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.

 

Justice Thomas: "We are evading that one, the eligibility issue"

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Serrano was born in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

I looked it up and he, Serrano, is not eligible to become president, surely Thomas knew this, so what is the real issue?

[edit on 053030p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
so what is the real issue?


At this point I have absolutely no clue.
According to the State of Hawaii there isn't one.

- Lee



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


He was mocking the people that feel the BC issue doesn't deserve any investigation. It's called sarcasm and he clearly doesn't trust the President nor the wisdom behind the rest of the Judges. It's not a coincidence that his wife supports the Tea Party movement.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wayne60
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I'm only guessing that based on since they cannot vote in Presidential elections, I doubt they can run for POTUS. I do not know whether their voting status changes if/when they relocate to CONUS, since PR is still considered a territory. Perhaps someone else here can answer that one. I think the territory status is the gray area.


Actually, my understanding is that they are natural-born citizens and eligible to run for POTUS even though they cannot vote for POTUS. It's one of the more absurd aspects of territory status, imho.

If you're interested in the issue, you might check out this debate between me and AllSeeingI about whether territorial citizens should have the right to vote in presidential elections.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
OK here is what I found out after asking question at another forum,




“There were no recorded dissents from any of the Supreme Court’s denials of certiorari in any of the eligibility cases."


which means,




“No justice has written a dissenting opinion on any of them....because they are all “avoiding” the question as justice Thomas just pointed out.


[edit on 063030p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Thank you dingbat.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sheeper
reply to post by Maxmars
 


He was mocking the people that feel the BC issue doesn't deserve any investigation. It's called sarcasm and he clearly doesn't trust the President nor the wisdom behind the rest of the Judges. It's not a coincidence that his wife supports the Tea Party movement.


I see, could be.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
so what is the real issue?


At this point I have absolutely no clue.
According to the State of Hawaii there isn't one.

- Lee


LOL yuppers.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Storm,

I really wish it was an admission. I REALLY do. I just dont think so. I think its two dudes shootin' the poop.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Thanks for the link. I will check it out. I never did fully understand how the territory concept works, but now is as good a time as any to try and learn a little more.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
Storm,

I really wish it was an admission. I REALLY do. I just dont think so. I think its two dudes shootin' the poop.


I understand, what can I say?


Just find it interesting.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
I guess it all depends on the definition of "evade"

dictionary.lp.findlaw.com...

1: to unlawfully fail to pay (taxes) through fraudulent or deceptive means
2: to avoid answering directly
Example: trying to evade the question


He did not say the citizenship had been "lawfully proven" or anything to that effect.

The right goes to sleep when their guy is the "puppet in chief" & so does the left.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by zzombie]

Hello,
If I may make a statement along this line of reasoning...
I'm in a helicopter in a combat zone, I'm under heavy fire. In order for me to preserve my well-being, I must take an evasive action.

These guys sitting on the bench use their own lingo. They are not confused by the meaning of such a word as "evade." It clearly points out that they are doing what they think is right in matters of providing preservation. The word means to "protect." It's not as complicated, that's why they laugh. They laugh because the average kool-aid drinker is asleep at the wheel.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tylermbell
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



edit to say: oh, i'm not a 'bama lover, i just think he's too much of a wuss to pull of anything like that. people say he's 'so radical!' but he isn't, he needs to push much harder.

palin 2012! hahahaha

[edit on 16-4-2010 by tylermbell]


Ah... you are on of those people who buy into the sound bytes of Obama not having enough balls to do anything. That sound byte doesn't make any sense.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   


it's being evaded because to them its a ridiculous conspiracy.


They have to have more of a credible application to be able to resist the level of scrutiny that has been directed at this issue. It would be nice if this were the only thing required to be able to tell inquiring minds to go F off, but it isn't lol...

for this issue to continue to be an issue, there has not been given a sufficient form of verification for it to die, THAT IS WHY IT IS STILL AN ISSUE.

For this to be an issue still - AN ENTIRE YEAR PLUS AFTER OBAMA'S ELECTION, THERE HAS TO BE COLLABORATION FROM GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE BOARD...

For a government to collaborate at that level, it has to be faux... or fiat... to exist as an American Government that's Constitutionally based.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


To me it sounds like you already made up your mind that birthers are insane, and that the issue doesn't merit looking into.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


NO american citizen who is legally resident in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico AND NOWHERE ELSE can vote in the US presidential election. If you were born in New York and moved to Puerto Rico, and gave up your residence status in New York, you would lose the right to vote for president. A Puerto Rican born person who moves to the mainland US gains the right to vote as soon as he is resident there. Some mainlanders who move to Puerto Rico vote by absentee ballot in the last place in the mainland that they lived. However, that also means that they can be required to pay the state's income tax since they are technically maintaining legal residency there. And income tax at US rates, which are somewhat different from the tax in Puerto Rico. Basically the same but with some differences and the money is paid to the government of Puerto Rico, not to the US. US income tax is usually not in itself a compelling reason to change legal residency to Puerto Rico. But sometimes it is.

Would it be worth it to you to pay, say, New York state income tax, plus any city income tax if the place you last registered had one, when you didn't actually live there or benefit from any of their state's services, just so you could vote for the lesser of two evils once every four years?

Now if you were last registered to vote in a state with no state income tax, like Alaska or Wyoming, then there would not be too much of a reason to not keep legal residence there.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I dont really consider myself a "birther," I feel there are far to many other things unfolding before us that warrant our attention. However, if Obama did lie about his birth, that has serious implications.

But, NOBODY can deny the fact that this whole eligibility issue refuses to die.



That's a rather 101 tactic on generating buzz... act as if you are neutral and simply say "But nobody can deny the fact the issue refuses to die"... which reveals your true stance all along.

The only reason the issue refuses to die is because of posts like yours...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


So you suggest silence is the 'proper' answer to the issue?

I think THAT may be precisely why the issue won't die...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 


I think the Birth Certificate issue lingers and remains unanswered because its a red herring. There are a number of other issues with Obama's personal history that are far more toxic, including some that certainly suggest some citizenship issues, but as long as most people who are inclined to ask are busy frothing at the mouth about a birth certificate, the other issues get to stay in the shadows.

Myself, I'd bet my last dollar that the secret that Obama is hiding relates to a CIA connection of some sort. Most of our presidents, since the inception of the intelligence community, have had ties to it, in one form or another. I think perhaps Obama's might be a little more overt and susceptible to exposure than that of previous presidents, however.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Are we sure that's really Rep. Jose Serrano and not Willem DaFoe wearing a fake mustache and pretending to be him?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join