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.
reply to post by hellobruce
I said "legally qualified". Do the citizens of the United States have a right to be given legal proof that the Commander-in-Chief for their sons and daughters is legally qualified to hold that position?
What is the legal avenue for full due process on the legal question of the Commander-in-Chief's eligibility to that position?
Article Two, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The initial "evidence" provided was fraudulent.
You're not answering the question.
When has Obama's alleged proof of eligibility been subjected to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the due process of cross-examination?
When were the citizens of the United States of America given that due process, to know that the Commander-in-Chief for our sons and daughters is legally qualified to hold that position?
When has Obama ever submitted any of his citizenship records as proof of eligibility, in any court case?
It was required of him in Georgia, by Judge Malihi.
What legal evidence did he present for Malihi?
How did the citizens of the United States of America get due process in Georgia - to have the evidence presented , subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination?
You agree with the judges who all said it is nobody's frickin' business,
Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.
By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.
The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations.3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See
None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.
allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens,
regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision
and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.
For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
The Americans who send their sons and daughters into the line of fire aren't supposed to have ANY way to know those sons and daughters are being sent by a qualified Commander-in-Chief
What legal evidence did Obama present, subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination?
Answer the question.
That Malihi (or any of the other judges) bent over to service Obama and flip off America is irrelevant.
if American citizens are deprived of their right to LEGAL proof that their sons and daughters sent in harm's way are sent by somebody qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.
Life is cheap, and honor is cheap, to you.
You're still not answering the question.
Obama has been legally challenged over 200 times (according to your own boast), to produce LEGAL evidence of his qualifications.
That is over 200 more times than any other "President" in the history of the US.
nobody else's eligibility was ever challenged in court.
In how many of those 200+ cases did he present LEGAL evidence that was subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination?
That's the question you've been asked, and I think you've refused to answer at least 3 times now.
To even get a lawful paycheck in the US he is supposed to be required to submit 2 forms of proof of eligibility to work in the US - for citizens the proof required is very specific, including certified long-form birth certificate, social security documentation, etc. He hasn't done that.
He hasn't even proven himself qualified to get a paycheck
You won't answer the questions;
for anybody who cares about truth or about this country.
Barack Obama has never submitted ANY legal proof of eligibility subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination,
Instead we're supposed to trust the shuysters in the political parties who nobody can charge with crimes except the politically-chosen federal or state attorneys general who have to schmooze up to those shuysters to get their jobs in the first place.
There is no right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There's just politics.