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.
IC, once again nitpicking so he can avoid answering the main question:
I'll ask you a fifth time: if this is such an obvious issue, why is a virtual consensus of law professors and legal scholars completely silent about what would be the great constitutional crisis of our times? Are they all remaining silent because they don't know what natural born citizen means, or are they all remaining silent because they're conspiring to hide the truth?
No, they remain silent for fear that they will be labeled racist epectitus by Obama's establishment supporters, the liberal MSM and democratic voters. That is what your Fogbow friends are doing right now, starting to label Judge Malihi racist. Now why is that? First they said he did the right thing. Now the attitude is now he is a attention seeker and racist.
Well, DraggingCanoe, how do you explain that IKE was the President wbo signed Hawaii into Statehood in August 1959 but the actual vote took place March 12, 1959? Congress was a tad slow as Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898
A baby only needs one America parent to be a US citizen. Your President's mother was a US citizen and present at the time of his birth in Hawaii in 1961. His father was born on Mars; so what? His son was born in the 50th state of the union and therefore did not automatically hold dual-citizenship.
i suppose you know that not all adhere to the belief that birthright is from the father? .
No, they remain silent for fear that they will be labeled racist epectitus by Obama's establishment supporters, the liberal MSM and democratic voters. That is what your Fogbow friends are doing right now, starting to label Judge Malihi racist. Now why is that? First they said he did the right thing. Now the attitude is now he is a attention seeker and racist.
Every single law school dean and current constitutional law professor is so fearful of being labeled a racist that they wouldn't openly talk about the definition of natural born citizen?
Eugene Volokh, one of the most respected conservative legal scholars in the country: do you think he agrees with your definition of natural born citizen, but is remaining quiet to avoid being labeled a racist?
Akhil Amar, one of the most respected legal scholars in the country, period: do you think he agrees with your definition of natural born citizen, but is remaining quiet to avoid being labeled a racist?
John Yoo, one of the leading conservative scholars in the country, and no stranger to controversy himself: do you think he agrees with your definition of natural born citizen, but is remaining quiet to avoid being labeled a racist?
Basically I want you to try and defend your conspiracy theory with reason and rationality rather than throwing out pointless, glib one-liners.
altho it might be nice if she spent some of that time doing a more competent study of the law.
From what I've read, it doesn't take a law degree to understand the wording...
Quote:
Nearly one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, in the 1875unanimousSupreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happerset, the Supreme Court explicitly held a “natural born Citizen” to be a Citizen whose parents were bothU.S. Citizens at the time of the person’s birth.
Note the bold print. Both parents are required to be US citizens.
Quote:
By Barak Obama’s own admission, his father was a native of Kenya and was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II would, under long-standing custom, common law, and Supreme Court precedent, automatically be INELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States.
Obama freely admits that his father was NEVER a US citizen. So, by the 1875 Supreme Court Ruling, he has never been qualified to be President. Is it any wonder that all the "Birthers" wouldn't go away? Someone did their homework. In light of the fact that his father was never a US citizen, and both parents are required to be, at the time of birth, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the court may very well rule that he is not qualified to be on Georgia's ballot because of a US Supreme Court Ruling, which will have a domino effect all across the country. If a bogus President signs bills into law, are they law? Or will Joe Biden have to go behind and sign them all over again? For that matter, if Obama is disqualified, does the last election go to McCain by default? Because of the disqualification? In any two-sided contest, if the winning "team" is disqualified, the opposing "team" wins by default. That would mean McCain/Palin become the "incumbents".
We're going through a chapter of our history that, as far as I know, we've never faced before, so I have no idea what the outcome will be. This, most certainly, is a development I did not expect. It has nothing to do with the fact that I believe the man is incompetent. But, it will be a chapter in our history I would rather not see.
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.
