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

[AmericanFirst]

This will happen the same way you thought Palin would be president. You're pathetic.

Based on what legal analysis? Elaborate in detail Rinata.

do you think sarah takes it up the butt?

seriously

You do.

 

[USArmyRetired]

With ridicule, and possibly fines. I believe the courts are getting fed up with this nonsense.

This a high prominent Constitutional attorney filing this case this time . . .

And there is still no standing to force the Dems to do anything in the first place,

Tell me why in detail. Give me facts.

 

[Yurt]

idiot birthers....this only HELPS obama

drop the effing issue and focus on his lack of leadership, poor economy, lousy h/c plan etc....

Except the economy is improving, and he's waged the war on terror better than the previous guy. The opposition is insane. This is what you earned.

the economy is improving? he waged war on terror better?

wow...talk about koolaid.

 

[Yurt]

Here is the website for Liberty Legal Foundation. The guy who runs it named Van Irion is definitely a Constitutional attorney and he obviously knows Constitutional citizenship laws when it comes to eligibility of Article 2 Section 1. This lawsuit will spell big trouble for the Democratic National Party and DNC.

About Van Irion » Liberty Legal Foundation


Here is one of the lawsuits: Looks pretty good.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-DNC-Complaint.pdf

This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party. This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural-born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

how can you not consider this a frivolous lawsuit? what a waste of time and judiciary resources. this is all about obama, claiming it is not is ludicrous.

scotus does not exist to merely "affirm" a prior ruling. the lawyers should be sanctioned.

 

[Yurt]

drop the effing issue and focus on his lack of leadership, poor economy, lousy h/c plan etc....

No, the Constitution comes first. That's why people take a oath to defend it and possibly die protecting it. Again, the Constitution must come first over all else. Article 2 Section 1 has been violated and subverted.

by whom? a copy of the original has been shown. what more do you want? god to come down and declare that obama is his only begotten son?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Does anyone actually believe that the DNC asked Obama for any ID when he became the Nominee? It seemed more like Harry WeedWhacker was only concerned about getting the black vote and that Obama didn't have a typical black dialect. Hmm, didn't Obama call his grandma a typical white person?

 

[USArmyRetired]

Here is the website for Liberty Legal Foundation. The guy who runs it named Van Irion is definitely a Constitutional attorney and he obviously knows Constitutional citizenship laws when it comes to eligibility of Article 2 Section 1. This lawsuit will spell big trouble for the Democratic National Party and DNC.

About Van Irion » Liberty Legal Foundation


Here is one of the lawsuits: Looks pretty good.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-DNC-Complaint.pdf

This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party. This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural-born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

scotus does not exist to merely "affirm" a prior ruling.

The Supreme Court affirms (upholds) rulings all the time or they interpret existing laws.

 

[Lakhota]

I hear Obama is worried and may not run for re-election.

 

[USArmyRetired]

drop the effing issue and focus on his lack of leadership, poor economy, lousy h/c plan etc....

No, the Constitution comes first. That's why people take a oath to defend it and possibly die protecting it. Again, the Constitution must come first over all else. Article 2 Section 1 has been violated and subverted.

by whom? a copy of the original has been shown. what more do you want? god to come down and declare that obama is his only begotten son?

By Obama and the DNC including Nancy Pelosi who signed the OCON forms for him. Also that was not a copy of a 50 year old original birth certificate. It was a forged created abstract as affirmed by countless computer experts from all over the country who analyzed it and have signed sworn affidavits to testify to it. Some of these experts are CEO's of computer imaging and scanning companies as well as computer graphics and imaging programmers.

 

[Yurt]

Here is the website for Liberty Legal Foundation. The guy who runs it named Van Irion is definitely a Constitutional attorney and he obviously knows Constitutional citizenship laws when it comes to eligibility of Article 2 Section 1. This lawsuit will spell big trouble for the Democratic National Party and DNC.

About Van Irion » Liberty Legal Foundation


Here is one of the lawsuits: Looks pretty good.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-DNC-Complaint.pdf

This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party. This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural-born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

scotus does not exist to merely "affirm" a prior ruling.

The Supreme Court affirms (upholds) rulings all the time or they interpret existing laws.

only where there is a controversy. nothing is in controversy with regards to the prior ruling. you can't just bring a claim to scotus and ask them to uphold....say....loving v. virginia just because you feel like it. the court has to be able to redress your claim. there is nothing to redress here.

the law is clear and so is the prior ruling. obama is qualified. there is no controversy. frivolous case.

 

[Yurt]

No, the Constitution comes first. That's why people take a oath to defend it and possibly die protecting it. Again, the Constitution must come first over all else. Article 2 Section 1 has been violated and subverted.

by whom? a copy of the original has been shown. what more do you want? god to come down and declare that obama is his only begotten son?

By Obama and the DNC including Nancy Pelosi who signed the OCON forms for him. Also that was not a copy of a 50 year old original birth certificate. It was a forged created abstract as affirmed by countless computer experts from all over the country who analyzed it and have signed sword affidavits to testify to it. Some of these experts are CEO's of computer imaging and scanning companies as well as computer graphics and imaging programmers.

in a court of law, you bear the burden of proof since you are bringing the claim. so far, you haven't produced a minutia of evidence or proof. your wild opinion is not proof or evidence.

FACT: the proper authorities in HI verified his birth certificate. verified he was born in HI.

end of discussion.

 

[USArmyRetired]

scotus does not exist to merely "affirm" a prior ruling.

The Supreme Court affirms (upholds) rulings all the time or they interpret existing laws.

only where there is a controversy. nothing is in controversy with regards to the prior ruling. you can't just bring a claim to scotus and ask them to uphold....say....loving v. virginia just because you feel like it. the court has to be able to redress your claim. there is nothing to redress here.

the law is clear and so is the prior ruling. obama is qualified. there is no controversy. frivolous case.

First of all, there is controversy because Obama doesn't adhere to the ruling of Minor vs Happersett. Minor vs Happersett clearly is binding precedent and Obama does not meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1. Obama's father was a British Subject and as stated on Obama's own website Fight the Smears, it says the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed the status of Obama Sr's children which means they were also born as British subjects. That means Obama jr is a British Subject and not a natural born Citizen even if born in Hawaii. People didn't read that website in full and it was laid right out there for all to see and it caught no ones attention and the media surely didn't bring it up because it would have brought attention to his citizenship and that is something they avoided at all cost.

Read the last sentence:

Tell me what that last sentence means?

 

[Montrovant]

The Supreme Court affirms (upholds) rulings all the time or they interpret existing laws.

only where there is a controversy. nothing is in controversy with regards to the prior ruling. you can't just bring a claim to scotus and ask them to uphold....say....loving v. virginia just because you feel like it. the court has to be able to redress your claim. there is nothing to redress here.

the law is clear and so is the prior ruling. obama is qualified. there is no controversy. frivolous case.

First of all, there is controversy because Obama doesn't adhere to the ruling of Minor vs Happersett. Minor vs Happersett clearly is binding precedent and Obama does not meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1. Obama's father was a British Subject and as stated on Obama's own website Fight the Smears, it says the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed the status of Obama Sr's children which means they were also born as British subjects. That means Obama jr is a British Subject and not a natural born Citizen even if born in Hawaii. People didn't read that website in full and it was laid right out there for all to see and it caught no ones attention and the media surely didn't bring it up because it would have brought attention to his citizenship and that is something they avoided at all cost.

Read the last sentence:

Tell me what that last sentence means?

Are you ignoring where factcheck goes on to say that Obama had dual citizenship because he was born in the US......that when Kenya became independent, he gained Kenyan citizenship rather than British......and that, as of his 23rd birthday, lost that Kenyan citizenship?

All of which also ignores the obvious fact that the US is under no obligation to concern itself with the citizenship laws of other nations in a case like this. Under US law, having been born on US soil, Obama was a citizen, whatever the British Nationality Act might or might not have to say.

Then again, these and other important facts about this have been provided to you over and over and you have continues to beat this dead horse anyway. So I doubt anything I or anyone else might post will have any effect on your obsession.

 

[USArmyRetired]

only where there is a controversy. nothing is in controversy with regards to the prior ruling. you can't just bring a claim to scotus and ask them to uphold....say....loving v. virginia just because you feel like it. the court has to be able to redress your claim. there is nothing to redress here.

the law is clear and so is the prior ruling. obama is qualified. there is no controversy. frivolous case.

First of all, there is controversy because Obama doesn't adhere to the ruling of Minor vs Happersett. Minor vs Happersett clearly is binding precedent and Obama does not meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1. Obama's father was a British Subject and as stated on Obama's own website Fight the Smears, it says the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed the status of Obama Sr's children which means they were also born as British subjects. That means Obama jr is a British Subject and not a natural born Citizen even if born in Hawaii. People didn't read that website in full and it was laid right out there for all to see and it caught no ones attention and the media surely didn't bring it up because it would have brought attention to his citizenship and that is something they avoided at all cost.

Read the last sentence:

Tell me what that last sentence means?

Are you ignoring where factcheck goes on to say that Obama had dual citizenship because he was born in the US......that when Kenya became independent, he gained Kenyan citizenship rather than British......and that, as of his 23rd birthday, lost that Kenyan citizenship?

All of which also ignores the obvious fact that the US is under no obligation to concern itself with the citizenship laws of other nations in a case like this. Under US law, having been born on US soil, Obama was a citizen, whatever the British Nationality Act might or might not have to say.

Then again, these and other important facts about this have been provided to you over and over and you have continues to beat this dead horse anyway. So I doubt anything I or anyone else might post will have any effect on your obsession.

Obama lost Kenyan citizenship, yes but he still didn't lose his British Nationality. That remains to this day. He has dual allegiances and yes, he is a citizen like you say above, just not a natural born Citizen.

Watch and Listen:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8&feature=related]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAT]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

 

[USArmyRetired]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

You are not prideful of your race in any way and the achievements it has accomplished? Interesting!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

You are not prideful of your race in any way and the achievements it has accomplished? Interesting!!!

No he isn't...The honest truth is both sides be it conservative or leftist believe in the same goal, but at different rates of going about it. They both believe that anyone be it what ever color or culture should come to our lands freely(with the illegal immigration coming in it surely is). Guess what will happen to our culture and race with this policie? These people openly admit that they wish all of humanity to become one race...

Really, what's the point in defending a border if not to keep a culture and a people behind it and safe. Reagan, George HW Bush, Clinton, George W Bush all worked together to not enforce our borders and to allow as many third worlders in as possible. Same for any other white nation...These people openly admit that they wish whites to be mixed out and our culture would be wiped from the face of the planet...That is forever if it happens. Their hatred for whites is unreal...It is sad to see what are whites doing this. As they have a high level of hatred towards them selfs.

Yes, I openly admit that I wish my race to go on and love my peaceful, successful and hard working european culture to be around a thousand years from now, but it appears to me that you people don't.

 

[Lakhota]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

Amen! Apparently they get bored on Stormfront just telling each other how racist they are.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

Amen! Apparently they get bored on Stormfront just telling each other how racist they are.

At stormfront we're talking to the "chair"(people that believe in the same thing). At least here I can try to awaken whites to the reality of our coming extinction and what the future holds if that comes to past. Most of the world is a third world trash hole for a reason and so we must work to preserve our civilization. If not it will fade into history.

Yes, I post at stormfront under the user name: MattwhiteAmerica..Maybe I should go on youtube and have some fun???

 

[Lakhota]

It's interesting to see this many open racists on a board. I'm used to the words, but not the open admission of white pride/white supremacy.

Amen! Apparently they get bored on Stormfront just telling each other how racist they are.

At stormfront we're talking to the "chair"(people that believe in the same thing). At least here I can try to awaken whites to the reality of our coming extinction and what the future holds if that comes to past. Most of the world is a third world trash hole for a reason and so we must work to preserve our civilization. If not it will fade into history.

Yes, I post at stormfront under MattwhiteAmerica

Holy shit. Yeah, Native Americans once held those foolish notions...