Birth Certificate: Obama's lawyer says forgery so obvious it cannot be used to deter

[JakeStarkey]

I voted McCain, I will vote Romney, and I endorse most of the Pubs running here, I know that Obama is an American born citizen constitutionally qualified to run as present, and I am aware that birfers are enemies to American ideals.

 

[regent]

States did not begin issuing birth certificates until almost 100 years after the Constitution was written. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding birth certificates for meeting the presidential elgibility requirements, nor any of the evidence needed to meet those Constitutional requirements.
Those requirements should have been filled in by legislation or even Court decisions, but were not, and were not, even after the Constitutional issue came up with Chester A. Arthur and Herbert Hoover. Those two incidents were both quietly dropped at the time.
What posters are now attempting to do is fill in the Constitutional requirements with their own laws and own decisions. The fact that the official Republican party, nor the Courts, nor the Congress is touching this issue is telling us something.

 

[Gadawg73]

States did not begin issuing birth certificates until almost 100 years after the Constitution was written. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding birth certificates for meeting the presidential elgibility requirements, nor any of the evidence needed to meet those Constitutional requirements.
Those requirements should have been filled in by legislation or even Court decisions, but were not, and were not, even after the Constitutional issue came up with Chester A. Arthur and Herbert Hoover. Those two incidents were both quietly dropped at the time.
What posters are now attempting to do is fill in the Constitutional requirements with their own laws and own decisions. The fact that the official Republican party, nor the Courts, nor the Congress is touching this issue is telling us something.

Where is the "official Republican party touching this issue"?

 

[BDBoop]

By Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN
April 12, 2012

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards "image" As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”. Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate....

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens....

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

(The rest of Crosby's article can be found at the link shown below.)

Before It's News

Well, I guess all you Obamabots who made fun of the “birthers” have some explaining to do. Actually, the evidence of forgery was so compelling I cannot understand how anyone could have actually believed the documents were authentic. You Obamabots are looking more and more foolish with each passing day.

That's a mirror, sunshine.

And you birfers can't possibly sink any lower. You are now treading water at the bottom of the ocean.

Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign gathered enough signatures, etc.

In other words, she spent her day muttering the word "Irrelevant" and having the judge agree.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ says Obama need not prove eligibility - Newark Essex County Conservative | Examiner.com Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ says Obama need not prove eligibility - Newark Essex County Conservative | Examiner.com

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D., I am going to vote for Romney.

If enough people are reacting like you to BHO, he will win hands down.

If he is elected again, he now knows who to say "This is going to happen".

He will not try to get along, he will get his way.

Either both parties learn to govern together, or it will BHO and the Dems.

The Republic can survive him. We're already stuck with the trillions more in national debt when all that needed to be done were the elimination of the death tax, taxes on corporate gains, a sensible reduction of corporate and income taxes coupled with the privatization of payroll tax accounts and entitlement reforms/restructuring. Problem solved. This bonehead turned a cyclical economic downturn, however exacerbated by the housing bust, into a prolonged recession. If Republicans cannot win the White House back, they will at the very least take back the Senate and hold the House in November. Then it becomes a "holding action" against the White House until we can take it back the next time. Hopefully, Obama Care will be struck down as it should, and real health care reform and cost-reduction can be achieved later by unleashing the market forces currently ensnarled with governmental prohibitions and regulation, and the programs that artificially inflate the costs due to inefficiency and fraud.

Naturally, the sooner Obama's veto is eliminated, the better. Right now polling appears to make it a toss-up, but if historical experience holds with regard to the economic factors, disapproval ratings, etc., Obama will not be reelected. Either way it will be close, which evinces a new historical trend. In the past, presidents saddle with such factors and ratings lost by landslides. An ever-increasing percentage of the population are being carried away by entitlement dependency and collectivist thinking. But then that is the whole point of progressive policies, i.e., increase the percentage of dependent, non-tax paying moochers, progressivism’s proud and "enlightened" constituency, the death Nell of the American spirit.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What posters are now attempting to do is fill in the Constitutional requirements with their own laws and own decisions.

Huh? For the most part, those who have disputed the birthers have got the law right.

Incidentally, Obama would still have been a natural-born citizen had he been born abroad just a few months later, assuming his mother remained in the U.S. just a bit longer. How does that strike you? The only reason he had to be born in the U.S. in this instance goes to his mother's residency with regard to her age, her youth. That's why she stayed in the U.S. until he was born.

He was born in Hawaii. He was a citizen at birth as well as the child of an American citizen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anchor babies are considered to be natural-born citizens and therefore can run for president, but that is not emphatically spelled out in Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Naturalization Code with regard to the judicial term of "permanent residents". There is nothing in the Code that emphatically states that persons born on U.S. soil of illegal aliens are citizens at birth…

Nor would it be, as the Code addresses immigration law, which would have nothing to do with natural born citizens.

Instead, the fact that anchor babies are considered to be citizens at birth is mostly due to the lack of specification in the Wong Kim Ark decision featuring the mysterious discovery of a post-constitutional common-law birthright citizenship and to the consequential recognition by the several states and by the federal government's silent assent by default that anchor babies are U.S. citizens at birth, i.e., natural-born citizens via "the law of the soil" or birthright.

Incorrect, again.

One born in the United States is a natural-born citizen per the 14th Amendment, regardless his parent’s status:

Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
[496]
"NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The Fourteenth Amendment as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 D. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law of. References: G. W. Garner, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904)."

What's Your Evidence?: The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause (Updated)

That one born in the United States is a natural born citizen is established and settled law, there is consequently no justification for any further review, and any statute by Congress to effect that settled law would be struck down as un-Constitutional accordingly

 

[regent]

This is the problem, cases applied to others in different circumstances may not apply to a presidential candidate who must meet the Constitutional requirements.
There is a bill in the House that was introduced in 2009 that hopefully spells out whole process, but the bill HR1503, has been buried in the Republican dominated House. Why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is the problem, cases applied to others in different circumstances may not apply to a presidential candidate who must meet the Constitutional requirements.

It doesn’t make any difference, the case law applies comprehensively: one born in the United States is a natural born citizen, eligible to be president per Article II, Section One. There are only two types of citizens in the United States: natural born and naturalized.

There is a bill in the House that was introduced in 2009 that hopefully spells out whole process, but the bill HR1503, has been buried in the Republican dominated House. Why?

It really doesn’t matter – again, the law is clear and settled as to what constitutes a natural born citizen. The bill may have received no consideration for this very reason.

 

[jillian]

Generally, your sentiments are correct . . . well, almost, except for the 230-years thingy. Try 109 years, from the time at which the Constitution became operational (1789) to the time at which the Wong Kim Ark decision was handed down (1898).

In the past, prior to Wong Kim Ark, Congress required that one be born of the blood of the nation in order to be a natural-born citizen regardless of where one was born. Anyone born on American soil and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a natural-born citizen since Wong Kim Ark regardless of the parents' nationality.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were not citizens of the United States, but citizens of China at the time of his birth; howbeit, they were residing in the United States legally. Wong Kim Ark was never naturalized. Hello!

Anchor babies are a gray area, but only because of the dunderheaded decision of Wong Kim Ark in which the Court failed to definitively establish whether or not the offspring of persons residing in the United States illegally are in fact subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Contrary to the belief of many, neither Congress nor the Court has ever emphatically legislated or ruled on that particular question.

But the distinction is moot after these many decades, as in lieu of the federal government's silence on the matter, the several states have recognize all persons born on U.S. soil to be citizens at birth so long as they are not the offspring of foreign officials. Though it be constitutionally ass backwards, so does the federal government by default.

Hence, tragically, anchor babies certainly can run for the office of the presidency. . . .

Natural-born citizenship goes to the moment of conferral. Persons upon whom citizenship is conferred at the moment of birth are natural-born citizens. Naturalized citizens are those upon whom citizenship is conferred after birth. That is the definitive distinction. Those upon whom citizenship at birth can be conferred is spelled out by Congress relative to the constitutional requirement that the claim ultimately rests, either directly or indirectly, on the soil of the nation.

That last assertion will confound many as they read on and fail to carefully think their way through to the ultimate essence of natural-born citizenship. Hint: jurisdiction.

Now, could Congress pass a law tomorrow barring all future anchor babies from citizenship, emphatically declaring that such are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Sure. There have been a small handful of such proposals over the years.

It would most certainly be challenged in the courts though.

Would it hold up? In my opinion it should as long as the prohibition did not apply retroactively, as neither the Constitution nor case law allows Congress to strip one of one's citizenship once it has been conferred without due process relative to certain acts of expatriation.

On the other hand, it's as likely as not that the Court would strike it down. Practically (political realities), as a result of the decision of Wong Kim Ark, the only thing that would stand would be a constitutional amendment.

Prior to Wong Kim Ark, Congress held that one had to be born of both the blood and the soil of the nation in order to be a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen, wherein citizenship at birth included those born abroad of natural-born parents (jus sanguinis, i.e., the law of the bloodline). That is to say, "the soil of the nation" was imputed to such offspring via "the blood of the nation" based on the parent's prior claim on the soil. Keep in mind, however, that the conferral of natural-born status upon those born abroad of U.S. citizens must be provided for by extant law, as natural-born status via the law of the bloodline is a legislative prerogative, not a constitutional requirement.

Finally, in my opinion, Wong Kim Ark was a bad decision, not only because the Court failed to definitively established whether or not the offspring of illegal residents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but also because for the first time in constitutional history (regardless of the bogus rational of a so-called common-law tradition) the Court declared, in defiance of constitutional precedent, which established a unique requirement, a departure from English Common Law, and in defiance of congressional directive, that said jurisdiction pertained to the soil of the nation only!

But the Court’s agenda-driven majority was comprised of persons who were akin to the "progressives" of today.

I loath leftists.

I appreciate the fact that careless readers and thinkers, particularly those with wrongful notions about what does and does not constitute the United States' jurisdiction for constitutional purposes relative to the soil of the nation, will imagine a contradiction in the above.

Study to show thyself approved: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

so many words.... so much stupidity.

You must be one of those leftist careless readers and thinkers.

not really...

his thought processes are careless and disorganized.... so overwhelmed with hackishness that he's incapable of articulating a reasonable argument. *shrug*

 

[jillian]

This is the problem, cases applied to others in different circumstances may not apply to a presidential candidate who must meet the Constitutional requirements.
There is a bill in the House that was introduced in 2009 that hopefully spells out whole process, but the bill HR1503, has been buried in the Republican dominated House. Why?

there may be a time when more clarification would be needed. it certainly isn't needed with respect to a person born in this country to a mother who was a citizen.

 

[Emma]

I should not have bothered Obama's loyal supporters with the truth.

Your OP was a lie.

Watch the videos of the proceedings. NO where does she even come close to what you claim.

 

[regent]

So what evidence is required to show a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements to be president? The Constitution, nor law, require nothing, no evidence is required, nothing. Maybe the candidate could just say, "I'm a natural born citizen," but even that is not required. In the meantime we get all these demands for birth certificates and other evidence while the Constitution and the law require no evidence, nothing.

 

[Emma]

So what evidence is required to show a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements to be president? The Constitution, nor law, require nothing, no evidence is required, nothing. Maybe the candidate could just say, "I'm a natural born citizen," but even that is not required. In the meantime we get all these demands for birth certificates and other evidence while the Constitution and the law require no evidence, nothing.

That's left up to the Executive of the individual states. Most often, Secretary of State, some have specific election boards.

 

[regent]

So how effective are those state requirements? Have they been tested against the supremacy clause?

 

[Gadawg73]

So how effective are those state requirements? Have they been tested against the supremacy clause?

This is the outcome to the challenge by the birthers led by Orly Taitz and their lawsuit here in Georgia to force Obama off the balot:
1. The Judge dismissed outright the claims that Obama had a computer generated birth certificate, a fraudulent social security number and invalid identification papers on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to produce any expert witnesses to prove any of that and no evidence exists anywhere to prove any of that.
2. None of the witnesses provided by Taitz and the birther movement had any experience in forensic examination or questioned documents experience.
3. None of the witnesses had ever been hired by anyone as an expert witness in any matter before concerning forensic documents or documents examination.
4. None of the witnesses had any training in forensic examination of evidence or documents.
5. "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 any of Plaintiffs' allegations"

In other words they had no case and no evidence. Nothing, hot air, BS and the ruling from a conservtive Republican Judge.
But Orly Taitz raised 25K that week here in Atlanta and billed The Birther Movement $475 an hour for her time, 50 hours that week plus a 10K bill for the Ritz Carlton stay. They sold $1800 worth of hats, T shirts, buttons, greeting cards and memberships to their newsletter.
That is what this all about folks. This is a business to them.
And SUCKERS believe it and donate to it.
Dumbasses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The birfers allow themselves to be treated like cows, milked over and over and over by the Taitzes of the world.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M.D. Rawlings: Anchor babies are considered to be natural-born citizens and therefore can run for president, but that is not emphatically spelled out in Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Naturalization Code with regard to the judicial term of "permanent residents". There is nothing in the Code that emphatically states that persons born on U.S. soil of illegal aliens are citizens at birth. . . .

Nor would it be, as the Code addresses immigration law, which would have nothing to do with natural born citizens.

Nonsense. You are talking to an expert on citizenship and nationality law. Stop it right now!

"Immigration law"?! Formally, with regard to constitutional or statutory language, there is no such thing as immigration law. LOL! The latter is an informal/layman reference to portions of the extant code (i.e., the "uniform Rule of Naturalization" per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the enumerated powers of the legislative branch) that addresses the requirements and the conditions under which persons may legally enter and reside in this country, and subsequently acquire U.S. citizenship after birth.

In any event, 8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.

This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

​

8 USC 1401 - Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth - U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization - Id 19271800 - vLex

Precisely where in this text is there any mention of naturalized immigrants? The first part of Title 8, Sec. 1401 does not deal with "immigration law" as you say whatsoever! It most indubitably, incontrovertibly, indisputably deals with citizenship at birth, i.e., natural-born citizenship! Let's replay what you stupidly wrote once again:

Nor would it be, as the Code addresses immigration law, which would have nothing to do with natural born citizens.

*crickets chirping*

In another post you correctly wrote that this portion of the code fills in for the Constitution with regard to citizenship at birth. Now you unwittingly contradict yourself. You're full of it, just another know-nothing who apparently doesn't understand that the uniform rule of naturalization encompasses both natural-born citizenship (citizenship at birth) and naturalized citizenship (citizenship after birth), no doubt confused about what the "uniform rule of naturalization" entails and by the informal term "immigration law" of naturalized citizenship proper.

CLEARLY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! ARE YOU A FOOL OR A LIAR?


M.D. Rawlings: Instead, the fact that anchor babies are considered to be citizens at birth is mostly due to the lack of specification in the Wong Kim Ark decision featuring the mysterious discovery of a post-constitutional common-law birthright citizenship and to the consequential recognition by the several states and by the federal government's silent assent by default that anchor babies are U.S. citizens at birth, i.e., natural-born citizens via "the law of the soil" or birthright.

Incorrect, again.

One born in the United States is a natural-born citizen per the 14th Amendment, regardless his parent’s status. . . .

Incorrect?! I am not incorrect, not in this instance or any other. "[P]er the 14th Amendment?! Don't you mean, from your own citation, unwittingly conceding the correctness of my observation per its entire context, "the 14th Amendment as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark".

LOL! And it just flies right over your head. You idiot, I've read Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart's work. Their observation is the same as mine, and unlike you, they are aware of the black hole in the ratio decedendi in Wong Kim Ark and the subsequent debate in legal scholarship. They are aware of the fact that at best the Court's intent with regard to the offspring of illegals is vague, that the only place where their status is formally/emphatically addressed is in the uniform rule/code of naturalization beginning in 1952!

Under current law per the Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark, the 14th Amendment covers all persons born within the United States proper . . . but not regardless of their parent's status. Children born in the U.S. of foreign nationals officially engaged, i.e., diplomatic personal, are not U.S. citizens as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Careless of you. But, yes, children born in the U.S. of foreign nationals that are not officially engaged, whether they be here legally or not, which is what you meant, are citizens at birth, i.e., natural-born citizens.

Hence:

Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
[496]
"NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The Fourteenth Amendment as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 D. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law of. References: G. W. Garner, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904)."

What's Your Evidence?: The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause (Updated)

That one born in the United States is a natural born citizen is established and settled law. . . .

Indeed. Your point? Never mind, you don't comprehend what I'm getting at. Once again for the thinking-impaired. The Court has never definitively ruled, not in Wong Kim Ark or in any other decision, whether or not the offspring of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth. Fact! For years after Wong Kim Ark Congress construed the Court's decision to include only those children born of foreign nationals not officially engaged who were in the United States legally, i.e., children subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Fact!

Because the several states, having no constitutional power to do otherwise in the face of a decades-long period of congressional silence and the Court's lack of a definitive enunciation (Ark's parents were here legally!) recognized the children of illegals to be citizens at birth by default. Finally, in 1952, Congress made the informal practice formal in statutory law, albeit, without any mention regarding the status of the parent's residence. Fact!

[T]here is consequently no justification for any further review, and any statute by Congress to effect that settled law would be struck down as un-Constitutional accordingly

The question of whether or not the children of illegal foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. has never been definitively settled in case law, i.e., in ratio decidendi. Fact! There is nothing in case law preventing Congress from declaring that all future anchor babies are not subject to that jurisdiction. Fact! Indeed, a number of bills have been introduced over the years to do just that! Fact! Currently, there is no hope of passage of such a bill; nevertheless, Congress most certainly could pass such a bill, and if it did, there most certainly would be a justification for further review. Fact! As I said in the above, it would in all likelihood be struck down as a matter of shear politics after these many years of informal and consequent, legal practice. The only thing that would probably stand would be an amendment to the Constitution.

Like jillian, the confusion about what I'm telling you exists nowhere but in your mind due to a deplorable lack of knowledge and your apparent inability to discern the distinction between the observation that (1) the natural-born status of persons born in the U.S. of foreign nationals who are legal residents and not officially engaged is settled law beyond all dispute and the observation that (2) the natural-born status of persons born in the U.S. of illegal foreign nationals, however, is currently provided for under statutory law, subject to revision and judicial review. These are not mutually exclusive observations.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

so many words.... so much stupidity.

You must be one of those leftist careless readers and thinkers.

not really...

his thought processes are careless and disorganized.... so overwhelmed with hackishness that he's incapable of articulating a reasonable argument. *shrug*

No, jillian, you're merely an ignorant, close-minded and thoughtless dingbat who cannot follow wisdom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact! The 14th Amendment rules null and void M. D.'s arguments about Congress possessing the power to pass enforceable legislation preventing children born in the US from illegal immigrants from running for the presidency. Even this Roberts course would vote 9-0 in a laughter to overturn such legislation.

M.D., many of us do understand your argument. We simply believe it is, on the merits, wrong in concept and scope of the Constitution and federal law.