government yet dont do anything beyond that. If he was born outside the US he should be prosecuted, along with the members of Congress who certified the election. If Cruz doesnt conform to the law for eligibility he should be prevented from running. If Clinton violated the law with her email mess she should be prosecuted.

Im not prejudiced. I want to hold our elected / appointed officials accountable to the same laws we are held to.

It's sad you are incapable of seeing that.
edit on 20-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Parts of his family say he was born in Kenya. Why would they make that claim?


Even his Harvard bio said he was born in Kenya. Little wonder there are questions. If Obama can't be bothered to clear that up for anyone but Donald Trump, why should any voter put their trust in him?

Obama's a jerk.

Photo of Obama's bio



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Parts of his family say he was born in Kenya. Why would they make that claim?


Even his Harvard bio said he was born in Kenya. Little wonder there are questions. If Obama can't be bothered to clear that up for anyone but Donald Trump, why should any voter put their trust in him?

Obama's a jerk.

Photo of Obama's bio


The entire article with more info on that image -

The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

It also talks about some of his lies he has told about his family that were proven to be not true. People are missing the point that even if he were born in Kenya he could still hold office if his mother met the qualifications. My issue is the persistent lies he tells and how he blames others when called out.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Seems obvious to me a politician would have standing. If you are running against someone and citizenship is in question them running for office directly hurts your chance for election. So the only ones I can think of in thr case of Cruz for example would be the people running against him.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Seems obvious to me a politician would have standing. If you are running against someone and citizenship is in question them running for office directly hurts your chance for election. So the only ones I can think of in thr case of Cruz for example would be the people running against him.


I'm not sure they would have standing without a particularized injury (one no other candidate claimed to suffer).

I do think that anyone penalized for not having health insurance could challenge the enforcement of the ACA, signed into effect by Obama. Or, as I stated in my OP, a challenge to a denial of full student loan debt forgiveness.

The courts pay attention to financial injuries. And such an approach would force the federal government to file the legal action to collect the money -- ensuring standing to the defendant, so to speak.

Plus, I don't trust any of these candidates to not sabotage their own cases...Cruz, in particular.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

LINK

www.salon.com...



The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak

Another Harvard constitutional lawyer says Cruz is NOT eligible to be president.

“Natural Born Citizen” is someone who is born in the US or one of its territories NOT a person merely born to one American citizen in a foreign country as Cruz was



At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Parts of his family say he was born in Kenya. Why would they make that claim?


They never made that claim, that is just truthers editing.


Even his Harvard bio said he was born in Kenya.


No it does not.


If Obama can't be bothered to clear that up


But Obama has cleared that up, just birthers refuse to accept the facts!
edit on 20-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



should know better than to accuse a person of being prejudice.


prejudice - as in PRE-JUDGED. Your assertions of difficulties with Obama's documentation arise directly from your pre-conceived opinions. Your refusal to acknowledge simple facts belie your pre-judged conviction that he is guilty (of something, anything).



Secondly I was correct about the SSN and the area location. As I pointed out, and you apparently missed / didnt read it, at the time he got his SSN the first 3 numbers denoted the issuing state.


Of course you were right about the geographically assigned prefix codes. But you are DEAD WRONG about the SIGNIFICANCE of those codes. Their purpose was not to identify where you were born, their purpose was ensure that separate regional offices did not assign the same number to two different individuals and for easy location of records in the original manual office systems.

By the time Obama got his SSN, in 1977, around the age of 16 - NOT as a baby, the regions were no longer being used and Baltimore processed all application via computer. In 1977 that means keypunching onto Hollerith cards (or possibly floppy disks which were just coming on the market) - a task with notorious room to easily transpose digits. Since it was all done centrally there was no longer any problem with duplicate numbers. It simply no longer mattered which prefix was used as long as the entire 9 digit number was not duplicated anywhere - a task the computer could ensure with out requiring the geographical prefix.



The new randomization / non state specific SSN's came into effect in 2011.


So what? That just means that the geographical prefix indicator had not been relevant for many years so when they designed a new system they didn't carry the baggage with them.



The tax reform act of 1986 required social security numbers to be listed for children. Prior to that act people used an honor system when reporting their children on tax forms. Also in those days people delayed getting a SSN for their children until the age of 14 since it was used primarily for income / tax uses. A SSN is require to be eligible for government programs.


And exactly how does any of that apply to Barrack Obama? He was 25 in 1986, not a child and already had his SSN for 9 years. In 1961 parents did NOT normally obtain SSN's for the babies UNLESS THEY WERE WORKING. How many babies do you know that work? Some do, of course, like diaper models, or actors in advertisements.

I know how this stuff worked back then. I actually did get my SSN in 1961 - I was 10 years old - and I was the only one of my contemporaries that I knew with an SSN not counting the other kids in the professional touring choir that I was in.

Quoting what the tax reform act of 1986 requires or doesn't require is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Obama got his SSN in 1977 at the age of about 16.



Here is your "hundreds" of court cases


I never said anything about "hundreds" of court cases. That is a fantasy of your own making.



Obama's mom had him when she was 18. Did she reside in the US for 5 years as required or did she live in Kenya with her husband for those years?


Besides being based on false assumptions, the question is irrelevant. Obama was born in the United States, neither of his parents had diplomatic immunity.

There is parental residence requirement for a native born citizen. Dunham and Obama Sr. were married less than 9 months before the wedding, she didn't live with her husband anywhere for 5 years before the birth. Stanley Ann Dunham never lived anywhere except the United States before her son's birth, let alone Kenya.


State court rulings only apply to the state. Only after a ruling by the State Supreme Court can it be appealed to a federal court.


Then why wasn't it? Answer: the plaintiffs were afraid to establish a federal precedent so they could continue to claim that they hadn't really been heard at the federal label. They knew as well as anybody that the Ankeny finding was rock solid and would be upheld at every level.


Federal appeals rulings only apply to the states in their circuit.


And yet several Federal courts have referenced that decision when they dismiss cases as without merit. And the reason is that the finding was so well researched that there was no need for the court to do all that work over again.



Parts of his family say he was born in Kenya. Why would they make that claim?


No they don't say that. The question is why would YOU make that claim?



Im not prejudiced.


That is demonstrably not true. You have prejudged his guilt. You claim that you are just asking questions, but you will not listen to the answers to your questions and no answer will change your conviction that he is guilty.



I want to hold our elected / appointed officials accountable to the same laws we are held to.


As do I, as does every person who has more than two brain cells to rub together.



I will continue to look for answers regardless if its Obama, Cruz or Clinton.


And what criteria will you use to decide that the answers you find are correct? The only answers that could possibly satisfy your search are answers that find them guilty - because you "know" that they are guilty - that is why I describe your opinion as prejudged.



If he was born outside the US he should be prosecuted


As would everyone. However, as always in these kind of self justifications the word 'IF' is doing all the work. The FACT is that we already know that the premise that the IF is based on is wrong. Obama was born in the United States.

And anyway, IF he was born outside the US, why should HE be prosecuted for something his parents did when he was less than a week old?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   


Even his Harvard bio said he was born in Kenya.
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it didn't.

The link to the bio you mention has nothing to do with Harvard.

See? That is how you spread lies, you glom on to something and build it up till it doesn't represent anything to do with reality.

I repeat, that bio has nothing to do with Harvard, it was not written by Obama or anybody who had met him or talked to him.

The person who wrote that bio got it wrong. Period. That person has explained her error - she got it wrong and Obama had nothing to do with it.

It was a blurb in a marketing brochure for book publishers, and they got it wrong.

Yes it happened, the incorrect bio got printed in an obscure marketing brochure for a book publisher that was promoting its stable of authors to attract more authors and publishing partners. So what?

I know you will not accept that answer because it doesn't fit with your world view of perfect Obama guilt. But there it is anyway.

Have you never made a mistake? Really? Never?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell



Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution


No one has ever denied that Cruz's circumstances are open to academic debate.

There are compelling arguments on both sides; and neither side can or will admit the error of their stance. It is an academic philosophic debate, and as such does not really have a wrong answer or a right answer.

So we need to look elsewhere to judge which side to take, full in the knowledge that which ever way we go will be both right AND wrong.

My view, which is in general agreement with the majority view is the most simple to declare:

=> an individual who is a citizen from the moment it draws first breath on this earthly plane, that individual is a 'born citizen', is a Natural Born Citizen. No further qualifications are necessary.

That definition does not rely on WHERE a child acquires citizenship, but WHEN; it is straightforward and does not require any convoluted parsing of 18th century legal theory nor seances with the founding fathers to work out what they were on about. If the individual acquires citizenship at birth, that individual is a Natural born citizen; if the individual acquires citizenship sometime after birth, that individual is a Naturalized citizen.

Obviously, the most common example of a "born citizen" is one that is born in the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States. Two common examples are Wong Kim Ark and Barrack Obama.

However there are other citizens, not born in the United States, who are also born citizens. These are people born overseas with sufficient ties to the country that they are recognized as born citizens. Common examples are John McCain and Rafael Edward Cruz.

Between McCain and Cruz, Cruz' claim perhaps the weaker and the minority view has reams of obscure technical points to demonstrate just how thin the 'ties' to the country were at his birth.

However, weak those ties are however, there is no doubt that he was a citizen at birth, a "born citizen", and therefore a "natural born citizen".



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




They never made that claim, that is just LIERS editing.


FIFY

edit on 21/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

My only issue that gives me pause is cruz was a Canadian citizen until he gave it up in 2014. I'm not sure a natural borne cititzen can have dual citizenship. It's a very strange case and I'm sure if the founding fathers were here I don't think they would be ok with it. The reason it was written in the constitution was to prevent conflict of interest Meaning their loyalty only lies with the US and no other foreign government. In this case in pretty sure Cruz considered himself an amarican and wouldn't promote Canadian interests over the US. However I have to admit this is a grey area.

As for Obama he was born in Hawaii so for him it was never an issue. But even if he wasn't its to late so no point in arguing the whole argument is silly to say the least. Ok so if he wasn't eligible he's already been president there is nothing that can change that. Even if he was ineligible it wouldn't invalidate anything he did while in office. It could open him up to prosecution but even that doesn't change the fact he was president. All it would do is be a footnote in history books. And even if he was prosecuted for lying on the forms likely sentence would be a fine so in other words either birthers are crazy tend to lean towards that one or thr amarican public has been had either way that train left the station.
edit on 1/21/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa



Even his Harvard bio said he was born in Kenya.
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it didn't.

The link to the bio you mention has nothing to do with Harvard.

See? That is how you spread lies, you glom on to something and build it up till it doesn't represent anything to do with reality.

I repeat, that bio has nothing to do with Harvard, it was not written by Obama or anybody who had met him or talked to him.

The person who wrote that bio got it wrong. Period. That person has explained her error - she got it wrong and Obama had nothing to do with it.

It was a blurb in a marketing brochure for book publishers, and they got it wrong.

Yes it happened, the incorrect bio got printed in an obscure marketing brochure for a book publisher that was promoting its stable of authors to attract more authors and publishing partners. So what?

I know you will not accept that answer because it doesn't fit with your world view of perfect Obama guilt. But there it is anyway.

Have you never made a mistake? Really? Never?


I didn't say the bio was FOR Harvard, I was referencing what the bio referenced in the portion I posted.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

They never made that claim, that is just truthers editing.



Truthers? I think you are confusing your two favorite topics.




top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join