Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube
Evidently you didn’t read the case. It says, “Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: ... (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
By the way, I found this interesting footnote in the Ankeny decision (this just illustrates how retarded this court is):
“Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority or develop any cogent legal argument for the proposition that a person must actually be born within one of the fifty States in order to qualify as a natural born citizen, and we therefore do not address Plaintiffs argument as it relates to Senator McCain.”
Isn’t Ankeny arguing that being born within one of the fifty States is what makes someone a natural born citizen??
“... we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’”
IOW, the Indiana appeals court says there’s no cogent argument that you have to be born in the United States, but then they present one and completely ignore that the plaintiffs said Obama was not born within any the United States. These guys are idiots.
"Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President"
"As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States...The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President."
“IOW, the Indiana appeals court says there’s no cogent argument that you have to be born in the United States, but then they present one and completely ignore that the plaintiffs said Obama was not born within any the United States. These guys are idiots.”
You are the idiot. With McCain, they argued that he wasn’t a NBC because his birth was outside the US. With Obama, they argued he wasn’t a NBC because his father wasn’t a US citizen. The court addressed each concern separately. They did not mix the two up, as you have.
I quoted the decision where these idiots contradicted themselves. Are you saying you don't have the integrity to admit that??
Read the WHOLE case. These idiots contradicted themselves (as well as acknowledged their guidance was faulty), and I proved it. Have some integrity.
And once again you stab your own argument in the foot and prove mine for me. Thank you.
One court has come up with a flawed statement that they found phantom guidance to believe that being born in the U.S. regardless of the status of the parents is enough to make someone a natural born citizen, but they carefully and purposely avoided calling Obama a natural born citizen or a legitimate president, so you’re still batting 0-fer.
Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo has to pay court costs for wasting a US Circuit Court of Appeal’s time with a frivolous appeal. Appuzo barely escaped sanctions as well.
The Court did NOT contradict itself. It dealt with separate issues...separately.
Of course, you aren’t capable of reading paragraphs, let alone pages, so anything above a sentence fragment confuses you. But other COURTS can read paragraphs and pages, which is why you lose.
It isn’t my integrity at fault, but your reading comprehension.
The Court did NOT contradict itself. It dealt with separate issues...separately.
Of course, you aren’t capable of reading paragraphs, let alone pages, so anything above a sentence fragment confuses you. But other COURTS can read paragraphs and pages, which is why you lose.
It isn’t my integrity at fault, but your reading comprehension.
It is obvious to anyone with 6th grade reading ability that the context of their discussion is meant to apply the Court’s findings to both Senator McCain and to President Obama. They begin that discussion with these words: “Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was consititutionally eligible to become President, “the Governor should (have been) prohibited by order of [the trial court]...from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana...” Appellants’ Appendix at 13.”
Everything that follows in that section of the Court’s decision is in reference to the above and applies directly to the eligibility of John McCain and Barack Obama as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
Edge119, being only semi-literate isn’t capable of comprehending those facts in evidence.
The Court DID contradict itself and I provided the quotes that showed it. The issue of Obama's place of birth is NOT separate from the Court's argument that place of birth makes someone a natural born citizen. They avoided listing this part of the Plaintiff's argument in their errant section on natural born citizenship because it would expose them as biased and dishonest, not just stupid.
Of course, you aren’t capable of reading paragraphs, let alone pages, so anything above a sentence fragment confuses you.
I quoted the exact passages. Accusing me of confusion is a lame faither tactic because you can't refute my point.
But other COURTS can read paragraphs and pages, which is why you lose.
Other courts aren't going to embarrass themselves by citing this poor, contradictory decision.
The court makes an errant argument that place of birth by itself establishes natural born citizenship, but failed to acknowledge that in the previous section that the Plaintiffs challenged Obama's place of birth, not just his father's citizenship. They simply omitted that part of the plaintiff's argument. Have some integrity, unlike the Hoosier hillbilly appeals court.
“The Court DID contradict itself and I provided the quotes that showed it.”
No. You provided quotes and commentary that proved you didn’t understand the court’s decision. If anyone doubts me, or wants to decide for themselves which of us is right, the full decision can be read here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The court makes an errant argument that place of birth by itself establishes natural born citizenship, but failed to acknowledge that in the previous section that the Plaintiffs challenged Obama’s place of birth, not just his father’s citizenship. They simply omitted that part of the plaintiff’s argument. Have some integrity, unlike the Hoosier hillbilly appeals court.
Here’s what the Court ruled: “The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
The basis of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11
For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.”—Indiana Court of Appeals
I continue to see the logic in the verdict of the original Indiana trial court and I side with the unanimous decision of the three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals which was upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court and which was not been further appealed to the federal courts.
Unless and until some other Court in some jurisdiction rules otherwise, you do not need two American born parents to qualify as a natural born citizen as long as you yourself were born in the United States.
>When your model doesn’t match the real world, is it the model or the world that is wrong?
Sometimes it’s the world that’s wrong.
Take, for instance, the ruling by the Supreme Court that the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws *ONLY* applies to criminal law.
Next, consider that retroactive tax-code changes may be made, “because they are civil laws/regulations/rules” (retroactive = Ex post Facto).
Finally, explain why disregarding/violating such a (retroactive) change in the tax laws is punished in CRIMINAL court.
| Are you sure you’re not a troll? Yes. We have also concluded that you argue semantics over substance and that (again like most liberals) criticize grammar over substance. I hate to break it to you [that’s a lie... I enjoy it], but grammar can be [and often is] key in determining the substance/meaning of a sentence; consider the following two sentences where only one word is changed and that is in capitalization, even the word-ordering is the same: The two sentences mean two very different things, don’t they? Order is key too, consider: The two sentences mean two very different things, don’t they? |
Thank You we can all now dismiss your logic process as faulty.
That’s funny... I never said that I *didn’t* want attention/recognition; sure it might be petty, but I’ll be honest in admitting that it is a desire.
But thank you for pointing out how a possible personality-flaw automatically discredits my points... you know, instead of replying to them.
You believe it is acceptable to be eligible to be president in two countries at the same time?
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.