Are the Birthers Being Used???

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

This is in reference to a case that was essentially thrown out, but had to do with whether McCain and Obama could legally be on the state Presidential ballot.

I asked for a case reference for your statement, "even courts have declared Obama is a natural born citizen".

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".

I may be wrong. It won't be the first time, which is why I ask.

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".

As I said, " Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana"

Google it, and look at the scribd document.... and we find
www.scribd.com...

and there it is, as I stated....

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by BSndsMPBlk47

 

If you consider "birthers" as idiots as to your title, why do you care?

My problem with birthers is that I'd like to know where these people were when Bush 1) obviously stole an election 2) greatly ramped up the security state mechanism, and 3) trashed our Constitution far worse than previous administrations. The current and previous administration have been far worse disasters than what we had before.

I suspect that they are being used/manipulated to advance the interests of the security state.

I would like to hear a "birther" defined in one sentence. Is a "birther" a "conspiracy theorist." I had a 4 year old question my official story recently, I guess he needs therapy for his unrealistic, questioning response.

Really, there are questions about Obama's past and the birth certificate issue is certainly one of them. Stop derailing this thread with the redundant "birther" unproved claims drivel. Please, accept civil discourse.

Originally posted by ibiubu
Stop derailing this thread with the redundant "birther" unproved claims drivel.

So why are you posting unproved birther drivel about Obama's past, and claiming there is a issue with his birth certificate?

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I asked for a case reference for your statement, "even courts have declared Obama is a natural born citizen".

Anybody who objectively researched this issue would know the positions of the courts on this matter:

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

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

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

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

www.scribd.com...

Voeltz v. Obama

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.

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

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)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:

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

www.law.cornell.edu...

It's been 195 birther lawsuits now (count em' in the link below). The excuse that the courts haven't addressed the "merits" of the birther argument ran out a long long time ago:
tesibria.typepad.com...

I've been on ATS for a very long time

Yes you have, so it's any wonder why people like you have continued to deny the facts put in front of you this long?

reply to post by SourGrapes


Just to add another thing, if you're talking about the other birther arguments regarding the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, and the conclusions of your phony birther experts, well those arguments have no merit to them either. They have no merit because 1. They are not legitimate arguments against the authenticity of the birth certificate (the layers argument is one such example, it's a product of imaging documents through certain programs), 2. Your experts aren't real experts, just lowly individuals who frequent rightwing conspiracy websites and hold no credentials on this matter at all. 3. The real experts on Hawaii birth certificates, the ones who validate them, the experts at the Hawaiian Health Department, have confirmed time and time again that both his short and long form birth certificates are legitimate.

I get it, you don't like Obama, you have personal issues about him being president, issues you care not to really disclose (like many birthers). Hiding behind silly conspiracies in order to deny the fact he got elected twice is not going to help quell those issues of yours.

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.

Obama’s cyber warriors
canadafreepress.com... tion&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

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.

You should not believe anything poor Orly says. The case will not be heard by the Supreme Court

I suppose they may overturn the district court's decision and dismiss the case if they can do that.

How can they? Obama has been sworn in as President.