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.

 

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

page: 11
69
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It's a widely known fact Obama's dad was not an American citizen.....how are you going to argue when you don't even know the facts? Jesus.

The controversy was behind whether or not he's natural born because his mother was a citizen. But according to many Supreme Court rulings, both parents must be citizens.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Really? WTF are you doing...you want to start the "Natural Born Citizen" definition debate again?

Some crazy desperation here.


..........That's what this is about............
You have got to be kidding me. You aren't even aware why he's been called to court, and you're arguing.

Maybe you missed this. But I assume you're going to argue with words from the Supreme Court now.


Really...read the OP title lately? No longer about whether a state court has authority over the Executive Branch?




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
But according to many Supreme Court rulings, both parents must be citizens.


Actually, no. The Supreme Court had a lot of cases where the person in question had been born in the US to two US citizens, so the Court said, He's a natural born citizen .... but the court did not say that was the one and only way to be a natural born citizen. For example, in Minor v. Happersett, it said that this was the fact situation of the case and it was pointedly not going to speculate about situations that were not present.

However, in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 US 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct. 456, it expressly held that the born born in the US to two Chinese (both of whom, by federal law then existing, could not obtain US citizenship) was a natural born citizen. In so doing, the Supreme Court was guided by a NY decision, Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844), 1 Sandf.Chanc. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4808, which held that the baby born in the US to two British tourists, who shortly thereafter took the baby with them back to England and did not come back to the US, was a natural born US citizen -- and even quoted the Constitutional provision about the President to say that this was the sort of natural born citizenship they were talking about. The same case was also relied on (repeatedly) by the US Attorney General in holding that the child born here to foreign parents is a natural born US citizen; 10 Opinion US Atty-Gen. 328 (1862), 9 Opinion US Atty-Gen. 373 (1862).

And there is also the example of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President (1881-1885), who was born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Jesus H. Christ, forget it.........



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Jesus H. Christ, forget it.........


If only you would


So the Hearing is over...and the judge apparently didn't feel he had the authority to compell the President to appear...or even find the President in contempt for ignoring the subpeona that Orly downloaded and mocked up.

The only thing that appears to have been established is that the President's father was not a US citizen, which of course could have been deduced by anyone that read his autobiography.

Anyone want to place a bet on the what the Judge rules?

edit on 26-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You are not thinking. I dont believe that there is one judge alive that would issue such an order frivolously. This is NOT a frivolous legal suit.


Just to clear up any confusion you might have...the Judge did not issue the subpeona, Orly downloaded the form and issued it to the President and a dozen other folks.

The Judge's bad was not telling Orly that she did not have the authority to do so.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


Since the Constitution fails to define "natural born citizen" the Congressional Research Service has defined natural born citizen "at birth" or "by birth"


United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject.

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Notice the last line. Obama Sr was a Kenyan senior governmental economist. He was not fired from his job until 1969, eight years after Obama's birth, as described here:


As his son described it in his memoir, conflict with President Jomo Kenyatta destroyed Obama Sr.'s career.[58] The decline began after Tom Mboya's assassination in 1969. Obama Sr. was fired from his job by Kenyatta, was blacklisted in Kenya, and began to drink.

edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Obama Senior was never credentialed as a diplomat. At the time of the President's birth he was merely a student at the U of Hawaii.

see:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 26-1-2012 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Shoonra
 


Since the Constitution fails to define "natural born citizen" the Congressional Research Service has defined natural born citizen "at birth" or "by birth"


United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject.

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Notice the last line. Obama Sr was a Kenyan senior governmental economist. He was not fired from his job until 1969, eight years after Obama's birth, as described here:


As his son described it in his memoir, conflict with President Jomo Kenyatta destroyed Obama Sr.'s career.[58] The decline began after Tom Mboya's assassination in 1969. Obama Sr. was fired from his job by Kenyatta, was blacklisted in Kenya, and began to drink.

edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


You are like a trove of debunked birther stuff..

President Obama was born in 1961 when Barack Sr. was a student in Hawaii...Kenyatta who later employed Barack Sr. didn't take office until 1964....Barack Senior didn't even return to Kenya until 1964 and that is when he got the job with Kenyetta, prior to that he was a student in the USA.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit to add: All of that is available in the Wiki article that you excerpted the above from...and you obviously read the article to selectively pull that passage absent the date context?...I have an honesty question here.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 



under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama holds a citizenship under the British crown and has never renounced it, thus another reason making him ineligible.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Misread. Nothing written was in chronological order and it kept jumping back and forth between dates.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Never argue with an idiot. Mods have mercy.

People are posting here who either do not know the issues or are ignoring the issues.

Likely they are government Obots who are paid to defend him against all common sense.

So, best thing to do is either tell them to go back and read what they missed, or just ignore them as they are uninformed and nothing you write will have any effect.

Which reminds me, where is Annee today. She owes me a pdf of the healthcare law. Not one of those photo-shopped jobs either...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
There exists a doctrine calledexecutive privilege.

It states that members f the executive branch, the president and others, can resist certain subpoenas while in office. It has been tested several times and the SCOTUS has upheld the privilege.

One of the earliest examples of this privilege is detailed here:


Thomas Jefferson was the first president to face this problem, and he insisted that the president could not be independent of the judiciary if "he were subject to the commands of the latter" and "if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post." Similarly, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), Justice Joseph Story concluded that the president must be allowed to perform his duties "without obstruction...accountable only to his country, and to his own conscience."

source

As we can see the Justice Story set the precedent by allwing the resistance of the subpoena by allowing the the POTUS to use his own conscience to make the decision. Obama will not appear in the court and there will be no recourse by the GA judge but to accept this fact. I think the GA judge is only doing this to grab headlines anyway. He knows the privilege exists, and if he doesnt, he will soon.
edit on 23-1-2012 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)


Certainly not saying I disagree with you and A+ on the research end of it. But if thats the case why didn't old slick Bill not use that to avoid his "problems"? Or was it just a totally different scenario and thus moot? Legal mumbo jumbo has never been my strong point in life.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


BILL CLINTON HAD TO SUBMIT DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voluntary? Doubt it... I think he knew they would force him using the courts.

Nixon had to give up the tapes. THat was by court order for sure.

EP is limited.


edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: add text

edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: poster of cited thread had wrong info



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


BILL CLINTON HAD TO SUBMIT DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voluntary? Doubt it... I think he knew they would force him using the courts.

Nixon had to give up the tapes. THat was by court order for sure.

EP is limited.


edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: add text

edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err


You should research this stuff ...seriously...

Clinton chose not to appear in court...his choice...he submitted a taped deposition voluntarily.

Nixon chose to turn over the tapes for review...and did so by asking a friend to review them first...wasn't forced by the courts.

Etc. Etc.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Shoonra
 



under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama holds a citizenship under the British crown and has never renounced it, thus another reason making him ineligible.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Wow...you just move the goalposts from one debunked item to the next.

7 past Presidents have held dual citizenship, not counting the founding fathers or Washington...of course who were British Citizens prior to independance...and who were technically all born on British soil


the US Gov. doesn't recognize other countries citizenship laws as above our own. Germany tried to declare 3rd generation US Citizens as German Citizens during WW2...by German law...since they descended from German immigrants,,,,,we don't care and appropriately so.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Shoonra
 



under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama holds a citizenship under the British crown and has never renounced it, thus another reason making him ineligible.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Wow...you just move the goalposts from one debunked item to the next.

7 past Presidents have held dual citizenship, not counting the founding fathers or Washington...of course who were British Citizens prior to independance...and who were technically all born on British soil


the US Gov. doesn't recognize other countries citizenship laws as above our own. Germany tried to declare 3rd generation US Citizens as German Citizens during WW2...by German law...since they descended from German immigrants,,,,,we don't care and appropriately so.



Difference is they met the criteria for natural born citizen. Two parents with US citizenship. Everyone except Arthur. Now Obama is the 2nd illegal president.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Wrong. He is our president. He may be our president for another 4 years too.

Birthers lose...........Flawless victory.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I think there is a reason there has never been a solid unequivocal definition of Naturally Born.

I think the US Supreme Court left loopholes on purpose - - for unforeseen situations that might occur - - like this one.

While there are guidelines - - its still up to interpretation. And the only one who can offer that interpretation is the US Supreme Court.

Which I believe if it comes to that - - will rule that Obama is Natural Born.

I do not see this government denying their first official black president. That would be really stupid IMO.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Flawless?

Look at the country, rofl. Nothing to be bragging about.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join