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.

 

"Evidence" from the birth certificate conspiracy, my analysis

page: 12
40
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Thats pretty funny....first u say the Constitution fails to define what a "natural born" citizen is....


The constitution fails to, but current constitutional experts, the ones who have their real credentials, cite and translate what is meant by natural born. However during that time there were no clear defintions, thats why we have current laws that define it for us that are in Obamas favour.


if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship IS IN DOUBT.

Since that case, the Supreme Court has never again touched upon the issue. Which means that all of your arguments ARE IN DOUBT.


Thats not a good enough excuse to say he isnt a natural born. Merely the supreme court making this in doubt doesnt specifically make it by law. Supreme did not say however that Obama is not a natural born citizen, merely by their standards in doubt. This is why, in the constitution they leave the issue of eligibility to congress and the electoral college to confirm somebodies natural born citizenship, especially in the case of the presidency:

The constitution clearly states:
According to the court, the Constitution vests Congress -- no individual voters, or even opposing candidates -- with the final authority re: the qualifications of the Presidency.:

Article II prescribes that each state shall appoint, in the manner directed by the state’s legislature, the number of presidential electors to which it is constitutionally entitled. The Twelfth Amendment prescribes the manner in which the electors appointed by the states shall in turn elect the president:


“[t]he electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . . and they shall . . . transmit [their votes] sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

www.law.cornell.edu...

Congress did confirm so along with the electoral college:
drbobbiannewhite.890m.com...

In addition the state of Hawaii further confirms Obamas eligibility:
www.kxma.com...

Obama passed the above. "clearly in doubt" has been cleared as the constitution requests.

SG

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I know in some strange hope you think this would remove him from office. In actuality it would not. At this point once being sworn in its to late you would need to impeach him. This requires a 2/3 vote from the house just to bring the charges in front of the senate.The senate and the chief justice would then have to agree that it was a crime to remove him from office. And no matter what you think even if it did make it to the senate which would never happen it can be debated what the constitution meant reinterpreted as anyone borne of an American citizen and end of problem. But you would never get a 2/3 vote in the house so its a non issue.

Even if they found out he didn't qualify at this point you still wouldn't get articles of impeachment.So in other words it really doesn't matter any more this should have been handled before the election.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
I know in some strange hope you think this would remove him from office. In actuality it would not. At this point once being sworn in its to late you would need to impeach him.


Im going to have to disagree with you there Dragon. If they have sufficient proof that he was born of US soil, or that he is ineligible, which they are yet to do, then they can impeach. Thus far though the entire conspiracy is based on "assumption" "speculation" or "in doubt". That doesnt work under court of law.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



You just said the following:

"by current law you are a natural born citizen by merely being born on US soil or if both your parents are natural born american citizens"

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG....

Which "current law" are you citing to?? Hmmm????

Current law says that you are a "CITIZEN", not a "NATURAL BORN" citizen, if you are born on US soil, etc, etc...

However, the law regarding the issue of what a "natural born" citizen is was last addressed in Minor v. Happersett (1874). And again, in that case, the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. The Court also held in that case that if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.

Now, if that was the last time our Supreme Court addressed the issue, and Article II has never been repealed, where and what are you relying on for your interpretation of the current law regarding a "natural born" citizen?? MINOR IS THE LAST TIME THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH IT; HOW CAN THERE BE ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION???????



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




What current laws??????? There are none!!!! The 14th Amendment does not address the issue of a "natural born" citizen....what laws are you referring to???????????? Please cite me code, statute, etc....this should be interesting.....



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Yes Southern Guardian I just looked it up all of the this and that, and it said ( Natutal born citizen anyone born inside the United States is considered a Natural Born Citizen )

www.usconstitution.net...





[edit on 18-7-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Jesus Christ....I never said that the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on this....I said that the only way this could be clarified would be for them to actually rule on it in a definitive fashion...but the case law as it stands, while not definitive, clearly states that your arguments are in doubt, as per the Minor case....



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 




Interesting how the author if the link you cite definitively states that he is making an analysis of what a "natural born" citizen is under the 14th Amendment....and then when u read the 14th Amendment, nowhere are the words "natural born" citizen anywhere to be found....just the term "citizen"....

Like pulling teeth....



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

However, the law regarding the issue of what a "natural born" citizen is was last addressed in Minor v. Happersett (1874). And again, in that case, the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. The Court also held in that case that if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.


Care to explain to me what "in doubt" stands for? Does that mean, by law that definitley makes you not natural born, or is that merely a question being left open by the court? In the constitution it clearly states that the issue of eligibility is to be left to congress and electoral college to decide. If the court has left a question open, that clearly leaves the question open to congress, which made the final decision in december of 2008 during the presidential confirmation, where they agree he was eligible.

Your telling me "in doubt" is definate source that says Obama is not natural born, which is incorrect. It simply leaves that question open.

Calm yourself down there buddy. You are getting all in a fuss because the argument is not going your way. You folks get all touchy about the lawsuits that fail to get through, that is because the entire allegation of him being natural born or not is based on speculation, on "questioning" and nothing else. Under the court of law there has to be clear direct evidence pointing to, indicating that he is definately not a natural born citizen.

your "personal conclusion" or questioning left "in doubt" does not offer a definite cause for any lawsuit against his eligibility. There has to be straightforward evidence that shows him not to be eligible.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer


Well thats the point, your telling me about natural born citizenship and the constitution, it doesn specifically reference that in there, so your argument right there is through the roof. However the intention in the constitution clearly states that by birth right you are eligible for the presidency in the constitution. As Obama is US born, he is eligible to be the president of the United states.

"In doubt" doesnt show me that he is ineligible for the presidency.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by googolplex
 




Interesting how the author if the link you cite definitively states that he is making an analysis of what a "natural born" citizen is under the 14th Amendment....and then when u read the 14th Amendment, nowhere are the words "natural born" citizen anywhere to be found....just the term "citizen"....

Like pulling teeth....


It is really so simple if you are human and you are born and when you floop out if you floop on U.S. soil you are Natural Born citizen, if your mother had C-section then I'm not sure.

The other way is if both of your parents are Natural Born, it gets kind of fuzzy after that.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by googolplex]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 




Amazing...all of you really are incapable of recognizing the clear distinction made in Article II of the Constitution between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen"....and, moreover, have apparently no recognition of the Supreme Court having our country's final say on legal interpretation...

It is readily apparent that our school systems are failing...miserably....



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The argument is not gong my way???? Hahahahahahahahahahaha....u make no sense whatsoever....none....and the argument is not going my way????????



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The argument is not gong my way???? Hahahahahahahahahahaha....u make no sense whatsoever....none....and the argument is not going my way????????



Im going to ask you again. Does "in doubt" argue in favour of the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen? You tell me "its in doubt", does that hold up in court? If I was in court and was in doubt that a car accident was my fault and they asked me for evidence, do you think my "doubt" over that matter will get me throught that lawsuit?

Your suppose to know the law through and through, you clearly should understand then the importance of solid evidence in a case.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by googolplex
 




Amazing...all of you really are incapable of recognizing the clear distinction made in Article II of the Constitution between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen"....and, moreover, have apparently no recognition of the Supreme Court having our country's final say on legal interpretation...

It is readily apparent that our school systems are failing...miserably....

From what said Title 8 of US code section 1401 fills gaps of 14th Amendment and covers this, and if you fall in to any of these categories then that person is eligible to become President.
And I only have a third grade education, what's your excuse.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I'd like to chime in here and quote Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 167–68)



The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Seems that this does not define one or both parents are necessary, but that if you were born on the US soil you are eligible for this made up word "natural born citizen" presumably coined by Jon Jay in 1787.
books.google.com... Cg



The term "natural born Citizen" has never been defined by the Courts in the course of a Presidential qualification challenge.

en.wikipedia.org...

As a side note... for a lawyer, Shady, you're not a very articulate or well mannered.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Your exactly right there is no statute requiring both parent to be US citizens. The only thing that would happen if this did go to the supreme court is they would just verify hes eligible by stating he had US citizenship at birth from his mother the end case closed. This is why it keeps getting thrown out of court because they know he had US citizenship since birth. It was registered with Hawaii excepted at that time and he was a US citizen from the day he was borne.The only way this wouldn't apply is if he denounced his citizenship.Since he never had to reapply obviously this never occurred the end.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join