Posted on 04/20/2010 12:47:47 AM PDT by hope
House votes to check candidates' citizenship Updated: Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:45 PM MDT Published : Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:44 PM MDT
PHOENIX (AP) -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxphoenix.com ...
So, all 46 lawsuits were defended by Obots pro bono.
Do you read the nonsense you write?
Do you really, really believe this statement: “The head of the Hawaii Department of Health officially and explicitly affirmed that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
That's statement is complete and total bullshit — especially the “explicitly” part.
I stopped reading there.
You completely disqualify yourself from this conversation.
Fukino never, ever explicitly affirmed Obama was born in Hawaii.
So, all 46 lawsuits were defended by Obots pro bono.
Do you read the nonsense you write?
The major of eligibility lawsuits don’t even name Obama as a defendant, it is state government officials who were being sued for not properly vetting Obama. For example,”Lightfoot v Bowen,” or “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, or “Beverly v FEC”
or “Brokhausen v Andrade...” on and on I could go, but you get the point. Obama defended himself by having attorneys submit legal briefs in three of these cases and since no case has gone to trial, the legal expenses are nil.
The million dollar legal expense rumor was based on ALL campaign 2008/General Election 2008 legal expenses for the Obama campaign. Since Obama raised 645 million for his campaign, one million in total legal expenses was a drop in the bucket.
As I've said before, "I don't care what McCain says, it's a lie."
Even if what he says is true and you happen to agree with it...he is an unprincipled bastard and has to look up his "conservative positions" in a book before he speaks.
Sorry, but your assumption is ignorant. This doesn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark does cite a very specific definition of natural born citizen: "... all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Wong also cites this passage which says, "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, ..." Notice is doesn't say the child of an alien, if born in the country is a natural born citizen. It's says 'as much of a citizen' as a natural born citizen. Here's an analogy: A kiwi is a much a type of fruit as an apple, but a kiwi is not an apple. IOW, native-born is a citizen but not a natural born citizen, and by this principle, if Obama was truly born in Hawaii, he is a fruit.
By the time you get to the conclusion of the decision, Wong is determined to be a citizen of the United States, but not a natural born citizen. Part of this is due to his parents being permanent U.S. residents (having permanent loyalty), something which is not true for Obama.
" ... the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
What would be the acceptable form of proof of citizenship?
Here’s another one — they’re like roaches.
Would love it if you did not leave....just don't melt
LOL
I assumed nothing of the sort. However, it's pretty obvious that it defines "natural born subject" and, by extension, "natural born citizen."
Shows you what you know about attorneys and “billable hours.”
You Obots are a giggle. The way you have to twist the facts of real life to defend your champion.
What is your motivation for defending ther usurper so vigorously? Is it the love that no one dare speak? Are you also a die-hard Marxist? Maybe you’re just as dumb as a stump, and really believe Obama is all that.
You sure have a problem, whatever the answer.
My motivation is that I hate to see good people such as yourself with strong convictions used as dupes.
There’s an old cliche’ “if you go to strike the king, you must kill him.”
Every time an unsubstantiated rumor is exposed, every time a fake Kenyan birth certificate shows up, every time a poorly written legal brief is submitted with spelling errors and poor grammar and is rejected by a judge or a court, it benefits Obama.
From Obama’s perspective, the eligibility issue helps him with his base. He gets to play the victim and win lawsuit after lawsuit.
Obama got 67% of the vote of a certain bloc of voters. That bloc of voters are often stereotyped and castigated for not being natural born American citizens and as a voting bloc, they are increasing in number and political power with each election. Who are they? Here’s a hint: most of them speak Spanish. Whenever another Obama lawsuit is thrown out, Obama is somewhere smiling and solidifying the liberal base. That has happened 69 times now. How often have YOU smiled at the conclusion of an Obama eligibility lawsuit?
Don’t you even wonder why no major conservative leader, no conservative member of Congress and no conservative legal organization has joined in any of the eligibility lawsuits?
Nah, I’m not a Marxist, just your run of the mill libertarian, sorry to disappoint.
When Judge Carter in California dismissed the Keyes v Obama lawsuit he wrote in his dismissal order that Alan Keyes came the closest of anyone thus far to meeting the criteria for legal standing to sue Obama since he was an actual presidential candidate. Imagine if John McCain or the McCain-Palin campaign had filed suit. They actually were the only other candidates to receive Electoral College votes. Judge Carter was intimating that they would have standing to sue. But they haven’t sued.
You have yourself a nice day now.
Yes she did:
"“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. "
I don't see how she could get any more explicit.
Here's the source, in case you don't believe me:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Right. And if it was 'obvious,' then the plaintiff would have been declared a natural born citizen. And if it was 'obvious,' there was no need for the 14th amendment. And if it was obvious, there was no need to cite the Minor definition of natural born citizen, but they did. And if it was obvious, we wouldn't have had persons who were native born in the United States, but who were natural born subjects of Great Britain, but we did. Wong tells us this too. "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
Since it’s so explicit, what are these vital records that were cited and when are they dated?
As far as I can tell, only two or three were actually defended by Bambi's lawyers. The rest weren't against him, but against governors and other government officials. His lawyers wouldn't be defending those.
Of the cases he actually defended, all his lawyers had to do was file one motion to dismiss. So in total, his lawyers filed, at most, three motions.
I'm sorry, but not even the most pricy lawyer in the world is going to charge $2 million to file three motions.
The plaintiff wasn't suing in order to run for president. He was merely trying to establish that he was a citizen. Therefore, there was no need for the court to directly rule on whether he was natural born or not.
Nevertheless, the passage I cited, as well as the rest of the opinion, makes it very clear the court regarded him as a natural born citizen.
And if it was 'obvious,' there was no need for the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment was needed in order to have freed slaves made citizens, as common law precedent was insufficient in their case. However, common law precedent is crystal clear that the child of free resident aliens, so long as he is born under US jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen.
Justice Gray makes that point again, and again, in the opinion, if you bothered to read it for yourself (which I doubt).
And if it was obvious, there was no need to cite the Minor definition of natural born citizen, but they did.
I don't follow your argument.
And if it was obvious, we wouldn't have had persons who were native born in the United States, but who were natural born subjects of Great Britain, but we did.
Yes, someone can be both a natural born citizen of the United States as well as a natural born subject of the UK. What's your point?
Wong tells us this too. "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
Sure. So?
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.