US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified

This is a discussion on Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified within the Conspiracy Theories forums, part of the US Discussion category; Born on U.S. Soil Does Not Make You a U.S. Citizen| The Post & Email Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored United States v. Wong ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Jesse Ventura is welcome here

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 12:22 AM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,068
Thanks: 4,716
Thanked 6,311 Times in 4,444 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Born on U.S. Soil Does Not Make You a U.S. Citizen| The Post & Email

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama and DNC have nothing to worry about...

Last edited by Lakhota; 10-30-2011 at 12:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #137 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 12:34 AM
Banned
Member #23643
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,601
Thanks: 149
Thanked 417 Times in 322 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo!
Wong Kim Ark doesn't pertain to Obama when it comes to Article 2 Section 1. Minor vs Happersett does. A question for you Lakhota:

How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Please answer in detail.
Reply With Quote
  #138 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 12:59 AM
Spud's Avatar
Skippy
Member #31500
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Thanks: 64
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Please answer in detail.
How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?
Reply With Quote
  #139 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 01:33 AM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,068
Thanks: 4,716
Thanked 6,311 Times in 4,444 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Is Barack Obama a Natural-Born Citizen? - Urban Legends

snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

Hawaii Was Not a State When Obama was Born There and his Mother Was Not Eligible to Give Birth to a U.S. Citizen-Fiction!

Barack Obama, natural-born citizen - City of Brass
Reply With Quote
  #140 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 01:35 AM
Banned
Member #23643
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,601
Thanks: 149
Thanked 417 Times in 322 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo!
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Please answer in detail.
How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?
Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Last edited by USArmyRetired; 10-30-2011 at 01:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #141 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 01:43 AM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,068
Thanks: 4,716
Thanked 6,311 Times in 4,444 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP - Publications - President-Elect Obama, Dual Citizenship and the Constitution
Reply With Quote
  #142 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 03:43 AM
Banned
Member #23643
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,601
Thanks: 149
Thanked 417 Times in 322 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo!
The link offers absolutely no proof Obama is a natural born Citizen as specifically required by Article 2 Section 1 and it ignores Minor vs Happersett which is binding precedent and hasn't been overturned. Nice try though. At least you're not spamming anymore. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #143 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 04:45 AM
Spud's Avatar
Skippy
Member #31500
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Thanks: 64
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 19
Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB Spud could own USMB
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Please answer in detail.
How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?
Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.
Reply With Quote
  #144 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 05:27 AM
Banned
Member #23643
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,601
Thanks: 149
Thanked 417 Times in 322 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo!
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?
Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.
See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.
Reply With Quote
  #145 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 07:03 AM
WorldWatcher's Avatar
U.S. Navy Chief (Ret.)
Member #27321
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 4,641
Thanks: 92
Thanked 1,494 Times in 1,121 Posts
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 889
WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve
WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve WorldWatcher could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.
See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.

[DISCLAIMER: First of all I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a Republican and have been so since I came of age to vote in 1978. However my dislike of the man's policies have no influence on how I read and interpret laws and court opinions which define how laws are interpreted and applied.[/DISCLAIMER]


************************************************

For those who wish to "hang their hats" on Minor v. Happersett as definitive in regards to qualifications for President of the United States solely because of an "s" which appears after parents, they are probably in for a rude awakening if/when SCOTUS actually accepts a case involving the qualifications to hold that office.

My reasons are described below.

1. First of all, there has NEVER been a SCOTUS case involving the qualifications to hold the Office of President. All the cases that are normally flung around are narrow, cherry picked, out of context quotes from Minor, Ark, and a couple of others. All those cases dealt with citizenship and not eligibility for President.

2. As a result of #1, people are corrupting the idea of "stare decisis" as it compares to the idea of "dicta". Stare decisis is in fact the principal that a case once decided by the court defines a precedence that is considered binding on lower courts for cases involving similar circumstances. Since the cases involved regarded citizenship and not Presidential eligibility, then their use as stare decisis on Presidential eligibility is automatically suspect. The out of context sections oft quoted would more naturally be considered dicta, specifically "obiter dictum" (latin for something said in passing.) Because the court used an "s" associated with parent(s), does not mean that plural "parents" is stare decisis. More likely is that the plural "parents" is dicta as the case had noting to do with single parent v. dual parents.

3. Paragraph 5 cited below from the decision is important because it provides some context on the use of the word "citizen", which is what the case is about. It is important to note that "citizen" is the word used in a representative republic and equates to the word "subject" used in a monarchy.
"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more."
4. Shortly after para 5, the court then renders the opinion below. The importance of this section is that there are only TWO types of citizens. Those born into a status of citizen and those who achieve citizenship after birth through a naturalization process. For those that wish to use Minor as stare decisis based on an "s" after parent, you much also recognize Minor as stare decisis on there being only two routes to citizenship: being born a citizen and being naturalized later in life. You can't cherry pick an "s" and then say there are 3-classes of citizen (Natural-born, born, and naturalized) without being hypocritical in your application of the case.
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
5. An so we get to the passage that some like to take out of context
Note A. In Minor, the association is made that all "natives" are considered "natural born citizens". The highlighted section below clearly shows that the court associated with "natural-born" being equal to and synonymous with "native".

Note B. Immediately following the the oft cited snippet from Minor is the courts own qualification on the passage. Which very clearly points out that there has been doubt about citizens born within the United States to parents who are not citizens, and this group is specifically excluded under the conditions of the case as part in terms of stare decisis.
"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. (Note A above) Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. (Note B) It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

6. In item #3 it was pointed out that the court in Minor equated "citizen" used in a representative republic as the same as "subject" used in a monarchy. In the paragraph above the court points out that since the Constitution itself does not define "natural born citizen" that then the court must look to the nomenclature of the time. Natural born citizen being a derivative (or outgrowth) of natural born subject, they would look to the common law at the time. A child born within the domain of the King was a natural born subject UNLESS that child was born to someone not under the jurisdiction of the King (i.e. ambassadors from another country).


From a legal perspective, and in my own opinion, I think that those that rely on Minor as definative stare decisis, I think you might be in for a rude shock if the court uses it because the case does not provide the basis they think it does.

Link -->> Minor v. Happersett



>>>>
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WorldWatcher For This Useful Post:
Montrovant (10-30-2011), Spud (11-01-2011)
  #146 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 07:13 AM
SAT SAT is offline
Banned
Member #33391
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 830
Thanks: 103
Thanked 62 Times in 54 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
SAT could own USMB SAT could own USMB SAT could own USMB SAT could own USMB SAT could own USMB SAT could own USMB
Race is a human construct. I love looking into blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, black eyes, and hazel eyes. But "my people" are humanity. Regardless of eye color.
Reply With Quote
  #147 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:12 AM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 74,447
Thanks: 9,924
Thanked 12,700 Times in 9,644 Posts
Mentioned: 226 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 34784
JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow JakeStarkey has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by USArmyRetired Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

These arguments in this new suit have never been debunked. It's a new suit not towards Obama but about election qualifications and the procedures how they (DNC) determine a person is a natural born Citizen. This tactic is different.
The tactic is not based in law. Your plaintifs have no standing. The case will be dismissed. When it is, I will let everybody on this thread and you know by PM immediately.
Tell me again why there is no standing? Give me point by point details. Here are the suits.Please back your claim up. I challenge you.

State Suit
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - TN

Federal Suit:
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - Federal
The plaintiffs have no standing. The affirmative is on you, USAR, and your case fails summarily on that point. It will be dismissed quickly.

An interesting point is that once again you fail to recognize the Constitution sets the requirements for candidate eligibility, not the states, not the party organizations, and certainly not race hates like you. Dismissed.
__________________
"One by one they throw us from the tower. And we spread our wings and fly."

Last edited by JakeStarkey; 10-30-2011 at 08:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JakeStarkey For This Useful Post:
SAT (10-30-2011)
  #148 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 09:02 AM
rightwinger's Avatar
Paid Messageboard Poster
Member #20321
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 70,363
Thanks: 26,068
Thanked 25,139 Times in 16,246 Posts
Mentioned: 134 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 15261
rightwinger has disabled reputation
Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in
__________________
.

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong
Reply With Quote
  #149 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 09:03 AM
Full-Auto's Avatar
Registered User
Member #19660
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,555
Thanks: 6,477
Thanked 3,629 Times in 2,685 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1268
Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court
Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court Full-Auto could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
__________________


TERRORIZE your State democrats

Suggest a spending cut.
Reply With Quote
  #150 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2011, 11:34 AM
Banned
Member #23643
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,601
Thanks: 149
Thanked 417 Times in 322 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo! USArmyRetired will niver phear yuo!
Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in
Not true.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Conspiracy Theories
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.