Definition v. Physical Evidence

[Flanders]

This one looks like it might move the ball forward:

A hearing has been scheduled in a Florida court to allow attorneys representing the White House to support their claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.

Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from both sides of a challenge to Obama’s name on the 2012 state election ballot.

Judge Lewis is asking the White House for a definition rather than a piece of physical evidence. Every judge, and probably every American, already heard the definition on the other side. If Hussein’s lawyers respond it will be a big step toward moving from a state court to a federal court; ultimately ending with the SCOTUS ruling definitively one way or the other. Apparently, Minor v. Happersett is unclear:

Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875.

Lewis ordered further briefing on the issue before the hearing.

The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.

And this:

The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

But since the term is not defined in the Constitution, there are many who equate being a “citizen” or a “native-born citizen” with being a “natural born citizen.”

Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama?
Schedules hearing on what precedent White House has on 'natural born citizen'
Published: 10 hours ago
by BOB UNRUH

Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama?

Frankly, I see no reason for Hussein to respond. Why should he? unless he recently discovered a magical argument that makes his definition of natural born citizen a sure winner.

Mark June 18 on your calendar.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Dear god

Please let this be the absofukkenlootly last birffer run at obama.

 

[Emma]

Oh I will.

 

[Emma]

The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

No, it didn't.

 

[Flanders]

The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

No, it didn't.

To Emma: I’ll wait for the opinions of Judge Lewis and the US Supreme Court if you don’t mind.

 

[Ravi]

Is Romney going to run on a birfer platform?

 

[Emma]

The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

No, it didn't.

To Emma: I’ll wait for the opinions of Judge Lewis and the US Supreme Court opinion if you don’t mind.

Kewl.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is Romney going to run on a birfer platform?

no

he stated that obama was born in HI

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

No, it didn't.

To Emma: I’ll wait for the opinions of Judge Lewis and the US Supreme Court opinion if you don’t mind.

Will you stop if he gives obama the go ahead?

 

[Flanders]

No, it didn't.

To Emma: I’ll wait for the opinions of Judge Lewis and the US Supreme Court if you don’t mind.

Will you stop if he gives obama the go ahead?

To Two Thumbs: I’ll stop posting messages on the fundamental question of Hussein’s eligibility when the US Supreme Court removes all of the wiggle room from the Eligibility Clause. If the Court rules in his favor that will be the end of it as far as I’m concerned.

Should the High Court rule that natural born citizen means the offspring of TWO American parents the topic then becomes the legality of everything Hussein did without constitutional authority; legislation he signed, bureaucratic regulations he ordered, and so on.

Equally important, Hussein’s ineligibility would challenge the legality of everything the people he appointed did; most notably Secretary of State Clinton and Associate Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. That’s assuming all of his cabinet, his judges, his czars and czarinas, his ambassadors, his bureaucrats, etc., would do the decent thing and resign leaving their actions on the books and open to countless challenges in the courts.

 

[Emma]

Will you stop if he gives obama the go ahead?

To Two Thumbs: I’ll stop posting messages on the fundamental question of Hussein’s eligibility when the US Supreme Court removes all of the wiggle room from the Eligibility Clause. If the Court rules in his favor that will be the end of it as far as I’m concerned.

No it won't. Nothing will ever satisfy the birthers.

 

[Flanders]

Will you stop if he gives obama the go ahead?

To Two Thumbs: I’ll stop posting messages on the fundamental question of Hussein’s eligibility when the US Supreme Court removes all of the wiggle room from the Eligibility Clause. If the Court rules in his favor that will be the end of it as far as I’m concerned.

No it won't. Nothing will ever satisfy the birthers.

To Emma: Now you’re being illogical. Only fools hand their opponents an opportunity to crow. Seamen call it pissing into the wind.

Eligibility-doubters would have to be crazy to argue against a definitive Supreme Court ruling in Hussein’s favor. That’s the one weapon Hussein’s ostriches lust after even though they preen and primp every time Hussein’s lawyers keep the issue as far away from the Supreme Court as possible. It’s a bitch wanting something while being deathly afraid of going to only place you can get it.

Twisting Minor v. Happersett has been the only argument the ostriches offered to date. A no wiggle room decision in Hussein’s favor handed down by the current Supreme Court gives the ostriches the one weapon that wipes out the eligibility-doubters —— leaving them with no case and no place to go.

 

[California Girl]

To Two Thumbs: I’ll stop posting messages on the fundamental question of Hussein’s eligibility when the US Supreme Court removes all of the wiggle room from the Eligibility Clause. If the Court rules in his favor that will be the end of it as far as I’m concerned.

No it won't. Nothing will ever satisfy the birthers.

To Emma: Now you’re being illogical. Only fools hand their opponents an opportunity to crow. Seamen call it pissing into the wind.

Eligibility-doubters would have to be crazy to argue against a definitive Supreme Court ruling in Hussein’s favor. That’s the one weapon Hussein’s ostriches lust after even though they preen and primp every time Hussein’s lawyers keep the issue as far away from the Supreme Court as possible. It’s a bitch wanting something while being deathly afraid of going to only place you can get it.

Twisting Minor v. Happersett has been the only argument the ostriches offered to date. A no wiggle room decision in Hussein’s favor handed down by the current Supreme Court gives the ostriches the one weapon that wipes out the eligibility-doubters —— leaving them with no case and no place to go.

Wait.

What?

You're whining about logic while referring to Obama as 'Hussein'?

Srsly?

Fucking idiot.

 

[Flanders]

California Girl;5376094

You're whining about logic while referring to Obama as 'Hussein'?

To California Girl: Exactly what does logic have to do with calling Hussein by his middle name?

No psychoanalysis please. I’ve heard all of the psychobabble liberals assign to my motives.

California Girl;5376094

Fucking idiot.

To California Girl: Indeed you are. Only idiots are too stupid to see that expressing their anger gives me great pleasure. If you want more go to this thread and watch the 46 second Michael Savage video I recommended:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/224474-john-jesus-mccain.html

 

[FA_Q2]

Eligibility-doubters would have to be crazy to argue against a definitive Supreme Court ruling in Hussein’s favor.

Well, there is your answer right there. 'Eligibility-doubters' (ROFL) birfers already are crazy and simply as dumb as they come. Shut up about this already, the SCOTUS will hear nothing of any case whatsoever, no one in any ac6tual position of power is going to make any actual binding decision based on OBAMA (not your asinine picking of his middle name for no reason) not being an actual citizen and the proof has already been released for ALL to see.


The plain fact that you won't accept the proof given is telling enough without inane babble about redefining what actually makes one a citizen. I think from now on I am going to neg every dam bifer post I see. They are getting beyond asinine.

 

[Flanders]

not being an actual citizen and the proof has already been released for ALL to see.

To FA_Q2: Hussein’s ostriches keep proving he is a citizen when no one says he isn’t. It’s his eligibility that is being questioned. Read the OP over and over until you get it.

Incidentally, I kind of like the word ‘birfer.’ It reminds me of an old joke.

It seems that when the camera was new two sisters were sent to have their photograph taken. While the photographer was setting up the shot the younger sister whispered “What he doing?”

The older, more knowledgeable, sister replied “He gonna focus.”

The young one being somewhat puzzled asked “Bofus?”

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that birfers or eligibility doubters have no case, the issue has long been decided, and SCOTUS will never handle this issue.

The only issue is that of birferism and its psychopathology.

 

[Emma]

Birther Scorecard & String Cite: Birthers Win *O* - Lose - 130 | Pending - 10 | Total - 140 | Updated June 1, 2012

 

[Flanders]

Birther Scorecard & String Cite: Birthers Win *O* - Lose - 130 | Pending - 10 | Total - 140 | Updated June 1, 2012

To Emma: This from the article I linked changes the playing field:

Klayman told WND that during a hearing today on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.

Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875.

Lewis ordered further briefing on the issue before the hearing.

The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term has been settled before any of us were born. Birferism is a mental disease.