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: 27
122
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I guess I won't be voting at all then




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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!


You just made my point: you said "citizenship" is defined as either born or naturalized, that's correct, not "natural born' or naturalized.

Citizenship is the broader term. it is to "convey the ideal of membership in the nation". the 14th amendement is just about that, who can become the members in our society who are subject to the jurisdiction. article 2 section I is about the municipal law and it specifically determines who can be President, the 14th amendment doesnt. If you are obfuscated by this concept, then that is your issue.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
No judge has ruled on anything yet.

www.ledger-enquirer.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SkyMuerte
 


When someone sues you and you find it frivolous do you not show up? Of course not, you show up regardless and state your case. The president like you is not above the law regardless the case in the court. By the way if you don't show up in court for your case you automatically lose. Therefore it is legally correct for the court to deny Obama on the ballot.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
If the man cannot take a few hours out of his day to answer a few question by a high ranking state judge then why should any other citizen....

What would happen if you or I did not appear before a court summon......

A person who doesn't want to answer questions has something to hide.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by alonzo730
 


He hasnt PUBLISHED his decision but his decision has been made. Go back one page and you will see the proof from the plantiff that was IN THE JUDGES CHAMBERS when the judge made his decision.

You know I have written a lot of songs in my life. I havent PUBLISHED any of them. Does that mean they dont exist?

The judge made a decision in chambers in front of the plaintiffs but he has yet to PUBLISH his decision.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by SkyMuerte
 


When someone sues you and you find it frivolous do you not show up? Of course not, you show up regardless and state your case.


There are plenty of cases where lawyers handle cases - - and the defendant never shows up.

We see this with celebrities all the time.

Again - - - this is a bogus attempt to have control over the president - - by having him appear in person. It is not going to happen.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


His lawyer didnt show up either. Because NOBODY showed up to defend Obama in this case there is an AUTOMATIC DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. It has yet to be published but it is AUTOMATIC.

Those that are fighting against me stating that I am wrong just like to argue. It's like you all are stating that because YOU havent been to the moon that it doesnt exist and that the moon is just a fraud to cheat the public out of money.

NOBODY showed up to defend Obama, no lawyers no nobody. He automatically looses. It's called DEFAULT JUDGEMENT.

One person on here today fought with everyone that the cases didnt even EXIST. WOW!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
This whole "natural born" argument isn't making sense.

If a natural born citizen would need both parents born on USA soil, plus himself, how would Mitt Romney be able to be run for President?

He has said during the debates, more than once, that his father was born in Mexico.

How is that different than Obama's father being a Kenyan?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 

This thread is sickening…why doesn’t Taitz and fellow trolls go after the agency(s) who vetted the President’s documents? Does every individual citizen in the USA have to have an audience with Mr. Obama to view a document? No…that is why we have authorized archival agencies and vetting agencies.
geez



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


The difference is that Romneys father came to this country and APPLIED for citizenship LEGALLY PRIOR to Romney being born. At the time of Romney's birth his father was a US citizen as was his mother.

Obamas father never applied for citizenship, never became a US citizen at all. That makes Obama BOTH a Kenyan citizen AND an American citizen and because he has dual citizenship he is NOT natural born. A natural born citizen can ONLY have US citizenship.



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

Originally posted by snowspirit
He has said during the debates, more than once, that his father was born in Mexico.

How is that different than Obama's father being a Kenyan?


Romney's father was not black....



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
There is not going to be an "automatic" decision that Obama is not eligible to be President. Nor is it clear that a Georgia administrative judge is going to take on the job of interpreting the US Constitution - especially contrary to the way the US Supreme Court has already interpreted it.

As for the story of the judge saying - even before the hearing took place - that he would decide against Obama, this comes from a non-witness to the event, who is decidedly biased and got this story, by his own account, secondhand. We'll see in about ten days just how accurate he was.

In the meantime, unmentioned here, an Alabama court rejected two birther lawsuits this month.

If this Georgia administrative court goes with the birthers, it will be the first court of any kind to do so, and this against about 25 other courts to the contrary. It would undoubtedly go to a higher court.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by havanaja
 


This IS NOT A BIRTHER THREAD. I DONT CARE ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. THIS IS ABOUT THE ISSUE OF BEING A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
This whole "natural born" argument isn't making sense.

If a natural born citizen would need both parents born on USA soil, plus himself, how would Mitt Romney be able to be run for President?

He has said during the debates, more than once, that his father was born in Mexico.

How is that different than Obama's father being a Kenyan?


No, that is not the argument. The argument is that a natural born citizen would require both parents to be Citizens, either naturalized, or born in the U.S. at the time of the person's birth. The parents can be born anywhere, they just have to be citizen at the time of one's birth. And Mitt's parents were citizens when he was born.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


You havent READ ANYTHING The man that reported the story is Carl Swensson. HE WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE AND HEARD FROM THE JUDGE DIRECTLY NOT SECOND HAND. Man how many times do I have to prove my case. Read what I am writing. and I never stated that it was an automatic decision that Obama wasnt eligible. I stated VERY clearly that the plantiff won their case because Obama refused to show up. It's a default judgement. Charges were leveled that Obama isnt eligible. A court date was set. Obama was told to show up or at least send his attorney. Neither showed up. Nobody defended Obama therefore he looses the case. Meaning because of Obamas inaction to defend himself that the judge has no choice to rule against obama and give his OPINION to the Secretary of State that Obama should not be allowed on the ballot. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Thank you to all that answered my natural born question.

I have to say, the US politics is sooooo confusing, takes forever to get through, and has so many rules.
Certainly entertaining at times though.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
First of all, the republicans would never of let him take office if he wasn't entitled to it. Second, I don't think the president of the United States of America should have to bow down to a frivelous lawsuit. No other president of this country has ever put up with this much crap. If this is going to be how we treat our president from now on, why even elect one. I think the whole presidential race is starting to look like a sideshow. What do you think other countries are thinking of the United States. I'm getting embarrassed to say I am an American.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
27 pages. Seriously! How does this thread not have the [hoax] tag on it already? This has been shown/corroborated several times already (I count five different sources in this thread alone and I didn't get past the 10th page!)


Some may say proven. Some may call it fact. Either way; no decision has been made (ruled). President Obama is still on the ballot. These are facts people!

Sheeeesh!

(edit)For what it's worth I provided the first source to this hoax on page 2!
edit on Thu Jan 26 2012 by Rren because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
There is not going to be an "automatic" decision that Obama is not eligible to be President. Nor is it clear that a Georgia administrative judge is going to take on the job of interpreting the US Constitution - especially contrary to the way the US Supreme Court has already interpreted it.

As for the story of the judge saying - even before the hearing took place - that he would decide against Obama, this comes from a non-witness to the event, who is decidedly biased and got this story, by his own account, secondhand. We'll see in about ten days just how accurate he was.

In the meantime, unmentioned here, an Alabama court rejected two birther lawsuits this month..

If this Georgia administrative court goes with the birthers, it will be the first court of any kind to do so, and this against about 25 other courts to the contrary. It would undoubtedly go to a higher court.


IT IS AUTOMATIC THAT OBAMA LOST THE CASE BECAUSE NOBODY SHOWED UP TO DEFEND HIM AGAINST THE CHARGES

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN THIS ISNT ABOUT BIRTHERS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE This court decision has NOTHING to do with birthers. This is on the "natural born citizen" mandate in the Constitution

He made his decision in chambers because nobody showed up to defend Obama



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join