It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 43
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by BiffJordan
Why can't I find this on any MSM websites?


The unintended oxymoronic nature of that sentence is awesome.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by BiffJordan

Well you can, the huffington post reported it, MSNBC etc, these were the ones I could find.

A lot of people twitting about it too!
Maddow tries really hard doesn't she?

I'm still waiting for Feb 5th to see what happens.
edit on 27-1-2012 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by BiffJordan
Because it is bunk! The Judge has not yet rendered a ruling. Further, the media isn't paying this any credence because it is baseless. Sure, the Secretary of State held that the matter could not and should not be summarily dismissed without hearing, and that if the President (or his representative/attorney) decided to simply skip the hearing they would do so at the their own risk. However, the arguments being made are 1) that the words "natural born" have a legal meaning that differs from "native born"; and 2) that if that fails, then the President has faked his Birth Certificate; both of which have been repeatedly shown to be false. That is clearly why this is not being covered by the MSM, and again I say it is BUNK!

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Realtruth

Georgia law permits it. Ballot access challenges are common occurrences. That does not mean that many have merit or that many succeed.

Understand this is a challenge about whether Obama has satisfied Georgia State requirements to gain access to the Democratic Party primary ballot. The challengers want it to be about whether he is eligible to be President or not, but Georgia does not have the authority to make that call - only Congress does.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by Ollie769

Can anyone say "President Biden"?

Its a possibility, but I think he'll be too old by the time his chance comes around in 2016
edit on 27/1/2012 by rnaa because: spelling

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by anon72

I say..... 15 states will follow suit with this type of action. Any takers?

Orly says there are challenges in all 50 states. She is trying to run the birther case record to 0 wins for 150 tries.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:06 PM
“Those Who Address Race the Most, Are Usually the Most Racist”

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM

It's not possible to be wrong in this case. Obama and his lawyers were ordered to appear in court. Obama himself actually didnt have to show but the lawyers DID HAVE TO SHOW. Nobody showed. The LAW only allows for one verdict in case of a no show. It's called a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT OF GUILT. There is NO OTHER RECOURSE IN THE LAW. NONE You find some other recourse of law when the defendant and his lawyers refuse to show for court you let me know. Untill then you are fighting a lossing battle.
reply to post by candcantiques

Not a court, a hearing. Nobody HAD to show, nobody was ORDERED to show. There was no need for a public hearing at if both parties were happy to submit their 'evidence' in the briefs.

It is not a trial, there is no verdict. There will be a recommendation passed to the Secretary of State after the Judge has reviewed all the material he has been given. The parties have until 5 February to finalize their submissions.

Please calm down, you are getting spittle all over your monitor.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:12 PM
good for obama

in the end, this truther nonsense makes him stronger and he knows it

GOP strategerists know it too, and that's why the NEVER bring it up

score 1 for obama

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by candcantiques

Every state and everybody has the RIGHT to challenge weather or not a candidate has met the minimum standards as outlined in the Constitution as per being legally able to run for the office of President. Thats why the minimum standards are in the Constitution in the first place. If there was no right to challenge why have standards in the first place

You are correct in that every State has the right to ensure that its laws pertaining to ballot access are followed, and to allow challenges to made. That does not mean that every challenge has merit or will succeed.

Furthermore, the States can impose what ever qualifications they like for State office (with in Constitutional limits of course; no religious test for example).

States do not have the right to impose more stringent qualifications on candidates for Federal Office than those that are outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution rules, OK!

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by candcantiques

Ok I want to run for office of the President. I am a United States Citizen by birth. I am ALSO a Russian citizen by birth. Am I allowed to run for the office of the President of the United States?

If by 'United States Citizen by birth' you mean 'born on American soil' (presumably to Russian Parents that were not diplomats), then of course you are allowed to run.

If you are also 35 years old and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years you can also be sworn in and execute that office.

Ain't America Grand?

If you mean you were born overseas to U. S. Citizen parents then maybe not, that has never been definitively established.

edit on 27/1/2012 by rnaa because: spelling

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by candcantiques

My father is a citizen of Russia and still lives there. Therefore I am a Russian citizen. My mother is a US citizen born and raised here in the USA. I was born here in the USA. I am a US citizen AND a Russian citizen. I can run for ANY office EXCEPT that of the President or Vice President. THAT is the law of "Natural born citizen" I am NOT natural born. I am a citizen but not natural born. I will NEVER be eligible to be President. That is the law.

No it isn't. You are incorrectly informed. You are a Natural Born Citizen and can be President of the United States when you grow up. It's the American Way.

I also know what President you are talking about. Arthur. He hid his status of dual citizenship. It wasnt discovered until AFTER his term was over.

Arthur was well known to have been a dual citizen before he was in office. If it was an impediment, his opponents would have used it against him, just as Obama's opponent would have used it against him if it were true and an impediment.

In fact an entire book was written about Arthur, before the election, trying to prove that he was born in Canada.

By German law Eisenhower was a German citizen, making him an dual citizen. Spiro Agnew had dual citizenship with Greece, under Greek law. Thomas Jefferson accepted French citizenship as an adult, he was a dual citizen during his entire term in office. There are many others.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

Well, that's not the only way. If he renounced his U.S. citizenship in order to obtain an Indonesian passport and attended school there as an Indonesian citizen, he would also not be eligible.

Legally impossible under both U.S. and Indonesian law.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by candcantiques

You need to read "law of nations"

Yes you do. (By the way, you are referring to a book title (or an abbreviated book title anyway), it should be capitalized, and you should be careful to not confuse it with the phrase in the Constitution that does not refer to the book title even though the nouns are, in the fashion of the day, capitalized).

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

We discussed this yesterday. Perhaps you should forget Prussians who write in French for the Swiss public service and pay attention to American sources that write about American law using American terminology.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by bphi1908
This isn't small town governments we are talking about here, it is state authority, more specifically it's the state of Georgia. "Trying to rise above the law" you say? Do states not have the right to enforce their own laws as governed by their own state Constitutions?

sure, as long as it doesn't violate Federal Law. Where I went to school the history class taught us about an event called the "Civil war". The outcome decided that Federalism is the rule of law in America. Evidently, you missed that class or you didn't go to school here.

I'm fascinated by those who don't know their history as they always pick battles already fought and decided.

Alas, it is entertaining.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by Realtruth

Because they get pestered to death and other crazy things? Because they may happen to sympathize? Your guess is as good as mine, and I believe your answers are already in the thread. And you've probably not been following just how many of these nuisance suits have been filed by the birthers and the tactics they employ.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

The Founding Fathers DID have to though which is why that statement, "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is there. Everyone else in succeeding generations have to be "Natural Born". I don't know why so many have such a hard time grasping this concept. I'm guessing for some it is willful stubborness.

Wrong. Alexander Hamilton was the only one that we remember today that had a reasonable chance at the Presidency that was 'grandfathered in'. He was not a natural born citizen, having been born in Jamaica and naturalized in New York. All others were natural born citizens, having been born in one of the colonies that became States.

The clause was put there to respect those naturalized citizens who, like Hamilton, had participated in the Revolution and who, in the Constitutional Convention's opinion, deserved that right.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:09 PM
seeing as how so many are so caught up on what "natural born citizen" means i issue a challenge. quote the law that defines what a "natural born citizen" is. you will find no law defining what that phrase means. if the phrase meant anything specific, it would most certainly have been defined in law by now. especially considering the number of candidates that have had their "birthright citizenship" challenged in the past, including john mccain.

on the other hand, i have quoted twice what the law requires to be a "birthright citizen" or a "citizen by virtue of birth" or "citizenship confered due to condition of birth" or however you wish to phrase it. now since this is clearly spelled out in law, that is the only thing we have to go on. now unless you find another law that states what a "natural born citizen" is then another law discribing what other types of citizenship is, then you have something to stand on. you will find no such thing, however.

just as you cant use the "what the founders meant" (you would think they would have spelled out what they "meant") arguement in regards to the 2nd amendment, you cant use it here. you can only use what the law states.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by stormson

I just posted the definition of natural born citizen from the author of the 14th amendment...but the Obots on here either refuse to read it or think it is not true.

BORN OF 2 US CITIZENS::::: Truth hurts

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US. John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Stop putting your hands over your eyes and read the dang explanation......2 citizen parents owing NO ALLEGIANCE to another country IE: Citizen of Kenya/Britian (father Obama)

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by stormson

Challenge met, now what?

new topics

top topics

<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in