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.
Its funny how the liberals here think white American culture does not exists and america is not a white Anglo saxon country but then when it suits them they spit out 11th century commion law as if it is gospel.
And its funny how conservatives here think that the US is a "white Anglo saxon country" but then reach for the straw of a Franco-Swiss treatise on Continental European law instead of the "white Anglo saxon" common law with which it was founded.
The motion to dismiss was simply that... a motion to dismiss. It was a preliminary motion with no pretense of arguing the president's eligibility, so it hardly supports your bogus assertion that eligibility is not a settled issue.
You really need to pay more attention to what actually happens in court.
You are mistaken. The very first Birther suit to reach the Supreme Court, Donfrio v. Wells, stuck down this very angle. So did Ankeny v. Daniels at the state level.
You need to catch up.
LOL... the only thing "on the street at the current moment" is the frantic Birther attempt to keep Obama off the ballot. As with the civil court cases, Birthers have failed all such ballot challenges that have been decided to this point.
They will fail the rest... to include this one in Georgia.
The bottom line is that the "eligibility issue" is NOT a settled issue until you or anyone can factually proclaim that the Supreme Court will NEVER address this issue again.
Can you make that proclamation?
Didn't think so. So why do you think that you're all-knowing on the subject? All you've done in this thread is speak of past actions. Since when is past actions the foreteller of future cases?
You think you know the answer. You think you're the smart guy. You clearly are just speculating like everyone else on this thread. The only problem is you have a problem admitting that the absolutes that you speak in are not rooted in anything remotely binding. So why do you even attempt?
I already posted the link for you to go and read yourself. They even cited Minor v. Happersett... the exact passage you Birthers consistently orgasm over... and then directly contradicted your idiotic spin regarding it.
They wrote, "Thus, the Court (in Minor v. Happersett) left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen."
It really, really, really sucks to be a Birther.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The onlySCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC is this: Minor v. Happersett
Ignoring that this is not actually true, no subsequent court has ever interpreted Minor v. Happersett the bizarre way you are trying desperately to spin it.
The bottom line is that the "eligibility issue" is NOT a settled issue until you can factually proclaim that the Supreme Court will NEVER address this issue again.
Can you make that proclamation?
Didn't think so. So why do you think that you're all-knowing on the subject? Do tell.
Thanks.
The bottom line is that there isn't any "eligibility issue".
People can bring to court any lawsuit they please. Birthers can bring up "eligibility" lawsuits to their heart's content. Just because birthers can bring these lawsuits doesn't mean that there is actually an "eligibility issue." There isn't. There are only two kinds of citizenship in the United States, and all the wet dreams of birthers won't change that. Either you are born a citizen, or you become a citizen. Obama was born a citizen. Naturally born a citizen. Period. Hence, no "eligibility issue."
And I can make that proclamation because I'm sane, reasonable and literate.
And of course... that would be Wong Kim Ark, since Minor v. Happersett was not even a citizenship case, and could therefore set no precedent on citizenship law.
1. Wong Kim Ark was not ruled a natural born citizen.
2. Even if WKA were relevant (it's not, as WKA was not ruled a natural born citizen), Obama's father does not meet the domicile requirement on which SCOTUS's ruling of Wong Kim Ark as citizen was based. Obama Sr was a transient foreign student who did not remain in the U.S.
3. Minor's case proceeded on the fact that she was indeed a U.S. citizen, and in determining that to be true, SCOTUS defined Constitutional NBC.
The bottom line is that there isn't any "eligibility issue".
People can bring to court any lawsuit they please. Birthers can bring up "eligibility" lawsuits to their heart's content. Just because birthers can bring these lawsuits doesn't mean that there is actually an "eligibility issue." There isn't. There are only two kinds of citizenship in the United States, and all the wet dreams of birthers won't change that. Either you are born a citizen, or you become a citizen. Obama was born a citizen. Naturally born a citizen. Period. Hence, no "eligibility issue."
And I can make that proclamation because I'm sane, reasonable and literate.
Not sure why you bothered to post this. Pure speculation on your part. Just like everyone else on this thread. Neither you, myself, or anyone else can foretell what issues will make it to the Supreme Court, including citizenship and eligibility issues. And yet here you are speaking in absolutes.
1. Wong Kim Ark was not ruled a natural born citizen.
2. Even if WKA were relevant (it's not, as WKA was not ruled a natural born citizen), Obama's father does not meet the domicile requirement on which SCOTUS's ruling of Wong Kim Ark as citizen was based. Obama Sr was a transient foreign student who did not remain in the U.S.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by birth. That's a natural-born citizen. There aren't three kinds of citizens in the United States. There are only two. Those who are born citizens, and those who become citizens. And your so-called "domicile requirement"---pure hogwash!
No court since has agreed with that interpretation. Not a single one.
Which court decisions have cited Minor v. Happersett?
(Hint: WKA did - and notice how they did NOT rule WKA a natural born citizen. Hmmm...)
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.
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.
