Birth Certificate

[Care4all]

well, we do KNOW this about Obama's grades at Harvard Law School....

At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occure in any club.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

well, we do KNOW this about Obama's grades at Harvard Law School....

At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occure in any club.

The transcripts. The transcripts, not the resume'.

 

[geauxtohell]

they have never had their day in court as every court denies them based on standing alone....to me, that is a major problem with out judicial system as they will never get their day in court to prove their claims and those who don't believe them simply mock them without them ever having had their day in court.

that is not what our justice system is about

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

 

[DiveCon]

they have never had their day in court as every court denies them based on standing alone....to me, that is a major problem with out judicial system as they will never get their day in court to prove their claims and those who don't believe them simply mock them without them ever having had their day in court.

that is not what our justice system is about

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

while i dont take the whole "the BC is fake" stand

if an American Citizen doesnt have standing to take a constitutional issue to the courts, who does?

 

[Yurt]

they have never had their day in court as every court denies them based on standing alone....to me, that is a major problem with out judicial system as they will never get their day in court to prove their claims and those who don't believe them simply mock them without them ever having had their day in court.

that is not what our justice system is about

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

no, standing means you cannot even bring the claim, the claim is never heard, no merits are ever decided, the truth is never even pondered. you need to read up on what standing means as it is quite clear from your ignorant post that you have no idea what it means. you clearly think it means it didn't "warrant" a trial because it wasn't good enough....that is completely false. frivolous has absolutely zero to do with standing, at least if a court decides you have a frivolous case you've been heard, with standing, you don't even get to present anything for the judge to adjudicate on as lack of standing, in a broad sense, means you cannot present any of your claims

google it and then get back to me

 

[geauxtohell]

they have never had their day in court as every court denies them based on standing alone....to me, that is a major problem with out judicial system as they will never get their day in court to prove their claims and those who don't believe them simply mock them without them ever having had their day in court.

that is not what our justice system is about

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

no, standing means you cannot even bring the claim, the claim is never heard, no merits are ever decided, the truth is never even pondered. you need to read up on what standing means as it is quite clear from your ignorant post that you have no idea what it means. you clearly think it means it didn't "warrant" a trial because it wasn't good enough....that is completely false. frivolous has absolutely zero to do with standing, at least if a court decides you have a frivolous case you've been heard, with standing, you don't even get to present anything for the judge to adjudicate on as lack of standing, in a broad sense, means you cannot present any of your claims

google it and then get back to me

I know what "standing" means (you have to show that you've been damaged to bring your case), I've even followed Taitz's lackluster attempts to gain standing by recruiting Keyes and Easterling to her suit.

Like I said, if you've been denied standing, the court has determined there are no merits to your claim and thus it is frivelous.

Thus, you've had your day in court. The fact that they wouldn't hear your case doesn't mean you've been denied due process.

Them's the rules.

 

[Againsheila]

well, we do KNOW this about Obama's grades at Harvard Law School....

At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occure in any club.

Ummmm...Magna Cum Laude is based on grade level, not percentage standing in the class. Theoretically, 1/2 the class could have graduated Magna Cum Laude.

 

[geauxtohell]

they have never had their day in court as every court denies them based on standing alone....to me, that is a major problem with out judicial system as they will never get their day in court to prove their claims and those who don't believe them simply mock them without them ever having had their day in court.

that is not what our justice system is about

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

while i dont take the whole "the BC is fake" stand

if an American Citizen doesnt have standing to take a constitutional issue to the courts, who does?

In this sense, I can see both sides of the arguement. It is congress' job to certify the election, and opening up a contest issue to any individual citizen sets the precedent to allow a single citizen to stymie the will of the people (in an election) via the courts.

Procedure isn't sexy, but it's an integral part of the law.

Underlying the whole issue of the birther legal challenge though are two incompetent lawyers. Berg is half nuts and Taitz is so incompetent that when something doesn't go their way, the rational person has to ask if justice has not been served or if the lawyers bungled the case.

 

[Againsheila]

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

no, standing means you cannot even bring the claim, the claim is never heard, no merits are ever decided, the truth is never even pondered. you need to read up on what standing means as it is quite clear from your ignorant post that you have no idea what it means. you clearly think it means it didn't "warrant" a trial because it wasn't good enough....that is completely false. frivolous has absolutely zero to do with standing, at least if a court decides you have a frivolous case you've been heard, with standing, you don't even get to present anything for the judge to adjudicate on as lack of standing, in a broad sense, means you cannot present any of your claims

google it and then get back to me

I know what "standing" means (you have to show that you've been damaged to bring your case), I've even followed Taitz's lackluster attempts to gain standing by recruiting Keyes and Easterling to her suit.

Like I said, if you've been denied standing, the court has determined there are no merits to your claim and thus it is frivelous.

Thus, you've had your day in court. The fact that they wouldn't hear your case doesn't mean you've been denied due process.

Them's the rules.

How can any American citizen not have "standing" when it comes to finding out if an individual qualifies for the highest office in the land?

 

[geauxtohell]

well, we do KNOW this about Obama's grades at Harvard Law School....

At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occure in any club.

Ummmm...Magna Cum Laude is based on grade level, not percentage standing in the class. Theoretically, 1/2 the class could have graduated Magna Cum Laude.

The two tend to go together.

If 1/2 the class had a 4.0, than there would be 40 #1s.

 

[geauxtohell]

no, standing means you cannot even bring the claim, the claim is never heard, no merits are ever decided, the truth is never even pondered. you need to read up on what standing means as it is quite clear from your ignorant post that you have no idea what it means. you clearly think it means it didn't "warrant" a trial because it wasn't good enough....that is completely false. frivolous has absolutely zero to do with standing, at least if a court decides you have a frivolous case you've been heard, with standing, you don't even get to present anything for the judge to adjudicate on as lack of standing, in a broad sense, means you cannot present any of your claims

google it and then get back to me

I know what "standing" means (you have to show that you've been damaged to bring your case), I've even followed Taitz's lackluster attempts to gain standing by recruiting Keyes and Easterling to her suit.

Like I said, if you've been denied standing, the court has determined there are no merits to your claim and thus it is frivelous.

Thus, you've had your day in court. The fact that they wouldn't hear your case doesn't mean you've been denied due process.

Them's the rules.

How can any American citizen not have "standing" when it comes to finding out if an individual qualifies for the highest office in the land?

See post #68

 

[DiveCon]

If they can't get standing, then they have indeed had their day in court.

Their case was just so piss poor that it didn't even warrent a trial.

You think it's a major problem now, but if someone tried to sue you for something as frivelous and absurd as this matter, you'd be grateful for it.

You are right though, I do mock those that can't accept the truth.

while i dont take the whole "the BC is fake" stand

if an American Citizen doesnt have standing to take a constitutional issue to the courts, who does?

In this sense, I can see both sides of the arguement. It is congress' job to certify the election, and opening up a contest issue to any individual citizen sets the precedent to allow a single citizen to stymie the will of the people (in an election) via the courts.

Procedure isn't sexy, but it's an integral part of the law.

Underlying the whole issue of the birther legal challenge though are two incompetent lawyers. Berg is half nuts and Taitz is so incompetent that when something doesn't go their way, the rational person has to ask if justice has not been served or if the lawyers bungled the case.

i see your point

 

[geauxtohell]

while i dont take the whole "the BC is fake" stand

if an American Citizen doesnt have standing to take a constitutional issue to the courts, who does?

In this sense, I can see both sides of the arguement. It is congress' job to certify the election, and opening up a contest issue to any individual citizen sets the precedent to allow a single citizen to stymie the will of the people (in an election) via the courts.

Procedure isn't sexy, but it's an integral part of the law.

Underlying the whole issue of the birther legal challenge though are two incompetent lawyers. Berg is half nuts and Taitz is so incompetent that when something doesn't go their way, the rational person has to ask if justice has not been served or if the lawyers bungled the case.

i see your point

Thanks. It would be like Bush v. Gore or Franken Coleman times a million (in those two contests, the candidates that contested the elections clearly had standing).

Good to see you again.

 

[DiveCon]

In this sense, I can see both sides of the arguement. It is congress' job to certify the election, and opening up a contest issue to any individual citizen sets the precedent to allow a single citizen to stymie the will of the people (in an election) via the courts.

Procedure isn't sexy, but it's an integral part of the law.

Underlying the whole issue of the birther legal challenge though are two incompetent lawyers. Berg is half nuts and Taitz is so incompetent that when something doesn't go their way, the rational person has to ask if justice has not been served or if the lawyers bungled the case.

i see your point

Thanks. It would be like Bush v. Gore or Franken Coleman times a million (in those two contests, the candidates that contested the elections clearly had standing).

Good to see you again.

yeah, it would be a mess


btw, glad to see you escaped the rainbow romper room

 

[geauxtohell]

i see your point

Thanks. It would be like Bush v. Gore or Franken Coleman times a million (in those two contests, the candidates that contested the elections clearly had standing).

Good to see you again.

yeah, it would be a mess


btw, glad to see you escaped the rainbow romper room

I am a good little Ranger. I don't allow myself to get tied down in a firefight very long.

 

[2daloo]

has obama proved that he is eligible to be president?the issue of his citizenship was in doubt but i haven't read or heard anything about this for awhile.is it resolved?

 

[elvis]

has obama proved that he is eligible to be president?the issue of his citizenship was in doubt but i haven't read or heard anything about this for awhile.is it resolved?

He's a citizen. He's legally qualified to be the president. It's one of the very few issues I'll defend him on.

 

[hjmick]

has obama proved that he is eligible to be president?the issue of his citizenship was in doubt but i haven't read or heard anything about this for awhile.is it resolved?

He's a citizen. He's legally qualified to be the president. It's one of the very few issues I'll defend him on.

Saved me the trouble...

 

[2daloo]

did you vote for him?

 

[elvis]

did you vote for him?

No.