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.
Apparently not, since the motion to dismiss was denied.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
A court of law has not yet struck down this angle to the citizenship question.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I know it hurts your feelings to hear this, but that's the facts on the street at the current moment.
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.
I'm not deeply involved in this particular subject, so I don't know case history, etc.
And yet even admitting that you don't really know what you're talking about you can't help yourself from still making bogus pronouncements on the issue... such as that no court has ruled on this particular angle.
Surprise, surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
But if the Georgia court rejected the motion to dismiss, I trust that it has the legal basis to move forward with the suit.
That's not what it means. It means that there is not a legal basis to throw it out... not that there is a legal basis to proceed. Two different issues.
That will be decided by the next probably defense motion... a movement for summary judgement.
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.
For god's sake man, read the decision. They spent about 5 pages citing "SCOTUS ruling definition" before they reached that conclusion.
The only mistake here is your imagining you could get away with such idiotic assertions without being caught.
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.
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.
Sure... progressives invented it... 500 years ago!!
as we've repeatedly been over, minor v. happersett does not give an exclusive definition of NBC and states just that.
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
You need to read more carefully. That statement discusses who qualifies as citizens, not natural born citizens.
Your own post contradicts the point you're trying to make.
Authors' 'opinions' do not supersede the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC:
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.
For god's sake man, read the decision. They spent about 5 pages citing "SCOTUS ruling definition" before they reached that conclusion.
Post specifically what they cited.
The onlySCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC is this:
Quote:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
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.
