Posted on 12/22/2011 12:05:49 PM PST by GregNH
I think the ballot challenges have a better chance of success and even there it will only take one state question his eligibility and it’s all over.
As recently reported Hillary’s campaign is getting back together. She is not going to challenge BHOZERO she is going to fill the void on the democratic side when BHOZERO has to drop out.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76326540/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9th-CIRCUIT-AFFIRMED-FILED-OPINION
I looked at your footnote. It says the 14th amendment conferred citizenship. So does naturalization.
Neither type of citizenship is natural citizenship, but is instead citizenship by statute. Note also, the 14th amendment didn't apply to Indians. (a big hole in your argument.)
I’ve wondered why Ron Paul has taken up ts issue.
ts = this
before this is said and done...they will have reversed even the Magna Carta!!!
Seriously...if no taxpayer has standing to question ANYTHING in the judicial, legislative or executive branches....then why bother....paying TAXES!!!
I would join a no tax revolt in a heart beat. Problem is organizing enough people to make it work. But if it were to work, an election year is the time to launch it.
liberalh8ter wrote: “I’ve wondered why Ron Paul has taken up this issue.”
I think you’ve been misinformed. Ron Paul has nothing to do with this nonsense.
I beg to differ; it’s right up his alley.
Larry Elder read the decision at the bottom of his last hour today. His only comment was “Waste of time, this is not going anywhere”, or words to that effect.
If that is the case, Obama will be in his second term or out before the inevitable further, legal suppression could be breached.
Of course, Kreep and Taitz’s appeal to SCOTUS will come first...
I am hoping that Arpaio’s posse will find grounds for a case of criminal fraud long before all of that could happen (if ever).
liberalh8ter wrote: “I beg to differ; it’s right up his alley.”
Your opinion of what is up Ron Paul’s alley is not the issue. You, liberalh8ter, posted: “I’ve wondered why Ron Paul has taken up this issue.” You smear Ron Paul. Your wondering clearly implied that Dr. Paul Sr. took up the issue, and your implication is false.
Contrary to what some birther pretend, Ron Paul has had nothing to do with the their nonsense. Likewise, contrary to what some 9/11 inside-jobbers pretend, Rob Paul had nothing to do with that crank nonsense either.
Did I misread your post, liberalh8ter? You wrote, “I’ve wondered why Ron Paul has taken up ts issue.” Before anyone challenged you on the abbreviation, you explained: “ts = this”. I quoted you with that adjustment, as saying:
“I’ve wondered why Ron Paul has taken up this issue.”
Ron Paul has *not* taken up this issue — the birther issue — and if your false implication that he had was just a mistake you made, now is the time to say so. Both liberals and conservatives respect Dr. Paul for his principled stances, and both are frustrated by his tenacity. The man holds some unpopular positions, but that’s no excuse for falsely putting him on such utter crank nonsense.
In addition to my “this” misspelling, I omitted , “not”. I did not catch it until now. I apologize for my mistake. Feel better now?
Wow, what they say about the Paul supporters is really true.
The district court ignored the fact that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The court’s footnote lacks substance since there’s been no legal proof in court that the 14th amendment applies to Obama.
edge919 wrote: “The district court ignored the fact that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically [...]”
You lost me. What district court?
"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six categories: (1) active military personnel; (2) former military personnel; (3) state representatives; (4) federal taxpayers; (5) relatives of President Obama; and (6) political candidates in the 2008 election. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the first five categories lacked standing, because they failed to show an injury-in-fact or showed only a generalized grievance insufficient to establish standing."
I thought the circuit court's citation on Wong Kim Ark was continued from the District Court. If not, then we can easily change this to say that the Circuit Court ignored that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically noted that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Their footnote doesn't mean much since there's no evidence that Obama was affected by the 14th amendment.
I was going by the paragraph above the footnote you mentioned:Ah, no; the footnotes associate by number. The footnote marked with '2' adds a note to the inline text likewise marked with '2' in superscript 2. In this case it is not, as you went by and quoted, the paragraph immediately above the footnote; it happens to be two paragraphs above. See page six of the Circuit Court's opinion"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six [...]
edge919 wrote:
I thought the circuit court's citation on Wong Kim Ark was continued from the District Court."I can only fathom your thinking to the extent it appears in your writing. What you wrote was: "The district court ignored the fact that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, [...]"
Now it appears that you meant the Circuit Court, not the District Court, a simple mistake, yet you write that you thought the citation was, uh, "continued from the District Court." What does that mean? Was your thinking influenced by actually reading the opinions of the District and Circuit courts? If so, can you quote what in the District Court's writing you thought the Circuit Court "continued" by citing WKA?
Do you grasp, edge919, why one might be reluctant to accept your proclamations on law? Do you think you advance your cause by posting gibbering nonsense?
[2]Just an example, not a real footnote.
Are you really this stupid??? The footnote is the comment at the bottom of the page, not the superscript footnote number in the main composition. My previous comment was accurate.
Now it appears that you meant the Circuit Court, not the District Court, a simple mistake, yet you write that you thought the citation was, uh, "continued from the District Court."
It was a simple mistake, yet you still seem very confused. Did you not read the paragraph I quoted in support of my comment?? Go back and re-read it. If you still have questions, then we'll deal with them at that point.
“Are you really this stupid??? The footnote is the comment at the bottom of the page, not the superscript footnote number in the main composition. My previous comment was accurate.”
Your comments are still there, showing that you associated footnote two which cited WKA with the paragraph immediately above it. That’s wrong. Footnotes associate with the body text marked with the same number. I linked to opinion so you can easily check it out. No sense throwing tantrums about it.
Asking a question does not = throwing tantrums. But, saying “throwing tantrums” does answer the question. Yes, you ARE this stupid. The footnote (which cited Wong Kim Ark) is at the bottom of the page. The paragraph immediately above the footnote on the page is the paragraph I quoted. Now I see that you don’t understand what “above” means in this context. Go to the page, look at the footnote and then scroll to the paragraph immediately ABOVE the footnote. I’ll wait to give you your next lesson.
Footnotegate.
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.