It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hellobruce
They has been posted here several times before.... but here it is again.... Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
Originally posted by SourGrapes
I've been on ATS for a very long time and I do not ever remember seeing any case (much less multiple) where a court has "Declared Obama a Natural born citizen".
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by BSndsMPBlk47
If you consider "birthers" as idiots as to your title, why do you care?
Originally posted by ibiubu
Stop derailing this thread with the redundant "birther" unproved claims drivel.
Originally posted by SourGrapes
I asked for a case reference for your statement, "even courts have declared Obama is a natural born citizen".
Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise
Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"
President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office
I have reviewed and considered the legal authority submitted by the plaintiff and the Defendants on this issue and conclude as a matter of law that this allegation, if true, would not make the candidate ineligible for office. Cited Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana.
The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization
I've been on ATS for a very long time
Originally posted by BSndsMPBlk47
According to Orly Taitz, the Grinols case is going to the Supreme Court. The question of Obama's status apparently is going to be revisited.
I suppose they may overturn the district court's decision and dismiss the case if they can do that.