Posted on 03/18/2011 8:38:52 PM PDT by patlin
What other meaning can be given to the words you use to describe the birth place issue: non-useful noise, misdirection, meaningless, not relevant?
Yet when confronted, you respond I believe this is a 100% valid issue.
Competent readers will not let you have it both ways. One can easily imagine you will continue to argue on subsequent threads that the BC issue is a “waste of time”. The name of that form of argument escapes me at the moment.
I’m reluctant to call you out given your detailed research on many issues, and the general tone of your arguments. At the least, one can question whether those efforts are to examine timely issues that will lead to productive ends.
…it is possible Obama has issues with all 4 elements… of NBC.
It is not just possible, it is probable; and an objective inquiry will not flatly dismiss any one of them, as you do. Each of the issues should be examined and prioritized with emphasis on those issues and methods that lend themselves to timely and effective results.
Your ranking of the 4 elements is inconsistent with dicta from American cases as well as the statements of early Americans. In those writings, the term “born in the U.S.” appears before the term “to parents who are citizens” in a substantial majority of instances. Recommend you reconsider your view that jus sanguinis is inherently stronger than jus soli. I submit both are indispensable, but that one is a logical precondition to the other.
jus sanguinis is terrifying the ‘cloakers’.
What is your basis for this statement? There is absolutely nothing in the record that supports this view. Evidence of three of your four elements has been in the public domain from the beginning. Congress is well populated with former judges and attorneys who have the means to quickly refresh their studies of Art II.
Has any member at any time since the pre-election public outcry, voiced any concern?
It is untrue, as you suggest, that his birth records are not available in response to a Congressional subpoena, due to one or more adoptions. His life in that regard is a well-detailed, open book and there is no confidentiality to protect. In any event, there is no privilege associated with not qualifying for the office as required by the Constitution.
Imagine, “I do not have to qualify for the office because those records are confidential”.
With any of the issues, resolution requires action by Congress, or by Republicans who control each branch of government. It is clear Congress will not now take any action that will embarrass itself. It almost certainly will not reverse its position until it asks for and receives “new” information.
If Congress is moved to take action, it will choose an action that offers a quick resolution as opposed to an action that exposes it to a bitterly contested, protracted legal and political mess which is shrilly over amplified by the MSM.
Currently, Republicans control the House, now is the time to demand they take action via subpoena together with its request that the USSC render its view of the citizen parent feature.
If we have to wait until they control all three branches, we may have to wait a very long time, and even then it will be after the fact.
Have a nice weekend.
frog in a pot is correct. Even records from a sealed adoption can be ordered opened by any court. A subpoena would be challenged, of course, but in this instance I believe it should not be quashed, given the importance of the truth, unless the courts are complicit and so far . . .
Liar, liar, pants on fire, that has never been challenged because of the dreaded RACE CARD, ms. Fifth Column, and just ask Judge Clarence Thomas. You do know what it means to have Knee Pads on, don't you???
The issue has been obscured by the irrelevant birth certificate, including your misleading postings!!!
Very simple, because you have people here like ms. rogers and a few other FINOs posting above together with their other 62% of like-minded U.S. citizens(?) of cool aid drinking uninformed fools!!!
“You do know what it means to have Knee Pads on, don’t you???”
You do know what it means to be stark raving mad with paranoid delusions, don’t you?
Yes, danamco, THEY are all out to get you...Palin, Chief Justice Roberts, Limbaugh - they are ALL turncoats, and only YOU are a TRUE American. You can go back to your ward, now...
Noel Coward’s quote:
Blithe Spirit (1941)
Charles: Anything interesting in The Times?
Ruth: Don’t be silly, Charles.
Noel Coward’s quote:
Blithe Spirit (1941)
Charles: Anything interesting in The Times?
Ruth: Don’t be silly, Charles.
Oh, come on, ms rogers, this should be an easy question, even for you, right???
The Madison quote you posted said nothing about a “Natural born citizen.”
Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
You are correct that the Indiana Supreme Court is full of treasonous bastards who may have to answer for their crimes some day; but that is irrelevant.
The Madison quote you posted said nothing about a “Natural born citizen.”
Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
You are correct that the Indiana Supreme Court is full of treasonous bastards who may have to answer for their crimes some day; but that is irrelevant.
Please stop posting lies on FreeRepublic.com.
Here is Indiana Supreme Court’s treasonous order in that case:
THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A
PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A
DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED
PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT
WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW,
ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER
OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING
MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE’S VIEWS ON
THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES.
BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT’S
PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION.
RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10
Here is Indiana Supreme Court’s treasonous order in that case:
THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A
PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A
DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED
PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT
WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW,
ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER
OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING
MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE’S VIEWS ON
THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES.
BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT’S
PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION.
RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10
There should be a trial first, whackjob.
There should be a trial first, whackjob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.