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

reply to post by Annee


No, they definitely won't admit it. I can't imagine they would.

"oops these past four years were an accident. our bad."

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by The Sword

 

Wake up?

Rofl you're comparing Obama to Bush and Cheney and you think it's right that he's ignoring the court order. People like you are the reason this country is so #ed up. You're passive on the fact that he is ignoring laws, plain and simple. It's A-OK cause he's the powerful Fuhrer. That's how you justify it.

You aint awake, you're just sleep walking

Was he issued a subpoena to testify? or just served with process? If the latter, there is (afaik) no legal compulsion to attend.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Did you conveniently overlook my fact? How about this one? I'm sure you would purposely ignore them because they aren't exactly in Barry's favor.

And this is exactly why those types of articles make the cover of Newsweek. These statistics don't mean anything. Did you really expect that our unemployment rate could be improved overnight? You do understand that we were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office, don't you? Did you really expect that our deficits would go down overnight? You do understand that G.W. Bush enacted tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously taking us to war in two foreign countries and enacting an unfunded Part D Medicare program, don't you? Etc...etc...etc...

I mean really, sooner or later, the ill effects of those actions will be felt resulting in the statistics you posted. Once you drive a car off a cliff, it's kinda difficult to pick up the pieces until after it hits the canyon floor.

Originally posted by r3axion
I guess we're super dumb!

It's your guess, and I'd say you were right. Apparently, the nice people at Newsweek agree.

edit on 23-1-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Jan 23 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

There's no point pushing it mate. People won't let facts get in the way of a good story. Apparently 1/2 the nation has actually forgotten that there was existence before 2008/9. The entire world is in economic stagnation. It is wholly unrealistic to expect that a Republican or other Democrat could have done much better. In fact, compared to most of the Western world burdened with the effects of the crash in 2008/9, the US is actually doing relatively well.

For a party that claims to base itself on sound economics, nothing they say sounds like good economics. I don't think many of them even understand what they're talking about. Perhaps Romney might have some idea, but that just makes him even more disingenuous when he must surely understand the damage some of the Republican hardline stances could do to the people of this nation and yet advocates them anyway.

reply to post by duality90


I'm not sure, I just read that he was served a subpoena by the judge and his motion to quash the subpoena was denied

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by duality90

 

I'm not sure, I just read that he was served a subpoena by the judge and his motion to quash the subpoena was denied

I had read it was motion to dismiss the claim (no idea what the terms are under GA law but presumably something like 'failure to state cause of action' or another procedure for administrative dismissal)?

If anyone on here has a PDF or other copy of any such 'subpoena' I'd be interested to see it. I think that there is in fact some possibility that there might be just a misunderstanding as to what has actually happened in the proceedings and what the meaning of subpoena is, as well as what the limits and powers are of a State court to compel POTUS to attend, or (assuming the respondent is Barack Obama in his personal capacity) whether the GA court even has the power to compel a non-domiciliary to attend.

haha oh god... why didn't anyone say Orly Taitz was involved in this one?

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

No, they definitely won't admit it. I can't imagine they would.

"oops these past four years were an accident. our bad."

Admit what? That his father wasn't born in America?

Oh - now there's a shock!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

No, they definitely won't admit it. I can't imagine they would.

"oops these past four years were an accident. our bad."

Admit what? That his father wasn't born in America?

Oh - now there's a shock!

Yep thus making him ineligible to be in office due to him not being a natural born citizen as referenced in Minor v Happersett and numerous other Supreme Court rulings.

citizen - yes. natural born - no.

reply to post by duality90


lady's kinda nuts but I applaud her for doing more than anyone else is doing.

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by duality90

 

lady's kinda nuts but I applaud her for doing more than anyone else is doing.

She's not just 'kind of nuts', she is a complete windbag and brings the profession into disrepute. I can't see how she still has an active license in CA (where I gather she was admitted to the Bar).

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

No, they definitely won't admit it. I can't imagine they would.

"oops these past four years were an accident. our bad."

Admit what? That his father wasn't born in America?

Oh - now there's a shock!

Yep thus making him ineligible to be in office due to him not being a natural born citizen as referenced in Minor v Happersett and numerous other Supreme Court rulings.

citizen - yes. natural born - no.

Gee - - - Amendments and rulings to the already existing Constitution - - - like its never been done before.

The Constitution is a framework. It is not "set in stone" as some try to argue.

McCain was not eligible - - but a ruling changed that.

Happersett is not set in stone either. Natural Born has never been defined concretely. Its always been left open ended for interpretation.

And who is the only person/group that can interpret the Constitution?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

No, they definitely won't admit it. I can't imagine they would.

"oops these past four years were an accident. our bad."

Admit what? That his father wasn't born in America?

Oh - now there's a shock!

Yep thus making him ineligible to be in office due to him not being a natural born citizen as referenced in Minor v Happersett and numerous other Supreme Court rulings.

citizen - yes. natural born - no.

Gee - - - Amendments and rulings to the already existing Constitution - - - like its never been done before.

The Constitution is a framework. It is not "set in stone" as some try to argue.

McCain was not eligible - - but a ruling changed that.

Happersett is not set in stone either. Natural Born has never been defined concretely. Its always been left open ended for interpretation.

And who is the only person/group that can interpret the Constitution?

Feel free to point me to an amendment that states natural born means one citizen parent, and I'll point you to multiple Supreme Court rulings that decided natural born means both parents being citizens.

McCain was more eligible than Obama since he was born on a US base to two US citizen parents.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and there have been no amendments made defining natural born, so the most we can do is go off of past Supreme Court rulings which are not in the favor of Obama being eligible for office. There are also many quotes from the House of Representatives from the 1800s and before stating that natural born means to be born with two citizen parents. I will post them if you'd so like.

The founding fathers were brilliant men with the best intentions set for this country. I doubt they could foresee a future dictatorship taking place, as is now. They tried the best they could to prevent it from happening. They'd be ashamed of this country.

Obama is illegal but of course there will always be Obots in denial, ready to go to the ends of the world to defend their righteous king. One thing is for sure though. You are the people who will be in the minority once Obama pushes too far. Was the NDAA not a wakeup call for you? Do you consider that Constitutional as well? Is Libya Constitutional? Why isn't Obama impeached for breaking international laws? It's a shame people still think the way you do.

Originally posted by r3axion
Feel free to point me to an amendment that states natural born means one citizen parent, and I'll point you to multiple Supreme Court rulings that decided natural born means both parents being citizens.

McCain was more eligible than Obama since he was born on a US base to two US citizen parents.

First - - there has never been any concrete solid definition by the Supreme Court as to who is Natural Born. They have always left room for interpretation.

Second - - McCain was "more" eligible??????????????????? NO! Not eligible is Not eligible. He was no More or Less eligible then Obama. A ruling was needed to make him eligible.

Originally posted by Annee

First - - there has never been any concrete solid definition by the Supreme Court as to who is Natural Born. They have always left room for interpretation.

Sure there has, there are multiple quotations taken from various Supreme Court hearings earlier in the thread. Feel free to look for yourself.

Second - - McCain was "more" eligible??????????????????? NO! Not eligible is Not eligible. He was no More or Less eligible then Obama. A ruling was needed to make him eligible.

He was born on US military property with two US citizen parents.

Care to address the rest of the post? Specifically regarding other unconstitutional acts committed by Barry and the failure of Congress or the Senate to take any legal action regarding it?

Originally posted by r3axion
He was born on US military property with two US citizen parents.

McCain was born prior to the ruling of children born to Military Parents - - which was never retro actiive. And according to some reports born in a civilian hospital - - not a military facility.

He has no more credibility then Obama - - - factually.

reply to post by Annee


Coco Solo Naval Air Station. Military property = US property. And yes he does, both of his parents are US citizens as required by Supreme Court rulings.

Thank you for helping prove the rest of my point though!

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

First - - there has never been any concrete solid definition by the Supreme Court as to who is Natural Born. They have always left room for interpretation.

Sure there has, there are multiple quotations taken from various Supreme Court hearings earlier in the thread. Feel free to look for yourself.

Second - - McCain was "more" eligible??????????????????? NO! Not eligible is Not eligible. He was no More or Less eligible then Obama. A ruling was needed to make him eligible.

He was born on US military property with two US citizen parents.

Care to address the rest of the post? Specifically regarding other unconstitutional acts committed by Barry and the failure of Congress or the Senate to take any legal action regarding it?

It depends on whether the quotes you have are the ratio decidendi or mere obiter dicta (the latter of which are persuasive, but not binding).

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

Coco Solo Naval Air Station. Military property = US property. And yes he does, both of his parents are US citizens as required by Supreme Court rulings.

Thank you for helping prove the rest of my point though!

Explain why a resolution was enacted to make McCain a Natural Born citizen.

reply to post by Annee

Explain why a resolution was enacted to make McCain a Natural Born citizen.

Because, once you get into the election, it is too late to choose a new candidate.

So before they got too far, Senator McCain asked for and received a blessing from the congress that he was an okdokey candidate.

I think it was very wise...

Can you imagine if he actually Had to appear? His entire term would be spent going from court to court based on summons of redneck-judges nationwide