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

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by filosophia

The constitution is rather straight forward and does not need a priest class to interpret for the mere mortals.

What????????????????????

All laws need (require) interpretation. That's what lawyers are for.

If laws were "set in stone" - - we'd have a whole lot of pissed off and out of work lawyers.

edit on 30-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

oh gee, out of work lawyers, I think I feel a tear coming. You remind me of Lynel Hutz from the Simpsons who shudders when he thinks what the world would be like without lawyers. Your view of the necessity of lawyers is cartoonish and belongs in a Simpsons cartoon. It doesnt even make sense because a judge over rules on a lawyers interpretation. So who is the law, according to you, the supreme court or the lawyers? Natural law is God given, self evident, and requires no interpretation other than common sense and decency. The constitution is meant to protect natural rights and is a full four pages long, compare this to the health care law or patriot act which is hundreds of pages long. Sure, you need lawyers to interpret those laws, since they have a lot of fine print to do their dirty deeds. Natural law is not written anywhere but arises from the rights of all individuals.

Originally posted by filosophia
oh gee, out of work lawyers, I think I feel a tear coming. You remind me of Lynel Hutz from the Simpsons who shudders when he thinks what the world would be like without lawyers.

Oh the drama.

I'll stick to logic and reality.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by filosophia
oh gee, out of work lawyers, I think I feel a tear coming. You remind me of Lynel Hutz from the Simpsons who shudders when he thinks what the world would be like without lawyers.

Oh the drama.

I'll stick to logic and reality.

dont forget selective discernment. You kind of cropped the rest of the paragraph away and focused on only the first part. Is reality always an exercise in selective discernment for you? I also noticed you asked me a question, i responded with the tenth amendment, and you ignored it. Logic is faulty when it does not perceive the whole. Selective rationality is not rationality.

Originally posted by filosophia
You kind of cropped the rest of the paragraph away and focused on only the first part.

You took it to the Simpsons.

reply to post by Annee


There is a book called Animal Farm (George Orwell) , where the animals had a constitution painted on the barn.

And it is fair to start out, but then, at night, it keeps changing to the detriment of the animal citizens.

Good book. You should read it.

Oh, and we have a 4th branch of govt now, the CIA.

I gotta go to work.

K

reply to post by Annee


That still doesnt explain why you ignored my answer to your own question. Twice now. Lets put it another way, television shows aside: if lawyers are needed to interpret law, then no one but lawyers could be expected to follow the law, so the average person is a helpless victim to the police state until they pay their fortune to a lawyer to explain to them how they broke the law. That sounds fair, for the lawyers. But back to the supreme court, if the SC is the law as you say, considering the SC rules on less than one percent of all cases, you are basically living in a state of anarchy since the SC only makes a ruling when a trial actually goes to the suprem court. So a lower court finds you guilty of a crime, but its not the law until the SC hears it right? Meaning your crime did not actually break the law until the supreme court hears your case. Since you were found guilty in a lower court and there is no need for the trial to go to the suprem court you didnt really break a law. Sounds like selective anarchy to me, right up your alley. I cant wait to see which part of my post you choose to respond to and which part you choose to ignore.

Some justice system.. Don't show up for a court date and you aren't allowed to run for president, Yet you get candidates who openly endorse drug use (marijuana party)

EDITED,,, No One Would Believe The Video.
Removed.

Originally posted by CharlesIAm
Some justice system.. Don't show up for a court date and you aren't allowed to run for president, Yet you get candidates who openly endorse drug use (marijuana party)

I thought this thread was how he is still allowed to run for president despite not showing up to court

reply to post by filosophia


The only requirements for presidency of the U.S.:
Being a natural born citizen of the U.S.
Being at least 35 years of age.
Being a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.


Read more: wiki.answers.com...
So... this court has no right to keep anyone off the ballad in any state. Thats how I see it

Originally posted by CharlesIAm
reply to post by filosophia

 

The only requirements for presidency of the U.S.:
Being a natural born citizen of the U.S.
Being at least 35 years of age.
Being a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.


Read more: wiki.answers.com...
So... this court has no right to keep anyone off the ballad in any state. Thats how I see it

the court has that right if he violates one of those conditions. The issue is if he is a natural born citizen or not.

reply to post by filosophia


But until that has been proven he is still legally seen as a "Natural born citizen" isn't he?

reply to post by filosophia



It is necessary to know the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" and how it is different from other classes of citizens. Obama's problem is that his dad was never a citizen. There is plenty of disagreement on what that phrase means so you may want to dig in and do some reading and decide what you think about it.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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…..”

law2.umkc.edu...

This is precedent on meaning of NATURAL Born Citizen. This Minor v. Happersett has NEVER been overruled.

Barack Hussein Obama claims the Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as his birth father. His father was a British citizen from Kenya and never became a U.S. citizen.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Annee

 

That still doesnt explain why you ignored my answer to your own question. Twice now. Lets put it another way, television shows aside: if lawyers are needed to interpret law, then no one but lawyers could be expected to follow the law, so the average person is a helpless victim to the police state until they pay their fortune to a lawyer to explain to them how they broke the law. That sounds fair, for the lawyers.

"Police State"? I thought you wanted me to take you seriously.

People follow or bend laws as they understand them.

When written law is challenged - - then it needs to be interpreted. Lawyers argue what is written applied to the specifics of the challenge. Thus they are interpreting the meaning of something written applied to an actual situation. The written laws are not set in stone - - they are subject to interpretation. They are a framework a "legal base" that can and are challenged - - - often resulting in change.

If law was black and white - - there would be no need for lawyers or interpretation.

Is that how this country works? Obviously not.

reply to post by filosophia


That's pnly an issue to delusional, paranoid people

reply to post by kawika


you still pretending that case has any bearing on this???

naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by filosophia

 

 

It is necessary to know the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" and how it is different from other classes of citizens. Obama's problem is that his dad was never a citizen. There is plenty of disagreement on what that phrase means so you may want to dig in and do some reading and decide what you think about it.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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…..”

law2.umkc.edu...

This is precedent on meaning of NATURAL Born Citizen. This Minor v. Happersett has NEVER been overruled.

Barack Hussein Obama claims the Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as his birth father. His father was a British citizen from Kenya and never became a U.S. citizen.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: fixed link

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: add text

THIS RULING DOES NOT EXCLUDE AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE JURISDICTION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS. Do you not see this in paragraph you provided? It specifically states that there is no need for the purposes of this case to determine that, therefore it is NOT precedent in this situation with Obama.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Yes it has been pointed out before in this thread that the ruling specifically did not determine what a natural born citizen was - but there's a degree of willful ignorance involved

reply to post by kaylaluv


EXACTLY!

Only birthers (liars through and through, the kind of people that edit out paragraph that contradict their positions... so people who willingly mislead... at best) would view that case as PRO their insanity.

To others reading this, go here:

naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com...

Ok, pile on, go ahead...

Does anyone have any real news from today?

Not finding anything....

As to the above, what I suggested was that the poster should go and read, and figure out the truth (since I can not be trusted).

Soon enough we will hear what the judge thinks. And I doubt that will change any of your opinions, but I am prepared to defer to the judge in this matter. Whatever the judge says goes, for me...