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.

 

A Bit In-Depth Discussion of the Obama Georgia Court Motion to Dismiss

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I did not want this information to get buried on the other post. This is from someone who read the arguments and thinks they are a great read.

Orly takes the credit, but there is another attorney who ought to be getting it.

GA Obama Court Case and Arguments

Please read the entire article before posting your comments. Otherwise, this post will disintegrate into name calling and I'd prefer we stick to the facts.

I will post a tidbit:




The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is a bit long, but well worth reading, especially for the interesting legal nuances that have been struck down. Not only was I amused by the lengths to which Obama (through his representation) went to circumvent what is truly a State’s rights issue (see the next document, mentioned in the next paragraph), but also — beginning on page 6 — all of the cases that have heretofore been brought before State and federal courts, to date, regarding Obama’s eligibility, as what I would call circumstantial evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc evidence that, somehow, if more than 69 million Americans (assuming all were alive at the time of voting ) affirmatively voted for Obama, that therefore must mean that Obama is qualified for the presidency.


If you can't take the 5-10 minutes to read the article. Please don't clutter this thread with your opinions.

Thank you.
Ann








edit on 1/5/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: s




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
If the course of action is to now recognize Obama as being born on American soil, but that he is not eligible due to his father's foreign birthplace, would not previous presidents also be ineligible? Would a precedent have not already been set to describe specifically what a natural born citizen is?

Obama is no different than Buchanan or Jefferson in this regard.

strongdems.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 

I looked at the article you sourced and also at the first comment to it. It seems to solve the problem you're raising:

But he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Your list of other President that had foreign born parents is interesting, although your list is not complete. The problem with your list is that all the previous presidents parents were naturalized as US Citizens PRIOR to the births of their son's that went on to become Presidents. The one and only one who failed to have naturalized parents is Chester A. Aurthur and it's interesting that you included him in your list at all, since like Obama, he sealed his records and insisted that he was a Natural Born Citizen and that both his parents were US Citizens when he was born - which was NOT true. He even went so far as to use his brother's birth date (who died in infancy) to try and make himself legit.


So it seems that the citizenship of Obama's parents is still a valid issue. What a strange end it would be if the GOP wins the Presidential election by default.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
If the course of action is to now recognize Obama as being born on American soil, but that he is not eligible due to his father's foreign birthplace, would not previous presidents also be ineligible? Would a precedent have not already been set to describe specifically what a natural born citizen is?

Obama is no different than Buchanan or Jefferson in this regard.

strongdems.com...



Well, rather due to his father never having been a citizen of the US, and him having been British subject.

cdrkerchner.wordpress.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Obama's whole past stinks...

Me thinks Obama is CIA. Hell Bush Sr. was CIA, Clinton was CIA, Bush Jr. was the son of CIA.... Wouldn't be a big surprise if Obama was found out to be CIA.

The US has been taken over by the military industrial complex...and the banks.

Anyway, the trial is set for January 26.

edit on 5-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Wow---interesting read.

I'd heard that argument before...the one saying Obama's birthplace is moot, and it's his father's citizenship at his birth that controls his eligibility to be a "natural born citizen". I wonder how this will turn out. I'll definitely follow this case (especially since I'm from GA).

A conspiracy theorist might surmise that THIS is how they are going to get Obama out and allow someone else to run....wouldn't this be a great way to get Hillary on the ballot? Or would Biden automatically get it due to the fact that he is sitting VP?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
______beforeitsnews/story/1454/078/Finally:_The_United_States_Supreme_Court_Has_Ruled_That_Obama_Is_Ineligible_To_Serve_As_President..html


At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

Here’s the crux of it.

Back 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.”



Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.




This attorney who founded Liberty Legal Foundation, Van Irion, is not going to back down.
libertylegalfoundation.org...


Liberty Legal Foundation will now be the first to appear before a court that has affirmatively stated that it will decide the Constitutional question.
The hearing is set for 9AM on January 26th in Atlanta, Georgia.

edit on 1/5/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/5/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/5/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: formatting



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


A predecent that disregarded the Constitution? I would not consider that a precedent worth keeping.

The mission statement of this organization is: "Strategically Challenging Flawed Legal Precedent to Restore Our Constitution."


libertylegalfoundation.org...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I should have mentioned it in my earlier post, but Van Irion, in his argument in opposition, presents a lawyer who is having fun. Compare that to the heavy, bloated writing of the President's team. I know it's just a matter of aesthetics, but Van Irion was just a joy to read.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
What a strange end it would be if the GOP wins the Presidential election by default.



I imagine the Democrats would find someone to run in his place, most likely Hillary Clinton. It would all depend on the timing. A default win for the GOP is something I can't even fathom. People are angry now, if Obama gets the ax things could get very wild.

I keep thinking about how Obama speaks of the Constitution as a flawed document and this issue makes it understandable.

So Chester A. Arthur got away with it? What a creep!

Thanks for classing up this thread.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Precedent to disregard the Constitution? No. That is not what I stated or even implied. Nowhere have I ever endorsed ignoring or destroying or disregarding the US Constitution.

You asked for a discussion on the article. I responded to it and was later corrected as to why my comparison wasn't accurate.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Am I confused?

What does the birthplace of Obama's father have to do with his eligibility - - since it states Obama was born on US soil?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

No, you're not any more confused than you should be. The law suit is conceding that, since Obama was born in the US, he is an American citizen. But is he a "natural born" US citizen as required? The plaintiffs are claiming that the Supreme Court has held that both parents need to be American citizens for the child to be "Natural born," and since his father wasn't a US citizen, Obama is not "natural born," therefore ineligible.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

No, you're not any more confused than you should be. The law suit is conceding that, since Obama was born in the US, he is an American citizen. But is he a "natural born" US citizen as required? The plaintiffs are claiming that the Supreme Court has held that both parents need to be American citizens for the child to be "Natural born," and since his father wasn't a US citizen, Obama is not "natural born," therefore ineligible.

With respect,
Charles1952


Oh that. Thank you.

Wasn't there a case that solved that? Asian guy - can't remember his name.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

For the Asian guy, I believe you're thinking of US v. Wong Kim Ark: Wong Kim Ark

The people arguing against Obama are relying on that 1875 case Minor v. (Heck, I forgot who the other party was. It's given in a post above somewhere.) Remember, too, that the Justices are human. Some of them may believe Obama is ineligible but might be afraid of saying so out of fear of the damage to the country.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

For the Asian guy, I believe you're thinking of US v. Wong Kim Ark: Wong Kim Ark

The people arguing against Obama are relying on that 1875 case Minor v. (Heck, I forgot who the other party was. It's given in a post above somewhere.) Remember, too, that the Justices are human. Some of them may believe Obama is ineligible but might be afraid of saying so out of fear of the damage to the country.

With respect,
Charles1952



LOL


Thanks - - I knew someone would know the correct info.

I'm just too old to hang on to all those details anymore.

I really think the witch hunt is a waste of every bodies time.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join