Posted on 03/11/2012 9:23:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” On March 1, Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse re-opened the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya by announcing that it had found probable cause to believe that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, newspaper birth announcements were unreliable, and that there was now no proof that Obama was born in the USA. A week earlier, with full knowledge of what the Arpaio Posse’s findings would be, “constitutional scholar” Obama’s legal team suddenly started citing the Marguet-Pillado case in multiple PA and GA ballot eligibility state appeals. The following language is included by Obama’s lawyers in the PA and GA MTD filings: “President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth inHawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have beenmet. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see,United States v. Marguet-Pillado , 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9thCir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.” www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/.../10-50041.pdf
I already said this in post 129: "Laurence Tribe was creating a diversion for Obama."
Tribe didn't create it and it wasn't a diversion. The Senate commissioned the analysis by Tribe and Olson. The Dems controlled the Senate but the Reps joined in to request the anaylsis.
The analysis provided by Tribe/Olson did more than divert attention from Obama's eligibility. It actually included Obama in the opinion stating that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii. It was a cover-up, not a diversion, in the form of the gratuitous inclusion of Obama in the analysis. Hence, I said that there should have been a separate review of Obama's eligibility. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, there needed to be a review of the meaning of natural born citizen since Obama's father was not an American citizen.
What?????? You just said the Dems were covering for Obama. Are you arguing just to argue??
I would have ended this converstation a long time ago. We keep going around the same tree again and again. Look up the definition of diversion and cover-up. In any event, I don’t see your point of continuing to press the issue. We will just agree to disagree and let it go at that.
bump
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.