Obama not Constitutionally eligible to be President

[RetiredGySgt]

It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.

SHOW ME where they said that...

I'll wait here.

Or do YOU speak for the SCOTUS now?

Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.

 

[Gaar]

Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.

So they didn't say it...

You are just claiming they did.

I see you like speaking for the SCOTUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Look you dumb shit, they said it by refusing to hear the case. You had your day. The Courts functioned as required repeatedly. That you do not LIKE the out come is to fucking bad for you. I personally find the abortion decision to be much more important and much worse.

So they didn't say it...

You are just claiming they did.

I see you like speaking for the SCOTUS.

They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.

 

[Gaar]

They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.

Says the guy who can't even address a simple premise of the "Truth" as he believes it to be...

And has to admit that "his" idea of our Constitution means that a King of England can be Eligible to be President of the United States.

I am sure you are proud.

Just as I am sure our Founding Fathers are spinning in their Graves.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They sent a pretty clear message to any sane person. You ignorant retards may need a cover sheet though.

Says the guy who can't even address a simple premise of the "Truth" as he believes it to be...

And has to admit that "his" idea of our Constitution means that a King of England can be Eligible to be President of the United States.

I am sure you are proud.

Just as I am sure our Founding Fathers are spinning in their Graves.

Your Premise is wrong. First off the Son would have a Title of Prince, which as an American Citizen he could not accept with out Congressional Approval. If he chose to accept the Title of Prince and become in line for King Of England he would then be renouncing his status as a US Citizen and thus be unable to run for President.

One could argue all they want about it, but once the Boy was 18 and willingly accepted, as an adult, the Title of Prince, that act would negate his ability to run for President. He could though renounce the Title of Prince, and not take a place in that line and he would still be able to run for President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.

 

[Againsheila]

And so ONCE again the Supreme Court answers your claims with a response of " This is so lame, even we won't touch it" And of course you will go on about how the Courts have done nothing even though they have done everything properly in response to a nuisance claim. Even sending it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

So now you are going to speak for me?

I am in fact dissappointed that they will not Hear the Case.

What interests me is how Idiots, like you, can't answer a simple premise I asserted, but rather rail on as if you are some type of Authority on the matter.

I still believe he is ineligible, but I also accept the Courts decision.

I also hope that someone brings a Case that they will in fact Hear, so the Issue can be addressed directly, for the purpose in which it was intended.

I would simply like the SCOTUS to address the possibility of someone like William not only being eligible for the Presidency, but also would become King of England, had his Mother been a U.S. Citizen.

I notice no one has been able to address that, other than simply dismissing it out of hand.

I like how someone who has supposedly fought for my Right to have such things addressed, would simply like me to shut up and just not care about what I believe to be true about our Constitution.

One would think if someone is so sure of what the Constitution says on the matter, then they wouldn't mind a fair airing of the Issues at hand, in regard to such decisions?!?!?!?!?

Obviously such things are not what YOU fought for...

It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.

As I understand it, they refused to hear the case, that doesn't mean the 9 justices agreed that his case is valid, it means they refused to make ANY decision on the case.

 

[Care4all]

So now you are going to speak for me?

I am in fact dissappointed that they will not Hear the Case.

What interests me is how Idiots, like you, can't answer a simple premise I asserted, but rather rail on as if you are some type of Authority on the matter.

I still believe he is ineligible, but I also accept the Courts decision.

I also hope that someone brings a Case that they will in fact Hear, so the Issue can be addressed directly, for the purpose in which it was intended.

I would simply like the SCOTUS to address the possibility of someone like William not only being eligible for the Presidency, but also would become King of England, had his Mother been a U.S. Citizen.

I notice no one has been able to address that, other than simply dismissing it out of hand.

I like how someone who has supposedly fought for my Right to have such things addressed, would simply like me to shut up and just not care about what I believe to be true about our Constitution.

One would think if someone is so sure of what the Constitution says on the matter, then they wouldn't mind a fair airing of the Issues at hand, in regard to such decisions?!?!?!?!?

Obviously such things are not what YOU fought for...

It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.

As I understand it, they refused to hear the case, that doesn't mean the 9 justices agreed that his case is valid, it means they refused to make ANY decision on the case.

And what do you think the Justices did to come down with their decision to not hear it Sheila? Do you think they did nothing and not look at the evidence leading up to them getting the case and the validity of it?

I think, since they chose to review the case....which maybe 1 in a thousand cases they choose to review, they had to review the case and all that had lead up to them deciding to review the case in the first place, and when they got the case and all the minute details of the case, they decided that the previous courts handled it appropriately and were not going to give the case a hearing before them with attorneys present ecause it was a waste of their time.... if it was a waste of their time, they would have taken the case on....that's how it works with them....at least this is how i understand it sheila...

care

 

[jillian]

man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.

i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?

 

[Gaar]

Your Premise is wrong. First off the Son would have a Title of Prince, which as an American Citizen he could not accept with out Congressional Approval. If he chose to accept the Title of Prince and become in line for King Of England he would then be renouncing his status as a US Citizen and thus be unable to run for President.

Show me where the Law says any such thing...

And now you are trying to tell me we would renounce a person Citizenship if the person themself did not want to lose it?

Again, show me the Law.

 

[Againsheila]

It had a fair airing NUMB NUTS. The 9 Justices and the previous courts all agreed his VALID, LEGAL, BINDING, Birth Certificate took care of the case. No need for anything else.

As I understand it, they refused to hear the case, that doesn't mean the 9 justices agreed that his case is valid, it means they refused to make ANY decision on the case.

And what do you think the Justices did to come down with their decision to not hear it Sheila? Do you think they did nothing and not look at the evidence leading up to them getting the case and the validity of it?

I think, since they chose to review the case....which maybe 1 in a thousand cases they choose to review, they had to review the case and all that had lead up to them deciding to review the case in the first place, and when they got the case and all the minute details of the case, they decided that the previous courts handled it appropriately and were not going to give the case a hearing before them with attorneys present ecause it was a waste of their time.... if it was a waste of their time, they would have taken the case on....that's how it works with them....at least this is how i understand it sheila...

care

They could have refused to hear the case for any number of reasons, including the fact that if they ruled that he wasn't constitutionally eligible to be president, it would cause an uproar the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1860's.

Believe as you wish, refusing to hear the case is the cowards way out.

 

[Gaar]

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.

Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?

 

[Gaar]

man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.

i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?

What I know is that it doesn't take all 9 Justices to make the decision...

Obviously you and several others here don't understand that.

 

[Care4all]

man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.

i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?

What I know is that it doesn't take all 9 Justices to make the decision...

Obviously you and several others here don't understand that.

So the chief justice is the only one reviewing and making the decisions to take on cases?

 

[Gaar]

man, just thank her for her apparent knowledge that supercedes that of the justices of the united states and be done with it.

i mean, after all, what do the nine justices know?

What I know is that it doesn't take all 9 Justices to make the decision...

Obviously you and several others here don't understand that.

So the chief justice is the only one reviewing and making the decisions to take on cases?

No.

I believe by the Rules of the Court they have to have 4 say they would Hear the Case.

But I don't profess to know the Rules completely, and there could be Cases that are allowed with less, but I have seen it stated that at least 4 were required to say yes to bring it before the Court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.

Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?

It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.

 

[Gaar]

LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.

Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?

It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.

Well, unless the Congress says you can...

By the way:

Bill Gates to get knighted - Engadget

Bill Gates to get knighted
by Peter Rojas, posted Mar 1st 2005 at 4:12PM

Bill Gates is about to score something money can't buy (and no, it isn't your respect or a back rub from Linus Torvalds): an honorary knighthood. Queen Elizabeth is going to make him a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in recognition of his "outstanding contribution to enterprise." You won't have to call him "Sir William" or anything like that (unless that's your thing, that is)—only citizens of Britain and the British Commonwealth get that privilege.

 

[del]

LII: Constitution

Article 1 Section 9.

Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?

It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.

so grace kelly and prince charles won't be getting married?



tough break for chuck

 

[Gaar]

Looks like that says Congress can approve such a thing, right?

It says the U.S. will not grant such a thing, but that Congress could allow someone to do it, right?

It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.

so grace kelly and prince charles won't be getting married?

I guess an example to some is too hard to grasp if it has no basis in reality...

So let's try one a bit more simple, for the simple minded, shall we?

Let's say William fell in Love with say a Brittany Spears or a Jessica Simpson, got Married and had kids...

You able to draw your tiny little mind around that scenario del?

 

[DiveCon]

It is clear, with OUT Congressional Approval one can not hold a title in a foreign Country legally as a US Citizen. Accepting such violates your citizenship. So unless Congress AGREED that a US Citizen could be Prince it won't happen. Accepting such a title would then remove one from the ability to legally run for President.

One can not be both a Prince and a President in the US.

so grace kelly and prince charles won't be getting married?

I guess an example to some is too hard to grasp if it has no basis in reality...

So let's try one a bit more simple, for the simple minded, shall we?

Let's say William fell in Love with say a Brittany Spears or a Jessica Simpson, got Married and had kids...

You able to draw your tiny little mind around that scenario del?

i do believe that would be covered under the constitution
with the area for under jurisdiction