Originally posted by Josephus23
Thus the lack of a grand jury, which is exactly how the bankers want it. This is Roman Civil Law, from which all of this stems.

This law was designed to keep the slaves in their place and this type of law forms the backbone for the 14th amendment.
We have literally contracted our rights to the federal government.

Like I said in the last post, as long as this is a civil case then TPTB have no worries.

This time a history FAIL. Grand Juries did not exist under Roman Law. It was the result of Henry II of England issuing the Assize of Clarendon in 1166. In fact Henry II has a good claim to being the creator of English Common Law. Do you have a cite for your assertion that all of this stems from Roman Civil law? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by genius/idoit
Ho he got off on a technicality?

He didn't get off on anything. To get off you have to have a pending case. All you have here is a digruntled ex-con failure of a navel officer with access to a word processor and printer who seems to enjoy the support and a -kissing of a bunch of knuckle-dragging racists.He had a successful career that he threw away my criminal dealings with his men's money. What a hero. 10 of the 13 grand jurors saw him for what he was and wouldn't even listen to his garbage. The other 3 were seen laughing and shaking their heads as they left the GJ room. And that's in 95 % white Monroe County, TN.

Originally posted by merkaba93

Fake Grand Juries? Dewd, what? The Grand Jury was adopted in America to retain the power in the hands of the governement.

So in the USA any group of nutters, criminals, tv watchers, $cientologists or in fact any group of people can just declare that they are a "Grand Jury" and as a "Grand Jury" that group has certain rights?

What happens if 2 different groups with opposing ideas just declare that they are a "Grand Jury", who decides which "Grand Jury" is the proper one?
How many people have to be in a "Grand Jury" Can there be a "Grand Jury" of one person?

Really funny country if that is true.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Well .. what about the definition of "natural born citizen"? According to Supreme Court precedent, both parents must be US citizens in order for their offspring to be a "natural born citizen".

Hey Guidance.

What precedent are you talking about exactly? It would help to reference ya know. If your talking about the supreme court case where the child was born overseas but returned to the US only to be refused the position of natural born citizenship, thats a different scenario. She was born overseas, where as this law specific that there must be both parents as natural born citizens in order for that right of passage to be passed over by the child. This case doesnt apply to Obama as he was born in Hawaii, and it is not been proven he was born outside US soil. Folks continue to reference this supreme court precedent without reading the fine print, that is that the ammendment only applies to foreign born children. All children born on US soil are natural born, where this laws doesnt count.

The constitutional ammendment of 1795 made it possible for two american citizens to pass over their US citizenship to their child born off US soil, hence McCains eligibility. This law is often confused by eligibility conspiracy theorists to count as well to children born on US soil, which it does not.

If I was incorrect on the court proceeding you were refering to, please be so kind to reference it.

Also a note, natural born citizenship is an archaic phrase having the position of birth.

Further more, convention delegate Alexander Hamilton in 1787 stated that:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

There has never been an official ruling as needing both parents as US citizens for US born children to assume natural born citizenship.

Another note is that our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur had one parent who was born in Ireland and one parent as a US citizen, and he was born on US soil.

his father was a subject of the British crown at the time of Obama's birth.

This is a tired old excuse..... its tired, not me, I love discussing these....

Firstly, US citizenship laws over rule all other foreign laws. The US does not cater to other laws, and that includes citizenship. We are not subject to foreign laws if we were born on US soil. Only the laws of the US applies to us.... which begs to question.... for all the talk from the tea party protestors and the rightwing on how the US laws are abided first and formost, and without foreign influence, why on earth do they insist the complete opposite when arguing something else?

Secondly, Obamas british and Kenyan citizenship died over 20 years ago... so apart from the fact is says no where in constitution concerning dual citizenship, he technically never had it for more than 20 years... meaning his been a natural born citizen for more than two decades. At the time of his run for the presidency he was only a natural born US citizen.

SG

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Southern Guardian]

I wonder how much money ATS has made from ad revenue because of stupid Obama threads like this. ATS is genius though, they're like the Wal-Mart of the internet, catering to those no one else wants too.

I have been following this thread, as well as searching for the results from yesterday (Dec 7th). Does anybody know what happened? What did the grand jury decide?

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
I wonder how much money ATS has made from ad revenue because of stupid Obama threads like this. ATS is genius though, they're like the Wal-Mart of the internet, catering to those no one else wants too.

And yet you still continue to surface and post on ATS.

I think its time to move on and deal with your inner demons.

I hope you will find solace somewhere. I'll light a candle for you in church this Sunday.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jibeho]