Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919
And of the two states you cited, only one ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, but it was based on the ruling in the other state which NEVER ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, and its own judicial citings contradicted the idea that Obama could be a natural-born citizen.

I'm not talking about the Ankeny ruling in 2008. Indiana had a full trial in 2012, where Orly Taitz called her expert witnesses to testify about the alleged forgery of Obama's birth certificate. The court ruled that her experts hadn't shown any falsity and that Obama was a natural born citizen. Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey also had administrative hearings and held the same thing.

And second, you're contradicting yourself because you're acknowledging that there are eligibility laws that do not require legal standing because ANYONE and EVERYONE who can legally vote has a right to challenge a candidate's eligibility in any particular state, depending on the applicable laws.

I'm not contradicting myself. Standing rules are different in state court and federal court. If you sue in federal court trying to apply state standing rules, the courts will toss you out.

If someone is denied that right, then they would certainly have legal standing to sue their state over the denial of that right.

And they did, in Georgia, Indiana and other states. Those states ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.

39 posted on 01/19/2013 8:47:50 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
I'm not talking about the Ankeny ruling in 2008. Indiana had a full trial in 2012, where Orly Taitz called her expert witnesses to testify about the alleged forgery of Obama's birth certificate. The court ruled that her experts hadn't shown any falsity and that Obama was a natural born citizen.

Actuallly that's not true. The ruling only says that Orly failed to provide evidence that Obama's is not Constitutionally eligible, but the dismisal was actually based on a variety of procedural grounds. I've already shown where this judge misapplied Indiana rules of evidence.s not true. The ruling only says that Orly failed to provide evidence that Obama

62 posted on 01/20/2013 11:34:02 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson