This one.
Posted on 07/21/2010 1:26:08 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
Wow...
There's crazy, there's baying at the moon crazy, and then there's this to Cheif Justice Roberts...
"Relief requested
1.Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date) and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify, that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2.Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3.Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket."
That will happen when Satan's realm reaches a temperature of absolute zero. No sane person would even think of making a request like that.
Read the whole nutty thing at her website if you want to risk it. I'm sure other links will be available soon enough.
I don't "stalk" anyone Charlie. But I am interested in the eligibility issue. So I see you paid posts from time to time and have taken the time to point out your posting history, or lack of it, to other FReepers. They get to make their own conclusions about whether you are truly a "tired_old_conservative" or rather a "hired_non_conservative" as I would suggest.
ML/NJ
Which one says “born in CT”? Source?
The only hope is elections and congressional investigation of Obama, which may not remove him but could finish the Democrat/Communist Party for two generations.
We will see if 2012 brings a 60+ votes in the senate for supporters of the US constitution. If it does, along with a Conservative President, then I hope they blast away much of your statute law by repeal along with all the communist “laws” past by Obama and Carter.
This one.
Yes, it would...but it should be set low enough for you to stay. :-)
Note that Thomas Jefferson also had a foreign-born parent, and he was. In case you missed it, there's an extraneous comma, similar to the one in the 2nd Amendment, that muddies its meaning (and note also that it's "natural born citizen" [not the same as "natural-born citizen"]).
My selection of Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson as the second example instead of one of the later Presidents with a foreign-born parent was precisely because of the way the Amendment was written. The Founders were focused on the child's birth, not on his parents. There was no "parents had to be American citizens" clause for that first generation--it was just that the candidate had to be.
As for Wilson's mother, she came to the US at a young age and my guess is that she was naturalized by the time the future President (Thomas!) was born, but I cannot immediately find positive indication that this is true.
Since she was married and eligible for naturalization when the February 10, 1855, statute passed, why wouldn't she--like other foreign-born women who were married to an American--be immediately deemed a citizen even if she never went to a judge and paid fees...?
Of course, perhaps the whole natural born thing means no caesarian-birth candidates!
;-)
It doesn’t say that on the one you posted.
Ummm you're not aware of the grandfather provision of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the US Constitution.
It doesn’t say what?
It would bolster your accusation if you could point to a specific post from tired_old_conservative that is outside of mainstream conservative thinking. Since most mainstream conservatives are NOT birthers, that eliminates that subject.
So...anything?
What's the dead man's name? If Obama is using the same SSN, that should be easy to find.
It is interesting that when the “court” is foul, your “b” word, and makes nutcase rulings they have the force of law.
I wish you were correct in your implication that politeness and precision would win the day in our courts.
I still remember “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as a standard.
Now it is who can make the best argument, regardless of the truth, or , even better, appoint “their” judge to make “appropriate” decisions, regardless of legal arguments AND the law.
How far we have fallen, and in such a short time.
The second path is for those who were citizens as of the founding. That would be Andrew Jackson. So even though he had foreign-born parents, two of them, he was able to become president. That's because the founders focused on the CANDIDATE'S citizenship, not the PARENTS'.
Yeah, right. Why should I reply to such an ignorant post. (WTF did John Jay know? I mean he's just one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.)
ML/Nj
Oh, and when Chester A. Arthur’s was born, his father wasn’t a citizen.
Apparently you are not aware of the 1854 statute that made Wilson's foreign born mother a US citizen upon marriage to an American citizen, which therefore, made Woodrow Wilson who was born in the United States, born of US parents, a natural born citizen. This stuff has been gone over a thousand times on FR over the last 2 years.
Your claim of ignorance just reveals your own. Every reply of yours has bolstered my point, so feel free to do so or not.
(WTF did John Jay know? I mean he's just one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.)
He knew that he didn't think it wise to allow anyone but a natural born citizen to be the commander in chief of the American army.
And that means that only those who obtained their US citizenship by birth ("natural born") could hold the office of President, not someone who got it later ("naturalized").
I think it was wise that advice was incorporated. You can have whatever opinion you want.
1854, not 1855?
Okay, so I got the year wrong.
Oh, yeah the 'president' who burned his personal papers just before death, and hid the truth from the public while he occupied the office.
“foul bitchy nutcase tone”. Talking to yourself?
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.