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.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on eligibility with proof!! obama cant run

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

ack in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”

www.thenationalpatriot.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
Minor v. Happersett

In obiter dictum, the Court referenced the natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating, "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.

as you see obama is not eligible for president.
they had this argument before and ruled it wasnt...
So why is obama president right now?
edit on 18-11-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
basically the courts are not upholding there own laws they set forth years and years ago.

wonder why?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
sorry a guy already posted this before you dude lol.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This angle has been tried before and subsequently proven inadequate as proof that Obama is ineligible.

We will just have to vote him out. The Birther phase has come and gone.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
yeah, I nwoder why too



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


I don't care if Obama and his parents where from the Andromeda galaxy.

I think your opening post fails to take into consideration many variables that don't conform to your narrative.

Good luck with your thread, buddy.






edit on 18-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
This issue still?? come on get over it, the guy is probably going to be president for the next 4 years... I don't think any of those right wing nut jobs pose a threat to Obama.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Just wanted to add that I believe this case was actually ruling on a woman's right to vote, not presidential eligibility.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


He could give up his passport and just go back to Africa. That would be the right thing to do. No jail time. --------




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Your argument is invalid


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

U.S. Constitution Online



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Explanation: Her right to vote was based on the citizenship of both her parents [not just one] and not where she was born ok!

Personal Disclosure: Or thats how I understood what I read from the links provided in the OP!

Just assuming that is the case ... then it appears if one is born inside the USA and ones parents are BOTH not USA citizens [dual state passports may muddy this] then the child regardless is not a USA citizen with all the accompaning entitlements.

Please set me straight on this issue as I am not a USA citizen and have never lived or visted that country.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonhunlo
He could give up his passport and just go back to Africa.


How could he go anywhere if he gave his passport up?


That would be the right thing to do.


Why would it be the right thing to do? Because you hate a black man as the legal POTUS!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


I can't say I'm surprised that someone posted this and people here are slurping it up like starving animals... INSTEAD of looking into it for about 2 seconds to see what the TRUTH is... That would be stupid, wouldn't it? Why look for the truth when you can believe a lie and feel all warm and fuzzy inside?


This case is about determining the CITIZENSHIP of women as regards suffrage. Their basic point is that even though the Constitution doesn't define NBC, we know that at the very least, children born to US citizens are NBCs, but you don't have to be an NBC to vote, just a citizen. Pay attention to the second paragraph:

Minor v Happerset



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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.


Secondly, let's look at the phrase "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..."

Obama was a child born of a natural born citizen parent (his mother)... He is a natural born citizen. Yes,. "parents" is plural.So is "children". as they are speaking inclusively.

So, your premise is incorrect and so is your conclusion. :shk:

I gotta say, I'm pleased to see another birther thread. It's been a while.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
Your argument is invalid


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

U.S. Constitution Online



There is a cosomogical difference between "citizen", as you refer to here, and "Natural Born Citizen" that is refered to in the constitution to qualify to become president.

Why can't you people get that though your skulls, unless you are intentionally "muddying the waters" to obviscate the issue, which would mean you are a fraud, shyster, and outright evil.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It is a 'button' pushing topic, isn't it?

I think you make a good point, but I disagree with your conclusion.
The text you quote states "parents" plural, not one or the other. I believe the plural was used purposely, and so BO would then NOT be a NBC.

Then of course, I am a 'birther', so I still harbor doubts as to the location of his birth, so that part of it doesn't ring true to me, either.

I also don't think there is any point to these threads any more, other than as "proof" of our gullibility...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dogdish
The text you quote states "parents" plural, not one or the other. I believe the plural was used purposely,


And was the use of the plural "children" on purpose as well? According to this logic, are we to assume that a CHILD (singular) would not be a NBC? There must be children?



I also don't think there is any point to these threads any more, other than as "proof" of our gullibility...


The only point to me is for entertainment purposes.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Just wanted to add that I believe this case was actually ruling on a woman's right to vote, not presidential eligibility.


Sheepslayer247, you are precisely correct in your assessment of the "Minor vs Happersett" case and the statement quoted in the OP was made as an "Orbiter Dictum" to the actual Supreme court ruling. For those of you who do not understand the meaning of that term, namely "TheAmused," here's a little something for you;

en.wikipedia.org...


Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.


So, in actuality no such ruling has ever been made by the SCOTUS! The title of this thread is a bald faced lie, but I've now grown accustomed to expecting nothing less from the right wing conservative movement. Kinda like Newt Gingrich insisting that he never lobbied anyone, what a joke!

I think it may be time for a new right wing conservative forum entitled; "Liar, Liar Pants On Fire"




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join