Posted on 11/12/2010 10:35:14 AM PST by ColdOne
Heehee, saw that.
The hunt is on!
Cry, cry, cry on, joey. Cry, cry, cry all day. Cry about how the courts won’t buy the birther argument. It just feeds the conspiracy. Then cry some more. To quote Eric Cartman: “[Your] tears taste like candy.”
Here's an idea. Stop trying to trample on the rights of Americans. The people passed the 14th amendment in 1868, and it trumps what some dumb Swiss guy said centuries before. It absolutely trumps it. The courts recognize that. Jeez, you birthers cling to anything that, in your eyes, helps your case. You have no qualms about citing foreign law to make your case even though that's a repugnant practice, one that you same people have actually criticized SCOTUS (Kennedy in particular) for doing before. Yet here you are, doing the exact same thing. No one cares about foreign law. Just because you have a 100,000 people who are heavily invested in the conspiracy doesn't make it valid. Despite all the attention given to the birthers, nowhere close to a majority of Americans agree with your arguments. The Republicans in Congress wish you would go away -- but you're like a malignant cyst that just won't. Two natural parents." First it was "wasn't born in this country." Then when that failed, it turned into "need two natural-born parents." Do you understand anything about the law? The burden of proof is on YOU. Twisting the language of SCOTUS cases where they never mentioned the words "natural-born" is not proof. Omission in those cases does not equal proof. Likewise, the fact that the 14th amendment failed to use the term "natural-born" means nothing, because it was implied that there are only two types of citizenship (born and naturalized). The courts have said this over and over again, but you refuse to buy it. You also lack standing. You can't articulate a specific injury that you have suffered as a result of Barry being in the White House. You need to meet that criteria before your claim can proceed. But that doesn't matter, right? Every time one of your cases gets dismissed for lack of standing, you just use that as proof that the conspiracy is real and all of the judges are in cahoots against you, even when the judges were appointed by men like Ronald Reagan. Brilliant.
Your love for obamadinijihad AKA obongo is showing, see ya. Most of the old-line Freepers don't buy the birther crap.
FYI DUmmie, the ownder of this site is a "birther", wanna take it up with him?
Your love for obamadinijihad AKA obongo is showing, see ya.
Most of the old-line Freepers don't buy the birther crap.
FYI DUmmie, the ownder of this site is a "birther", wanna take it up with him?
Retread alert!
This is not in controversy, George Washington himself reached out from the past via his having checked out those volumes from the library and forgetting to return it to the library in New York, the colossol fines of which were forgiven just a year or two ago. It played a central role.
Then, there's Perkins v. Elg, there's Elk v. Wilkins, and numerous other Supreme Court cases supportive of the so-called "birther" position. You have what? The 14th Amendment. What did the 14th Amendment do? It made citizens of former slaves being wrongfully denied citizenship by certain states in the aftermath of the Civil War. Were these original beneficiaries of the 14th born citizens at all? No, they were not. Rail at the modern perception of the injustice of that historic reality all you want, but it remains a fact that cannot be retroactively altered by subsequent law.
The original beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment were not born citizens. Therefore, they could not have ever been natural-born citizens, though their children could be and in most cases were. That is the limit of the law in this land, no retroactivity, no ex-post facto law. If the original beneficiaries of the 14th were not natural born, then it is quite clear to anyone with a logical bone in his body that subsequent beneficiaries were not qualified as such by virtue of that Amendment.
Ergo, you're wrong.
If I'm wrong, how come SCOTUS refused to accept the case? How come no judge in the country takes it seriously? Ah, I forgot, the conspiracy.
You know the answer. Standing. It appears that parties with standing would be a state or states, John McCain and the very remote possiblity of Sarah Palin. No one else.
The eligibility issue has never been put before the court as a result.
Here, go read this:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/12/birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution
You seem to believe that our courts are actually acting in a Constitutional manner.
Ever hear of Kelo vs New London?
Is that why Clarence Thomas says that they're "evading" the issue?
or dual account. Some think that they know who it is already!
You have been around for EIGHT days. Sign up date NOVEMBER 5, 2010 and you already busted your cover. You suck!
I've been here since 1998 and there's zero evidence to prove that Obama is eligible to be President under the Constitution. I think that the Republican party didn't want to touch it because they were worried about giving the Democrats an issue to run on in the midterms. That may be off the table now...but I'm not counting on it. The Republican party leadership is too entrenched in Washington and too worried about losing power and money to upset things too much.
Don’t rule out a dual account. Check your FReepmail. ;)
Nobody cares what you think sissy. YOU don’t choose our names. Obongo being racist is only in your mind. He hit the bong regulary, he’s Obongo, Othugga, Obastard, Okenyan, OPOS, Ohom, Omarixt, Obarry, take your pick, use your imagination. I would bet your’s is Omymessiah.
I love the smell of fresh troll meat.
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.