Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

reply to post by Realtruth


Well I will say this. Neither Obama nor his lawyer showed up in court. When you dont show up in court you loose. For the Judge to decide in any other way would be improper. Not sure how he could possibly find for Obama when he was ordered to appear and he blew it off. Give me some scenarios in which Obama comes out of this a winner.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Judge has NOT ruled, and won't until February 5 (so says the local news, who is covering it).

Dunno who the clown is who authored this blog post without FACTS to back it up. And that so many people seem to buy.

C'Mon!!! Stop with nonsense about "Facts" and stuff...Just get your crazy on. It's easy, just cut and paste stuff from Obamatheblackmuslimterroristsocialistscaryblackmanaspresident dot com.


That website is better than CNN.com!

Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Judges have the authority to deny people the right to be on the presidential ballot? I don't care what party you support, this is a horrible precedent. don't let your hatred of one man, lead you down an even darker path.

reply to post by xstealth


I understand all the bravado, but the legal truth is they have to submit a lawsuit, which will be listed on Pacer.

All court cases have docket numbers, whether they default or not.

I want to see the Summons also, but nothing anywhere.

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Liquesence

 

The judge HAS ruled it just has not been published. Please go back one page and READ

The judge requested both sides to file briefs on the matter (after today's arguments) by FEB 5, the he will rule.

I have seen the updated (local) news reports.

Go back and read yourself. Nothing is official or ruled yet.

reply to post by Ghost375


That's the beauty of the Constitution

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Well I will say this. Neither Obama nor his lawyer showed up in court. When you dont show up in court you loose. For the Judge to decide in any other way would be improper. Not sure how he could possibly find for Obama when he was ordered to appear and he blew it off. Give me some scenarios in which Obama comes out of this a winner.

People are taking this at face value, very very bad.

If you can be fooled this easily, then I have some swamp land too. This is all here-say.

I am not a lawyer, but I have plenty of legal and court experience, and I am telling everyone on ATS this stinks of BS.

Here is another tidbit, if you don't know what Pacer is then I suggest you google it.


Unless they provide the legal court docs and filings, which every single case in the USA has that a judge will rule on, or has ruled on, then I am calling this BS, period.

reply to post by Ghost375


hell yeah! # state rights! just give all the power to the executive branch!

# freedom! woo!

Originally posted by Ghost375
Judges have the authority to deny people the right to be on the presidential ballot? I don't care what party you support, this is a horrible precedent. don't let your hatred of one man, lead you down an even darker path.

ahhh, yea..who will make the decision then, you?

Originally posted by Infra_red

And if everyone here is so up in arms about Obama's father, you had better take a look at where George Romney was born.....Mexico. Look under same link at eligibility challenges. This has got to be one of the most tired threads on ATS, so much so that I get tired of seeing it still AFTER ALMOST 4 YEARS. This country has enough problems.......

Is George running for president? I thought it was Mit. No matter - either way, if you think you can get the Romney bumped from the ballot on those grounds, you ought to get on that right away. As a recovering Republican, I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Romney. I'm not a Republican any more, but in all honesty it would irritate the crap out of me to watch a leftist finish the destruction of America under disguise of being a Republican. At least Obama is honest enough about his politics and ambitions that we know the sort of destruction we're facing with him.

I doubt that the Democrats will have a presidential primary on March 6th. I don't know of any Dem running against Obama. So far no Dem rival in any of the primaries already held.

I see a lot of silliness and contradictions among the birthers:

1. The claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, notwithstanding the eyewitness examination by FactCheck and the public statements of the directors of the Hawaii Dept of Health and Dept of Vital Records, and of two Governors of Hawaii. And notwithstanding the absence of any solid evidence that he was born elsewhere.

2. The admission that, yes, he was born in Hawaii but with the amateur legal interpretation that somehow he's not a US citizen because of some foreign law that has not been effective in the US since the War of 1812.

Here's the US law: He was born here, therefore he is a natural born US citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of either or both of his parents. If you have any doubts, check out the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.

In the State of Georgia, voters have standing to contest anyones eligibility to be on the ballot and then the Secretary of State decides. Sorry you're wrong.

Originally posted by mrlqban

Originally posted by Annee
So if the senate makes a ruling that Obama is Natural Born in regards to the Minor vs. Harpersett case.

Does the GA suit get thrown?

You mean the Supreme Court? Your question doesn't make sense.

Of course my question makes sense. McCain was not eligible and that was fixed by the following resolution.

Bill Summary & Status 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) S.RES.511 S.RES.511 Latest Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. thomas.loc.gov...:S.RES.511:

reply to post by Ghost375


A lawsuit was brought against Obama that stated that he (Obama) was not eligible to be the President. Obama choose not only not to defend himself he chose not to appear before the court as ordered. His lawyer didnt even appear to defend him. When you choose not to appear in court as ordered by a judge in good standing you loose the case. Therefore yes the judge has the right to issue his OPINION in the case and RECOMEND to the Secretary of State that his name not be placed on the ballot. As the story is being reported the Georgia Secretary of State has agreed and is said to be in agreement with the judge in this case.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
These backwoods idiots are simply amazing, as big government as they come,
they get to determine who people can vote for, two men make that decision for
the whole state of people.

Or,....perhaps somthing called the Constitution tells us who is eligible to run for president, and finally someone has looked at the definition of "natural born citizen"...

Indeed. There are other parts of the Constitutional government as well.

The US Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction over this matter, and they have ruled that only Congress, upon accepting the votes of the electors, has standing to challenge Obama's eligibility.

There is no evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen of anywhere else (as in positive evidence of natural birth outside the USA, as in official documents in another country, not conspiracy about formatting of a US document), and there is significant evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the USA.

Even on a 'preponderance of evidence' standard, it's pretty clear there isn't a problem.

Originally posted by Shoonra
I doubt that the Democrats will have a presidential primary on March 6th. I don't know of any Dem running against Obama. So far no Dem rival in any of the primaries already held.

I see a lot of silliness and contradictions among the birthers:

1. The claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, notwithstanding the eyewitness examination by FactCheck and the public statements of the directors of the Hawaii Dept of Health and Dept of Vital Records, and of two Governors of Hawaii. And notwithstanding the absence of any solid evidence that he was born elsewhere.

2. The admission that, yes, he was born in Hawaii but with the amateur legal interpretation that somehow he's not a US citizen because of some foreign law that has not been effective in the US since the War of 1812.

Here's the US law: He was born here, therefore he is a natural born US citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of either or both of his parents. If you have any doubts, check out the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur.

You use another illegal president to back up your claim. Nice.

A lot of people say that the issue of Obama's legitimacy was put to rest by his release of his "Birth records"
I thought so to until I looked into his last release, the long form online PDF file hosted at the White House site.

THAT is actually what made me finally look into the matter as it has ALL the appearances of a fraudulent document.
Before that I was totally uninterested in the issue and thought all the "Birther" talk was nuts.

Sorry but Obama is hiding something and committing fraud on some level, for some reason.I don't know what it is but I would like to know. The PDF document the white house released is a complete joke with an OBVIOUS error on the part of the forger.

I want to know how this plays out so I'm happy the issue is coming up at a State level.

This issue is NOT "laid to rest" if you would actually do some study into the White House PDF.

Originally posted by Shoonra
I doubt that the Democrats will have a presidential primary on March 6th. I don't know of any Dem running against Obama. So far no Dem rival in any of the primaries already held.

I see a lot of silliness and contradictions among the birthers:

1. The claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, notwithstanding the eyewitness examination by FactCheck and the public statements of the directors of the Hawaii Dept of Health and Dept of Vital Records, and of two Governors of Hawaii. And notwithstanding the absence of any solid evidence that he was born elsewhere.

2. The admission that, yes, he was born in Hawaii but with the amateur legal interpretation that somehow he's not a US citizen because of some foreign law that has not been effective in the US since the War of 1812.

Here's the US law: He was born here, therefore he is a natural born US citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of either or both of his parents. If you have any doubts, check out the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur.

1. False
2. False