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: 34
122
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Other states may check into this law if this gains momentum and it could get crazy.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
Because Bush ran two sets of books, and the cost of running two wars was not counted. Then Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to be 'transparent' and restored the costs of the war to the budget. Which, while making it look bad on "his" balance sheet, was at least honest and open.


Yep! The war was not included in Bush's official expenses.

But - - the cost of the war and recovering from it - - is part of Obama's expenses.

Talk about "creative" accounting.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mrlqban
 


Minor v Happersett has nothing to say about Natural Born Citizenship.

On the other hand, Wong Kim Ark does: (Wikipedia: United States v Wong Kim Ark)



In a 6–2 decision[82][83] issued on March 28, 1898,[84] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[85] The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[86]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[87] the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[88] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[89][90][91] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[92][93]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[54]

Quoting approvingly from an 1812 case, The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, in which Chief Justice John Marshall said that "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute"[94][95][96]—and agreeing with the district judge who had heard Wong's original habeas corpus petition that comments in the Slaughterhouse Cases regarding the non-citizenship of children born to alien parents were obiter dicta and did not constitute a binding precedent[97]—the Court ruled that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him.[98] An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."[99][100] Commenting on the Wong Kim Ark case shortly after the issuance of the Court's ruling in 1898, San Francisco attorney Marshall B. Woodworth wrote that "the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit".[101]


In fact, what the SCOTUS did was uphold the California District Court's ruling that :

from the Syllabus of the US v WKA appeal to SCOTUS



That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.

That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.

edit on 27/1/2012 by rnaa because: provide source for second quote



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Other states may check into this law if this gains momentum and it could get crazy.


This is not the first time it has been tried my friend.
I do believe the Repubs will be pushing for some others to follow suit though.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





to be considered a citizen and to be eligible for president are two different things. read my above post. READ


Yeah, naturalized citizens are not eligible, people younger than 35 are not eligible, people who haven't lived in the US are not eligible, former Presidents or Vice Presidents that have been impeached are not eligible, former Presidents that have already served two terms are not eligible.

So what is your point then? Which post do I need to read again? The one to which I responded?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


native born yes....a citizen yes....natural born, eligible for presidency no.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


BOTH parents must be us citizens at time the candidate is BORN........like a broken record because no one can read.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
So I'm looking at this from an ethical perspective:

First, the clause in the constitution reminds me of discrimination and I do not agree with it. So I want to say that I believe that the clause is unethical.

Secondly, other states besides Georgia allowed Obama onto the ballot despite the constitution, so these states have ignored it. I also believe that it is wrong for states to ignore the constitution, but I am torn here, /if/ the constitution was ignored because they saw that clause as unethical, then it is a challenge to an unethical clause and should be applauded. If they ignored it for other reasons, however, it once again becomes unethical.

Georgia now is upholding the constitution like a good state should. This is nice, but now they're upholding an unethical law as well. Therefore, I have to conclude that Georgia has put its 'duty' before its morals, which is, once again, immoral.

Just some considerations.


sea



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
BOTH parents must be us citizens at time the candidate is BORN........like a broken record


Yes. like a faulty broken record as you are wrong about both parents.... repeating a tall tale does not make it true....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Hitler, oh my bad, Obama....strikes again. "I dont have to come to court. I'm the POTUS and those silly hicks are interrupting yet another golf game on my private ranch in Hawaii".



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sea4ever
 

Whatbis unethical about requiring our president to be natural born.....that's how the founders wanted the country protected. If the majority thinks it is unethical, it would have to be amended...but I don't know the lawfulness of that. as long as it is law and in the constitution no one is above that law.....like I said...not everyone has a right to be pres., life ain't fair.
Anchor babies would not be eligible...and that's a good thing...they need to earn some rights of citizenship. But if this anchor babies and their significant others are citizens then their children would be eligible....they earned a stake in the country.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


you have no facts to back you up and I do...so go troll somewhere else....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchPlayer
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Hitler, oh my bad, Obama....strikes again. "I dont have to come to court. I'm the POTUS and those silly hicks are interrupting yet another golf game on my private ranch in Hawaii".


How do you compare Hitler to Obama? Do you do a lot of drugs or something?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Still To lazy to read the facts huh......just because you ignore them doesn't make them go away........oh wait..it did work for Obama didn't it. not for long.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

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.



If someone is not eligible for the presidency, they should not be on the ballot. Obama is not in good legal standing if he refuses to attend his court hearing.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by sea4ever
 

Whatbis unethical about requiring our president to be natural born.....that's how the founders wanted the country protected.



If our founders truly only wanted natural borns as president wouldn't we have been ruled by Native Americans the past few hundred years? Just saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Poor little groomed for the job, hand picked puppet Obama. Even his bankster master Geithner isn't sticking around for a 2nd term that will never come. Timothy is most likely off with a promotion to The World Bank. ~SheopleNation



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Here is an interesting video and written article about what went on in that Georgia courtroom today.

www.ajc.com...

Nothing was definitely decided today...and President Obama is not off the Georgia ballot...at this time.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Poor little groomed for the job, hand picked puppet Obama. Even his bankster master Geithner isn't sticking around for a 2nd term that will never come. Timothy is most likely off with a promotion to The World Bank. ~SheopleNation


Who exactly hand picked Obama and made him a puppet?
I been trying to figure it out. I do have some ideas but I am not completely sure yet.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 




E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758).


Yes, you quote part of paragraph 212 in book 1. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.

Your first mistake is in not understanding that Vattel never said "parents" and he never said "native born" - despite what the bad translation says. In the original French, Vattel said 'parens' which is more accurately translated as 'immediate family' in the usage of the day. Furthermore 'parens' though outwardly plural, is, in context also singular. Consider the posted rule "Only children whose parents are members of the club may use the pool". Do both parents have to be members, and do the parents have to have more than one child before they can use the pool?

Furthermore, he said 'indigene' which has been badly translated (again) as 'native born' when the better translation would be 'native'. The term 'natural born citizen' was not in the 1760 English translation, nor in the 1787 American version. It was 'imposed' into the book many decades later.

And anyway, Vattel was talking about Swiss Law which was derived from Roman law, not American law which was derived from British law. So what, if anything, did Vattel have to say about British law? You don't have to go to far to look, because paragraph 214 is only two paragraphs after your quoted paragraph 212:

Paragraph 214:

...Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.


Now I ask you, did the American founders get their ideas of citizenship from English law in which they had been educated their entire life, and indeed drew upon for their very ideal of liberty, or Swiss law as described by a Prussian civil servant? And if they did get it from the Prussian, did they rely on his so-called definition that wasn't even in his book?



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join