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.

 

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

page: 26
122
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wuforde
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


his father was not a US citizen so he cannot be a NBC( natural.....).
at the time, you take the citizenship of your father, so he can't be POTUS.


I agree I was pointing out racism remarks.
650,000 Americans died during the Civil War
so they would have the same right to frivolous lawsuits,
as the white man.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rastus3663
 


If requested, anyone should be required to show it, regardless of race or colour. No excuses.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 






All personal "manifests" aside, that's a damn good point. One question, why spend the time to make a comment to defend a "peoples" "right" to "choice", and insult them in the same statement? I smell an automotive.... or was it a violin? Oh... I can't remember, but that's okay... I forgive myself



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 
No white men died during the civil war? Is that what you're saying? Why does the skin colour matter? Are you showing us your racist side now are you.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, I searched google for anything on this. All that popped up were non MSM sites. I will give it another day, perhaps I need to visit these sites.

Any ways, I want to thank you. I would never have heard 98% of the stuff I learn about here If it weren't for places like ATS (and of course its peeps)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Where is the proof that my source is wrong. My source was in the judges chambers. Where was your source that refutes mine?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrlqban

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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.“

Yes, this entire passage is about membership in the nation in our society as defined by the framers in Article II Section one. But, while at it, the Court established Minor's citizenship by defining the word "citizen", and then defining the class of “natural-born citizens” making a distinction between natural born or natives vs aliens or foreigners. The Court then mentions that those, who were not in either extreme, natives or natural born vs aliens or foreigners , might be citizens.

When defining "Citizen" the court stated that citizen should only be treated as the "idea of membership in a nation and nothing more":

"Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has
been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican
government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from
Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in
the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as
conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874)".


So whenever you see the word "citizen', you should not interchange it with natural born citizen.



I respectfully disagree. This decision does not say that you cannot be a natural born citizen if you don't have citizen parents. It says native or natural born "as distinguished from aliens and foreigners", not as distinguished from regular ole' citizens. It also says that "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens". It doesn't say "natural born" citizens, so apparently they ARE interchanging "citizen" with "natural born citizen".

Let's not forget the original intent of this case. The intent was to decide if a woman could vote if she was a citizen, NOT if a candidate could run for office. If you look at intent, you can't really compare this decision with whether or not Obama is eligible to run for president. In the last sentence of your quote they are referring to the fact that the constitution does not say that just because a person is a citizen, it gives them the right to vote - it just means they are a member of the nation. Hence, the 19th amendment was born. Apples to oranges here.



you said: "This decision does not say that you cannot be a natural born citizen if you don't have citizen parents."
The case is not about who can be or not be natural born citizens. Here is what the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark did say about what the Case in Minor was about. "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the
right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 680.
While the Minor court defined citizens, it also defined a natural born citizen as a subset of that class and the class with doubts was not included on any of the extremes. What it did say was that the class with doubts might be included as members of the nation, not as natural born citizens.

you said: "It also says that "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens". It doesn't say "natural born" citizens, so apparently they ARE interchanging "citizen" with "natural born citizen".
Here, I see that you are mistaken also. When you replace the word citizen in the entire passage with "membership in a nation", because that's what the Minor court defined, it becomes clear that the last sentence they are not interchanging the words, they conclude that Minor is without doubt a "member in the nation" of the Natural born citizen class and the class with "doubts" might be included as members in the nation. Citizen is the membership and nothing else. That is evident.

About your last paragraph: Just because the case was not about Presidential candidates running for office, it doesn't mean that the case is not precedent for it's citizenship holding and it is not still good law today. There is two parts of this holding: 1. Minor petitioned the court to determine whether women were equal citizens to men and 2. if she was a citizen, her right to vote was protected by the 14th Amendment, which made her a citizen.
There is no apples to oranges here.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrlqban

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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.“

Yes, this entire passage is about membership in the nation in our society as defined by the framers in Article II Section one. But, while at it, the Court established Minor's citizenship by defining the word "citizen", and then defining the class of “natural-born citizens” making a distinction between natural born or natives vs aliens or foreigners. The Court then mentions that those, who were not in either extreme, natives or natural born vs aliens or foreigners , might be citizens.

When defining "Citizen" the court stated that citizen should only be treated as the "idea of membership in a nation and nothing more":

"Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has
been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican
government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from
Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in
the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as
conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874)".


So whenever you see the word "citizen', you should not interchange it with natural born citizen.



I respectfully disagree. This decision does not say that you cannot be a natural born citizen if you don't have citizen parents. It says native or natural born "as distinguished from aliens and foreigners", not as distinguished from regular ole' citizens. It also says that "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens". It doesn't say "natural born" citizens, so apparently they ARE interchanging "citizen" with "natural born citizen".

Let's not forget the original intent of this case. The intent was to decide if a woman could vote if she was a citizen, NOT if a candidate could run for office. If you look at intent, you can't really compare this decision with whether or not Obama is eligible to run for president. In the last sentence of your quote they are referring to the fact that the constitution does not say that just because a person is a citizen, it gives them the right to vote - it just means they are a member of the nation. Hence, the 19th amendment was born. Apples to oranges here.



you said: "This decision does not say that you cannot be a natural born citizen if you don't have citizen parents."
The case is not about who can be or not be natural born citizens. Here is what the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark did say about what the Case in Minor was about. "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the
right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 680.
While the Minor court defined citizens, it also defined a natural born citizen as a subset of that class and the class with doubts was not included on any of the extremes. What it did say was that the class with doubts might be included as members of the nation, not as natural born citizens.

you said: "It also says that "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens". It doesn't say "natural born" citizens, so apparently they ARE interchanging "citizen" with "natural born citizen".
Here, I see that you are mistaken also. When you replace the word citizen in the entire passage with "membership in a nation", because that's what the Minor court defined, it becomes clear that the last sentence they are not interchanging the words, they conclude that Minor is without doubt a "member in the nation" of the Natural born citizen class and the class with "doubts" might be included as members in the nation. Citizen is the membership and nothing else. That is evident.

About your last paragraph: Just because the case was not about Presidential candidates running for office, it doesn't mean that the case is not precedent for it's citizenship holding and it doesn't mean that it is not good law today. There is two parts of this holding: 1. Minor petitioned the court to determine whether women were equal citizens to men and 2. if she was a citizen, her right to vote was protected by the 14th Amendment, which made her a citizen.
There is no apples to oranges here.
edit on 26-1-2012 by mrlqban because: typos



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
Just out of curiosity, I searched google for anything on this. All that popped up were non MSM sites. I will give it another day, perhaps I need to visit these sites.

Any ways, I want to thank you. I would never have heard 98% of the stuff I learn about here If it weren't for places like ATS (and of course its peeps)


You'll have to wait until February 5. That is the date the Judge will render his ruling, until then it is all speculation.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wuforde
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


his father was not a US citizen so he cannot be a NBC( natural.....).
at the time, you take the citizenship of your father, so he can't be POTUS.


Well that's just BS - the 14th amendment states unequivocally:


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.
- www.archives.gov...

...the subject to laws bit applies only to diplomatic and similar people.

Obama's father's nationality is completely irrelevant!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spurge
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 
No white men died during the civil war? Is that what you're saying? Why does the skin colour matter? Are you showing us your racist side now are you.



So you believe there was no white Americans during the Civil War?
I believe every man has the right to face his accuser in court,
if he shows up, is his own choice.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by wuforde
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


his father was not a US citizen so he cannot be a NBC( natural.....).
at the time, you take the citizenship of your father, so he can't be POTUS.


Well that's just BS - the 14th amendment states unequivocally:


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.
- www.archives.gov...

...the subject to laws bit applies only to diplomatic and similar people.

Obama's father's nationality is completely irrelevant!


false, the 14th amendment is not the construction for Presidential eligibility, it is article II section I.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You would have legal rights as a citizen but not be eligible for the presidency.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by antonia
 


Where is the proof that my source is wrong. My source was in the judges chambers. Where was your source that refutes mine?


Multiple people have pointed your error out to you. I will not waste my breath on someone who is so ideologically driven they'd believe the sky was purple if they could use it against Obama. It's not worth my time.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mrlqban
 


Typical obfuscation - Article II section 1 does not define citizenship - it says you ahve be be a natural born citizen, but does not define what that is.

amendment 14 defines citizenship as either born or naturalised - Obama is a natural born citizen, and his father's nationality is still irrelevant.

I'm amazed that people who continue to claim otherwise are clever enough to breath on their own!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Annee
 


McCain was born of TWO United States citizens on US Government property. Natural born citizen.


I know that. He was still not eligible. That's why there was a ruling.

There would have been no need for a ruling - - if he was eligible.

Besides being born prior to the ruling on children of US military abroad - - he may also have been born in a civilian hospital not US government property.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Americans are the worst jury's in the world
we have proved that we have moved from a republic to a democracy (mob rule).
We don't want a court case asking truth, we just want him as president legal or not.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


And they are wrong and I have PROVEN them wrong as I will prove you wrong right now.


The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there

DIRECTLY from someone who was in the judges chambers Carl Swensson one of the people that filed the lawsuit against Obama. THIS IS DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com...
edit on 26-1-2012 by candcantiques because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   


About your last paragraph: Just because the case was not about Presidential candidates running for office, it doesn't mean that the case is not precedent for it's citizenship holding and it doesn't mean that it is not good law today. There is two parts of this holding: 1. Minor petitioned the court to determine whether women were equal citizens to men and 2. if she was a citizen, her right to vote was protected by the 14th Amendment, which made her a citizen.
There is no apples to oranges here.


We'll have to agree to disagree, and we'll see if this "precedent" holds any water in the months to come. My money says it won't.
edit on 26-1-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

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




top topics



 
122
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join