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.

 

BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

page: 49
120
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Which still has ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIMS THAT OBAMA IS NOT A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY.

None of your arguments about the constitution has absolutely anything to do with Obama's birth certificate or why he should be forced to release it violating state and federal laws that protect a person's right to privacy.

All you're doing is using sophistry and doing your damndest, and failing, to twist everything you can to say that Obama was born in Kenya and can't be President.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You are as dense as that clown who couldn't even get his fluoridate calcified brain to figure out whether he was naming himself Spore* or Spoon* and went with Spoor.

Those amendments are proof of a distinct second class of citizenship than what the original constitution provided. Please tell me what the original founding fathers were then, hmm?

I do not support him being born in Kenya; I am NOT arguing that point as to why he doesn't have a birth certificate. I am arguing an entirely separate point.
edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


The problem is that your argument is not correct. Refer to my previous post as to what Law of the Land is, which wholly encompasses Common Law.

But hey, you seem to be some sort of Constitutional law (and non-Constitutional law) expert. Show us the law, and then go argue it in a court of law, or pay someone to do it. I'm sure that will work. I have confidence. Really.

This theory is so far out in left field that even Orly Taitz would be laughing right now.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I am doing this as a favor for all you people reading who live under the delusion that we are somehow free, the war between the states was about "freeing the slaves", and that the original intent of the founding fathers carries on.

It is all a lie.

If you really want to know what happened then check out this link.

It is not some crazy fool typing on his computer.

This is a social organization of extremely educated individuals dedicated to educating people on the original intent of the founding fathers and how it has been perverted.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Wow, be respectful to birthers and back up with facts and they'll attack you. And then they whine about being called birthers and racists.

OF COURSE there are different classes in America, even in the modern age there are different social classes in America.

BUT THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT OBAMA HAS NO BC AND THEREFORE CAN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT OF AMERICA.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have to have a bc.

You have been defeated by the actual facts in the matter.

But you go on with your irrational and wrongful arguments and claims about Obama.

And any rational person will be there to prove you wrong with the actual facts that exist and can be verified.

But none of your claims can be.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I believe what Arpaio and crew have determined has way more integrity than any bozo yapping on a conspiracy forum.


Including you.

Just saying.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I never said he couldn't be eligible for President by not having a Birth Certificate. Being born in the United States and not having a Birth Certificate spelled out in all capital letters, makes you nothing but eligible.
edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Now if there would only be a law about them capital letters. Or even a LAW. Or anything. Please quote the law. I'm begging you.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Sad thing is most of these people won't even read it; and get bruised ego's when we must get obtuse after repeating ourselves several times. The points we have made are crystal clear, if you can not understand them; you do not understand the law.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


That's called moving the goal posts.

So a bc has to be spelled in all capitals in order to be eligible for President?

That makes absolutely no sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


We already have. All Caps denominates modern-day capitis diminutio maxima. We have proven that common law was based on Roman civil law; and we have proven that this was a Roman Law practice...If you can't understand that would be included, the burden to prove me wrong is now on you then.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I never said he couldn't be eligible for President by not having a Birth Certificate. Being born in the United States and not having a Birth Certificate spelled out in all capital letters, makes you nothing but eligible.


I think that you may be right about this Veritas.

Seriously.

I don't want to get into this discussion right now, but I really think that you may be right..
I have to run, but I will post what I have found in your other thread.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Sad thing is most of these people won't even read it; and get bruised ego's when we must get obtuse after repeating ourselves several times. The points we have made are crystal clear, if you can not understand them; you do not understand the law.


Of course we cant read it. Because you are not capable of producing it. When you are capable of producing, I am perfectly capable of reading. I have advanced far enough in my education that I THINK I can understand it.

We're all patiently waiting, sir. At your leisure.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwood
Joe is is like a Pit bull when he gets his teeth into something. I for one am proud of him and the work he has done for Arizona even though he is sheriff of Maricopa county and I live in neighboring Gila county.
The news media and opposing groups paint him in a bad light and make him out as a racist insane man he is tough and a true patriot of this country. I live here and see it first hand. We need more like him.

As for Obama.....

this only verifies what I have felt / known was true all along. The fact is there are some VERY powerful people behind him. Who thy are is a mystery but if this hasn't gone anywhere in 4 years it ain't going nowhere now.
Unless by some chance the Democratic party throws him under the bus.

I would be VERY surprised if this goes anywhere.

I personally would be pleased if he was immediately hauled out in cuffs tried for treason and if found guilty hung on the front lawn of the White House. A message to those who may wish to try it again.


Joe is like Ron Paul. Stop talking about sh*t and be about sh*t. Put up, or shut up!



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You have a severe lack of comprehension problems. Obama may as well have been born in the United States like a natural born citizen was; however a natural born citizen is separate from the 14th amendment citizen. If everybody who has a birth certificate is a 14th amendment citizen; by him having a birth certificate spelling his name in all capital letters, that makes him considered one of those 14th amendment slave citizens (not because of his skin color), and thus not capable of being President.

I have broken this down as simply as I can for you.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Source that with the actual law. I couldn't care less of your opinion about it. I do not care the history of it. If it's a law then it's written down. If it is not written down it only excists in your imagination.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


en.wikipedia.org...




Roman law The term "common law" (connotation 2) is often used as a contrast to Roman-derived "civil law", and the fundamental processes and forms of reasoning in the two are quite different. Nonetheless, there has been considerable cross-fertilization of ideas, while the two traditions and sets of foundational principles remain distinct. By the time of the rediscovery of the Roman law in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.[50] However, the first common law scholars, most notably Glanvill and Bracton, as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law. Often, they were clerics trained in the Roman canon law.[51] One of the first and throughout its history one of the most significant treatises of the common law, Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England), was heavily influenced by the division of the law in Justinian’s Institutes.[52] The impact Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem (typically, actions against a thing or property for the purpose of gaining title to that property; must be filed in a court where the property is located) and in personam (typically, actions directed against a person; these can affect a person's rights and, since a person often owns things, his property too) used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th centuries. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,[53] and Roman law ideas regained importance with the revival of academic law schools in the 19th century.[54] As a result, today, the main systematic divisions of the law into property, contract, and tort (and to some extent unjust enrichment) can be found in the civil law as well as in the common law.[55]

Roman law The term "common law" (connotation 2) is often used as a contrast to Roman-derived "civil law", and the fundamental processes and forms of reasoning in the two are quite different. Nonetheless, there has been considerable cross-fertilization of ideas, while the two traditions and sets of foundational principles remain distinct. By the time of the rediscovery of the Roman law in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.[50] However, the first common law scholars, most notably Glanvill and Bracton, as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law. Often, they were clerics trained in the Roman canon law.[51] One of the first and throughout its history one of the most significant treatises of the common law, Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England), was heavily influenced by the division of the law in Justinian’s Institutes.[52] The impact Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem (typically, actions against a thing or property for the purpose of gaining title to that property; must be filed in a court where the property is located) and in personam (typically, actions directed against a person; these can affect a person's rights and, since a person often owns things, his property too) used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th centuries. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,[53] and Roman law ideas regained importance with the revival of academic law schools in the 19th century.[54] As a result, today, the main systematic divisions of the law into property, contract, and tort (and to some extent unjust enrichment) can be found in the civil law as well as in the common law.[55]

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
How many times do I have to ask? I do not care about old roman laws. We dont live in ancient rome. Quote the law that is in the books today.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


ROMAN LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Constituion is influenced by ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

As far as your other wrongful claims:

Section 1 formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the overruling of the Dred Scott decision's ruling that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[2] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes that southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States.[3] The Black Codes attempted to return former slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[4]

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.[5]

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[6][7] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[9] According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[8] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[10][11] However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.[12][13][14]

Senator James Rood Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[15] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[16][17]

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[18]

The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.[19]

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join