Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
They won’t have to riot at the Supreme Court. It will be piped into their homes via the television.
Just like the rioters who watched the video of the Rodney King video. The rioters were not eyewitness at the scene of King’s beating, were they?
People who are looking to thump others over the head will commence thumping for any perceived injustice. It could happen when the Supreme Court rules against the Obamamessiah as well.
How can he NOT claim to be a Bastard child. Easy I can answer that one in one word.
EGO.
There is NO WAY Obama the Arrogant is going to change his narrative now. He will try to say people are discriminating against him because he was raised by a single mom, but that dog don’t hunt.
There is far too much invested by Obama and team Obama into his narrative. Black African Dad! Kenyan Son! He went to some length to establish himself as the son of Barack Obama Sr. and you really think he is going to burn that whole thing successfully??
NO WAY. There is no way to do that and reconcile it with everything he has said for years!
I am betting against it.
I’m not saying fear should dictate what we do.
I’m sure the safety and security of the judge in this case has crossed your mind.
We live in a dangerous world where people will take advantage of opportunities to victimize others.
I think if Obama loses at the Supreme Court level, it will be one of the greatest days in our nation. Others will see it as one of the worst, react and harm others.
“there were no photos of the wedding”
...or of the 0bamas’ceremony
...or of aproudfather 0bama, holding/playing with his baby girls.....
Those who thump last thump loudest...
Sure I will.
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”
Ex Parte Lockwood citing Minor v Happersett as precedent
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116
Same here.
So what you believe, then, is that Obama’s people are going to say SAD was single - even though she had the HI documents proving she married BHO - because he had hidden the fact that he was already married to Kezia. They would thus try to get rid of the NBC angle by saying BHO has no LEGAL claim on BHO II’s citizenship because Britain didn’t give citizenship to bastards.
But that still doesn’t get rid of the birth-place problem, and the birth-place problem is why Obama can’t show any authentic documentation of his Hawaii birth.
I’m glad that these challenges address both issues.
Whether or not it applies directly to Obama, we do need a clear, unrefutable ruling on the definition of NBC.
And I don’t think anybody doubts that we need to get to the bottom of what records Obama does or doesn’t have, and the laws that have or haven’t been violated to cover up the facts about Obama’s documentation and past.
In short, Obama’s eligibility needs to finally be legally determined - in both matters of law and matters of fact.
(Readers beware: There are posters here on FR from TheFogbow.com that are trying to muddy the waters on purpose.)
Well, they are running out of time. Perhaps they should be focusing on arguing directly with Judge Mahili.
What exactly are you trying to show by that.
I asked you to show me where the court in Minor states that her parents were American Citizens.
Give me the EXACT sentence.
Oh, by the way did you not see the news there were record gun sales in 2011?
Now why do you think that was?
The safety and security of my own family has crossed my mind. Most specifically when the wiring in my husband’s van started sparking right next to the engine after looking an awful lot like the sheathing had been cut - the day after I was in contact with Lakin’s counsel and shortly before my computer went totally dead with a massive trojan.
I have definitely considered the consequences. I know what is at stake. The question is whether I want to die in a lawless, terrorist scenario like “The Dark Knight” or whether I want to blow up in a car explosion or rioting. I would rather die fighting for what was right than have my children live in slavery to lawlessness. Death is a one-way ticket Home, for me and for my children. I’m not afraid of death. There are things that are far, far worse than death.
Agreed.
btw, I noticed that Leo relies heavily on what the court would have said if they meant such and such.
That is just ludicrous. That is his opinion. Courts often don’t say what you think they should say when they mean something - even the Supreme Court.
With the following sentence in MvH, the Court indicated that it had to consider Minor's citizenship.
It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.The Court immediately goes on to say that the basis of the plaintiff's argument is predicated upon her being a citizen.
The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.In order to address the question of whether or not Minor had the right to vote, the Court had to first address the plaintiff's assertion that Minor was a citizen because that was the plaintiff's sole basis for bringing the case. The Court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that Minor was a citizen. The Court disagreed that her citizenship inherently granted her the right to vote.
Obiter dictum, as you know, is latin for "said in passing." The Court did not comment on Minor's citizenship in passing. Their determination that she was a citizen before the adoption of the 14th amendment was a basis for their holding that no citizen, male or female, had an inherent right to vote granted by the Constitution.
They weren’t rioting over OJ Simpson. They were rioting over the dismissal of LA police of criminal liability by a majority white jury in Simi Valley (not LA) who were caught on tape beating a “defenseless” Rodney King who was speeding to evade being pulled over by police. This was during the robert gates tenure as LA POlice Chief in which there was significant friction between police and the minority populace due to higher incidents of police brutality.
Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck by latino gang members in south central LA. After that most of the rioting involved was burning and looting of shops (predominantly owned by Koreans) in that area.
People believe they need to protect themselves because they know that the police won’t get there in time. I stated above that we have to be aware of the irrational people who will target others. But, aren’t we fortunate to know that our neighbors believe in self-protection, too?
Yes. I meant Rodney King. I wrote that wrong. I do remember King, Gates and what happened.
I’m sorry. I wish I could edit what I said.
I’ve got tornado warnings on my mind right now, so I’m a little distracted. My apologies.
People believe they need to protect themselves because they know that the police won’t get there in time.
Isn’t this true in any normal circumstance. When someone illegally and forcefully enters your home to burglerize it you think the police are going to arrive “just in the nick of time”?
Back to you.
That's exactly where you are wrong. Here is the question as written by the Court in Minor.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. (...) The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.The plaintiff's whole argument is that Minor as a citizen of the U.S. had the right to vote. The Court agreed that she was a citizen but disagreed that such citizenship gave her the right to vote.
You are simply wrong on the face of your argument that her citizenship was not a question presented to the Court. The Court tells us in black and white that it was part of the question being decided because it was the basis of the plaintiff's argument.
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.