Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-15-2013, 05:45 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13707

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
No it's not.
Again, for those who have a reading comprehension problem:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"

namely: explicitly; specifically
Namely | Define Namely at Dictionary.com

Question asked and answered.

 
Old 04-15-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,075,809 times
Reputation: 3954


22 Article III courts have decreed Barack Obama a natural born US citizen, fully eligible for the US Presidency.

No courts have declared him ineligible.

The issue has been settled exactly as the Constitution demands.
 
Old 04-15-2013, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,075,809 times
Reputation: 3954


I. Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen”

Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g., Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (overruling objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 104) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”); Jordan v. Secretary of State Sam Reed, No. 12-2-01763-5, 2012 WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s complaint seeking to prevent state from including Obama on 2012 ballot, noting that many similar birther claims had been filed and, in some cases, such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009), courts addressed the merits of the birther claims; concluding: “just as all the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another, so too has all the law rejecting plaintiff's allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was brought, except to join the chorus of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismissed.”); Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit purportedly removed by plaintiffs from state court case to federal court); Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv-01888-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit stating election fraud, RICO, and various other claims seeking to prevent Obama from being on 2012 general election ballot (among other things); Martin v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 111 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision in Freeman and Jackson primary challenges (12 SOEB GP 103 and 12 SOEB GP 104), which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV (Vt. Superior Ct., Sept. 21, 2012) (denying motion for temporary restraining order to prevent placement of Obama on the 2012 general election ballot and holding that “[t]he common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”), citing Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Purpura v Obama, No. STE 04588-12, 2012 WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012) aff’d, No. A-004478-11-T03, 2012 WL 1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, No. 071052 (N.J. Sept. 7, 2012); Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections et al, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 2012 WL 1205117, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff); Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), aff’d, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun 5, 2012) (per curiam); Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 2524874 (Fla. 2nd Cir., Jun. 29, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot; finding that persons born in US are NBCs per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting birther argument to the contrary); Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 002063 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Sept. 6, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking declaration that Obama is not eligible for presidency because he was not born in US and was not born to two US citizen parents; finding that persons born in US are “natural born citizens” per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting birther argument to the contrary; reserving for later ruling motion for sanctions); Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).

Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-15-2013 at 06:15 PM..
 
Old 04-15-2013, 06:03 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,507 times
Reputation: 390
[quote=HistorianDude;29139053]

I. Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen”

quote]

Too bad there were no trials in any of these cases.
 
Old 04-15-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,075,809 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
Too bad there were no trials in any of these cases.
You're wrong. As usual.
 
Old 04-15-2013, 06:14 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,507 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You're wrong. As usual.

The Moon of Allah Bama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9pHuVX-ZxE
 
Old 04-15-2013, 07:26 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,507 times
Reputation: 390
Default The 22 rulings shown by HistorianDude are pink slime.

"Did he find something else? Do the records confess something previously omitted? It doesn’t sound like he has had negative findings. Perhaps BPI anticipated a backlash and filed in 2010 to hold it off. So much for any kind of transparency. For whatever reason, BPI doesn’t want it out there and the judge agrees it would harm the already failing company. BPI had to close down 3 out of its 4 branches."

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/04/1...otect-company/
 
Old 04-15-2013, 07:51 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
Too bad there were no trials in any of these cases.
That's EXACTLY the problem There are NO applicable cases cited in any of the decisions that would prove Obama to be eligible for POTUS.
 
Old 04-15-2013, 07:55 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,507 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's EXACTLY the problem There are NO applicable cases cited in any of the decisions that would prove Obama to be eligible for POTUS.
The judges pre-judged the cases.

This is commonly known as prejudice.

HistorianDude seems to be a bigot sycophant.
 
Old 04-15-2013, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,075,809 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's EXACTLY the problem There are NO applicable cases cited in any of the decisions that would prove Obama to be eligible for POTUS.
22 different Article III courts have declared it proved that Obama is eligible for the Presidency. None of them have had any trouble finding, citing and applying cases to that end.

Your exact arguments were set before the court.

The courts (representing more than 7 centuries of legal experience) said they were alternatively false, frivolous, absurd and/or nonsensical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top