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.
originally posted by: derfreebie
As far as wherever he's from, his real birth father was a British
subject at the time; and his mother was not yet 19. Read the law.
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.
ask Loretta Cuddy
originally posted by: hellobruce
ask Loretta Cuddy
Who?
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Actually, I am more intrigued by what book Michelle is holding in his 2013 ceremony while he swears his oath because it is not prefaced by "place your hand on the bible". It had a heavy add-on type protective cover on it making rather thin for any version of the Bible. He wasn't asked to place his hand anywhere in his first 2009 swearing in. Surely had a bible been there he or chief justice Roberts would have mentioned it, no??
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.
AND
The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: StookieWilliams
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.
AND
The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Torcaso v. Watkins
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Shamrock6
'God' as an actual entity is invoked in the statement, "So help me God." The phrase, "So help me God," is an acknowledgement of a belief in God. That is why it is entirely left to the discretion of the president-elect whether to state the phrase, or not.
It is unprecedented for a Justice to deliver the phrase as a question requiring affirmation and an invocation of 'God.'
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion. But if you feel you have simply closed the book on the debate with your opinion, you're wrong.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
The fact remains that the oath is the oath. Nothing before the oath, nor after the oath, changes the oath. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. You're not entitled to change facts, or substitute your opinion for fact, when actual facts don't support it.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye
The affadavit also shows Roberts' intent, not just Obama's. It's not my problem Roberts' stated intent conflicts with your opinion.
originally posted by: fractal5
a reply to: MotherMayEye
The fatal flaw in the OP is that God is just as much physical as he is religious.
Neither of our views matter in politics. Its the supreme court's opinion that matters, and they love to discover new creative ways of creatively interpreting words, and proudly and creatively pretend words don't exist at all for convenience.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: fractal5
a reply to: MotherMayEye
The fatal flaw in the OP is that God is just as much physical as he is religious.
The fatal flaw with your argument is that 'God' is not physical, in any way, and I don't share your view of 'God' and what 'God' means, at all. In this case, 'God' is an uppercase pronoun referring to an 'entity' that some people believe exists.
I have the freedom to not share your view.
Wow.