Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
Trying to comprehend her points is like listening to fingers screech on a chalk board. Life is too short.
From what you posted: “reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
They granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. IOW, they allowed the case to be dismissed without a hearing on its merits on the grounds that there was no claim stated.
Ask your BFF Fabia what dates they held the hearings, who testified at the hearings, etc. A court can’t rule on the merits of a case without first hearing it.
Like most not so stealthy liberal scum, you reserve the right to continue being a horse’s ass and proud of it. Your time at FR has been exposed—by you, stupido—as trolling to find material for trashing freepers on your troll blog. Congratulations, idioit liberal, you are in an elite group to still be posting at FR after exposing yourself so plainly.
I know what you’re saying, but the fact is it wasn’t ad hominum. If I’d said, ‘You’re pro-Obama, and therefore your eligibility points are invalid’, that would be ad hominum. I didn’t say anything close to that, however. I just asked a straight, unloaded question, since I (1) don’t know this person’s posting history, and (2) was curious. It’s still okay, isn’t it [this question, DL, is *not* directed at you] to try to get to know posters who opt to leave their profile blank? I know a lot of people on these threads, but don’t know Blade from Adam. How would that ever change, if I never asked any questions?
I don’t know who you are, but the only people I embarrass BY SCREEN NAME on my website are people who do SHAMEFUL stuff. Sooo far, that has only been 3 Obots: PJFoggy, Rikker, and Bovril1. Oh, and a Obot named Dr. Ken Noisewater, too.
As far as trashing freepers, the only ones I disagree with here are the stupid Vattle Birthers, who like Mark Levin said are not RATIONAL and who are a embarrassment to the rest of the Birthers. For example, Mark Levin is probably going to throw ALL Birthers off his social website, because of the TOTALLY STUPID Vattle Birthers who can’t even read stuff right!!!
I think that you Vattle Birthers just don’t like people who disagree with you!!! And people who tell other people about your lies and intentional misleading!!! Now, you IDIOTS are attacking good conservative people like Rubio and Jindle and I will not just sit by and let you do it!!! I am not like the stupid Obots who waited three years to cough up a long form because they did not want a crisis to go to waste. When you start spreading your STUPID lies about Rubio and Jindle, then you and the rest of your CULT better just start running for the hills because me and I bet other conservatives too are going to start calling BS!!!
So There!!!
Give me a few minutes. She is right in the middle of something. Then I will ask her or get her to talk to you direct on this thread.
The framers of the US Constitution had good reasons for proscribing this special eligibility requirement for President, and they overrode Hamilton's insistence that any citizen should be eligible to the office of presidency.
Following the logic of the protesters, any enemy of the USA could visit the US, create an offspring with any number of willing women, then raise that offspring to become President and destroy the USA from within using the highest office in the nation.
This is exactly what is currently happening to the USA.
May all the facilitators of this treason be condemned to the lowest level of Hell.
Sigh. You are wasting my time. Did you even read the page you sent me to?
According to that page, standing depends on jurisdiction and redressability, so the two ways a judge basically denies standing is to say that either they lack jurisdiction or that the claimant has failed to state a redressable claim.
After a claim is filed the defendant can move to have the motion dismissed, and that is often when the judge dismisses the case for lack of standing - either because they claim to have no jurisdiction over the case or they claim it is not redresseable (because either there was no specific and real injury, the injury was not specifically caused by what is asked to be remedied, or there is no legal remedy to give redress).
That’s exactly what happened in the case you’re talking about, and I strongly suspect that your “Fabia” is either as imaginary as the boogie man or else dumb as rocks. I also strongly suspect that you are either around 11 years old (which is how old my daughter is, and she talks about this or that “thingy” as well) or else you are a troll just trying to waste all of our time while frustrating the heck out of us.
My life is too short and I have too many important things to do, to get caught up in a debate with an 11-year-old and his/her imaginary lawyer friend.
The site you gave me the link for doesn’t have the Indiana case listed, that I could see.
Yeah, and the White House also didn’t release all their e-mails about Fast and Furious, because they had a “significant interest in confidentiality”.
Just like the kid who holds the stolen candy bar in his clenched fist has a significant interest in nobody being able to see what is in his hand.
The words of the testimony were literally taken out. Anybody with eyes could see it. These people think we’re morons. Or actually, they don’t care whether we’re morons or not because, short of revolution, we can’t do anything about their blatant corruption and lies anyway.
Or so they think. We shall see.
Doess $20,000 meet a $500 minimum requirement?
Is it a “reasonable search” to look in the 1978-and-later records for a record from before 1967?
Does Twitter have the legal authority to decide court cases?
If 3 words are taken out of a 15-word sentence in testimony, has the testimony been altered?
These are not difficult questions. Please answer them.
When I was working on a template for an eligibility bill that would remedy the problems in our current system, one of the things I really wanted a bill to include was the opportunity for lay-people to submit input to the court, so that judges could NOT just ignore people like you who have done a lot of research and who have the actual evidence and references that DO reveal what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they penned the “natural born citizen” phrase in the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark’s references were all from either 150 years before the Constitution was ratified or 100 years after. The logic of “natural born” citizenship being conveyed only by the PLACE of birth was directly stated only in the Dred Scott decision and in the quote from a British law professor who based his statements on the British Nationality Act of 1870.
I googled that page and it had stuff on it that looked like it is what you were talking about. I am 27, not 11. Fabia Sheen, Esq. is REAL, and she is a lawyer, but that is NOT her real name, because people don’t use their real names on websites like this.She is printing out her brief and putting the exhibits together on it, then I will help proofread it to make sure it is readable for normal people. Fabia says that if normal people can follow it, then so can the people who work in judge’s offices.
She said she will talk to you if you wish while I am proofreading.
It WAS too much for DiogenesLamp to handle. Around here we usually issue barf alerts for logic that makes us hurl. lol.
Enjoy writing your article about making other people hurl. ;)
I just arrived at the same conclusion.
Thanks for clarifying that it was George Washington. Some less-critical details get lost in the stacks in my mind.
I think it’s safe to say that Vattel was on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they penned the “natural born citizen” phrase in the Constitution.
But by your definition a person born in the UK of two U.S. citizen parents, for example, and then raised there for the next 21 years has more of a claim on the presidency than someone born in the U.S. and raised here their entire life but whose parent's happened to be non-citizens. That makes little sense to me. Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent. Or others.
Yeah, and if you give me a few minutes I’ll see if I can get Jesus to come to the computer too. What you next see typed will be from the very fingers of Jesus Himself. Trust me.
The very page you linked to revealed that what “Fabia” said was utter BS. I’ll let that page speak for itself and I’ll move on to a more worthwhile use of my time. I’m tired of playing this silly game.
Fabia says “Thank you!!! You have just made her day!!!”
We are heading out to the Mexican restaurant to drink margies in a few minutes, sooo she said if anybody else has any questions “ask them now or forever hold your peace.”
OK, I am out of my jammies and dressed now, sooo we are headed out. It as been like almost 30 minutes Fabia says she hit refresh several times and nobody had any questions for her.
“Quid pro quo. Obama promoted Gonzalez to Chief justice of the bandruptcy court three days before Gonzalez committed fraud.”
The president does not appoint bankruptcy court judges, the circuit court judges do.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx
You accused Judge Gonzalez of tossing the case as part of an “exchange”. That’s a very serious charge. Do you have evidence, or do you bear false witness?
Do you ever visit any other threads but those about natural born citizenship? Why do you feel so threatened by what I post?
Everything is publicly known about the Chrysler dealers case; and it wasn’t about Leo Donofrio. The case is about hundreds of dealers getting screwed over politics, with contracts violated.
It isn’t over, no, not yet.
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.