Court: Obama Must Be ‘Constitutionally’ Eligible. Judge Denies President's Motion To Dismiss Georgia Ballot Challenge (conspiracy, Canada)
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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
"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.
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.
....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,
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!
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.