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 01-04-2012, 09:07 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13624

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Correct. State decisions instead follow SCOTUS precedent. And the Ankeny court tells us exactly which SCOTUS precedent they are following.
They are incorrect in their interpretation. Such is not an isolated event. State court decisions do get overturned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:09 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The issue has been "settled once and for all" at least a half dozen times over the last three plus years. Birthers are simply impervious to that fact.
Apparently not, since the motion to dismiss was denied. A court of law has not yet struck down this angle to the citizenship question. I know it hurts your feelings to hear this, but that's the facts on the street at the current moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:43 AM
 
26,553 posts, read 14,396,403 times
Reputation: 7410
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
A court of law has not yet struck down this angle to the citizenship question.
actually ankeny v. daniels did just that.

"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."

STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs, vs. GOVERNOR OF
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:51 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
actually ankeny v. daniels did just that.

"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."

STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs, vs. GOVERNOR OF
I'm not deeply involved in this particular subject, so I don't know case history, etc. But if the Georgia court rejected the motion to dismiss, I trust that it has the legal basis to move forward with the suit. As such, i'm not one to give much credence to those on an internet forum who use legal absolutes to say something "is" or "isn't." The court will make that determination, and as it stands now, the court does not agree with you. We'll see what happens.

(Nothing personal by the way)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:52 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13624
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
actually ankeny v. daniels did just that.

"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."
*we conclude*

That's where they made their mistake. They didn't cite an actual SCOTUS ruling definition of Constitutional natural born citizen. They came to an incorrect conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:55 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,429,306 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
*we conclude*

That's where they made their mistake. They didn't cite an actual SCOTUS ruling definition of Constitutional natural born citizen. They came to an incorrect conclusion.
This is exactly why Progressives invented case law. All it takes is a single activist judge to rule a certain way, now ALL similar cases are ruled that way. It's BS. Let's see what happens here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:16 AM
 
46,892 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
2. Chester Arthurs was found to be ineligible recently. He was a usurper.
This is what birfers actually believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:20 AM
 
46,892 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
This is exactly why Progressives invented case law.
The heck? Common Law goes back to at least the 11th century. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:26 AM
 
26,553 posts, read 14,396,403 times
Reputation: 7410
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
....and as it stands now, the court does not agree with you.
the court has neither agreed nor disagreed with me. all they've done is reject a motion to dismiss and let the lawsuit proceed. it offers no validity to the "2 parent" theory one way or the other.

Quote:
(Nothing personal by the way)
right back at you. nothing i'd enjoy more than a calm rational look at the facts without personal attacks,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:26 AM
 
8,289 posts, read 13,538,788 times
Reputation: 5018
If I were President Obama I basically would tell the state of Georgia to go take a flying F * U* C *k off a short cliff since that state isn't going to vote for him anyways!
How many times does this President need to produce his "birth certificate"? Racism still alive in 2012!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:57 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