US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/21/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[philman_36]

More like you will quietly slip away...
Now, now, stop projecting. Slipping away seems to be more your forte, not mine.

#56

[edge919]

You seem to think Leo is covering old information that you, personally, have been discussing for a long time. Thus your comment that you don’t understand why “he’s patting himself on the back.”

Let me give you a clue what the point of his article is: “precedent.”

I appreciate how quickly you volunteer to fall on the sword. It's kind of cute, although equally pitiful. Here's a comment I posted in April of this year. Notice the point of my post was "precedent."

Congress certainly has the power of naturalization and it certainly writes definitions, but the the Supreme Court has the final judicial power in the United States. It gave a judgment on natural born citizenship for Virigia Minor. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that judgment and followed the precedent that was set. Obama is NOT an NBC by the Supreme Court's decision. link to comment

[philman_36]

More like you will quietly slip away after realizing what sort of person this guy you were defending really is.
I find it highly amusing that you believe that simply showing what a person actually said is "defending" them.

BTW, which is it that you and harmonium have been sharing...tactics, minds or screen names?

Can you expain why you’re defending Truther statements and Truther associations on FreeRepublic?

[philman_36]

Maybe you should read this before you get in too deep.
Maybe it'll save me some trouble. But, hey, if you want to go there I'm game!

[Kleon]

Even the distortions? How noble.

I didn't distort anything. This guy is a supporter of gay marriage. He is a 9/11 truther. And he thought Bush and his administration were guilty of treason.

[Kleon]

BTW, which is it that you and harmonium have been sharing...tactics, minds or screen names?

This is the first time I've heard of this Harmonium.

[philman_36]

This guy is a supporter of gay marriage. He is a 9/11 truther. And he thought Bush and his administration were guilty of treason.
Well if that's what you believe then you just go on believing that.

While I've got your full attention, what do you make of what he's written in the article about Minor v. Happersett being a precedent setting case?
It seems to me that you're just trying to distract from the article and engage cevolve the thread to gutter brawling, which I do enjoy, so I figured I'd try and get your opinion on what he has to say now instead of later.

[philman_36]

too many thoughts at one time and it's been a long day.
...engage cdevolve the thread...

[philman_36]

Oh, that's right! Never mind about your opinion on the article. You gave your "lawyerly" summation along with your first slam right from the start.
Jeez, this guy stoops to Clintonesque levels of obfuscation.
How could I have missed such a transparent reply regarding your opinion of the article.

[Pilsner]

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.

A couple of rules to follow, when citing legal precedents.

1. Don't try to make a case say something that it clearly does not.

2. If you are dishonest enough to violate Rule # 1, don't be so dull witted as to include in your excerpt a line, For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts, that explicitly contradicts the point you are trying to make.

So, Minor holds that a person born in a country, to two parents who are citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen. Was that ever, I mean ever, in doubt? Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen, and concedes that there is a division of authority on that point, but holds For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

So, far from resolving thus issue, Minor merely states that it is an issue. Something we all already knew.

[roaddog727]

Excellent!

Now to get someone to pay attention to this......

[philman_36]

A couple of rules to follow, when citing legal precedents.
Is that something you learned in law school?

[danamco]

"Paging Jerome Corsi"

Already done on his facebook!!!

Maybe ms. rogers (AKW) needs an earful, hmmm???

[danamco]

Jeez, this guy stoops to Clintonesque levels of obfuscation.

As usual, Klown, you are a master in portraying yourself soooooo clearly. What a gift you have, FINO!!!

[philman_36]

Oh...you're a prosecutor!
I'll dismiss the charges.

Pardon me.

[editor-surveyor]

This is nothing new.

We’ve been discussing this case for two and a half years, and the honest among us have always agreed that MvH firmly established natural born citizenship as that of the child of two citizen parents.

There is not a shred of foundation for any other position.

[Kleon]

He's asserting that a law which grants citizenship is, in and of itself, an act of naturalizing a group of citizens. (i.e. A natural-born citizen does not require a law to clarify his status.)

In which case, even the precedent he claims comes from the Minor case would be an act of naturalization. He also says this precedent could be reversed by "a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines 'natural-born Citizen' more inclusively than Minor did," but that too would be an act of naturalization if we accept the above argument.

[Squeeky]

IANAL (which means I am not a lawyer) but I don’t think this law case says what the Vattle Birthers think it does. Because:

1: It sure doesn’t say that NBCs(which means Natural Born Citizens) are ONLY the people born to two citizens;

2: It says that at COMMON LAW, some courts hold that even children of foreigners born inside a country are natural born citizens;

3: It says that question, however, is not even applicable to this case so there is no need to even talk about kids born to two foreigners.

Sooo, how does a case that says all that get to be a precedent case on Obama??? I don’t even see where this court says it is definitely still a issue.

Which looks to me like the Arkansas case is right that was in the Internet Article that NBC (which means Natural Born Citizen) had to be defined by a court.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Who cares what you said in April?

Right now, we're talking about the points you made in your original comment on this thread that said nothing about "legal precedent," which was the essential point of Leo's article.

I’ve been citing the Minor decision and its definition of NBC for months, as well as the affirmation of that decision in Wong Kim Ark that the Minor decision recognized citizenship on the combined basis of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.

[philman_36]

BWAHAHAHAHA
Which looks to me like the Arkansas case...
It's called Ankeny and it happened in Indiana!
Don't worry, even Donofrio got it wrong.
...the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals...
Twice...The Arkeny Court has it backwards.

Not laughing at you, just at something very funny.