Replies

So future zot, you admit the obvious that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark v. United States opinion did not make or create Ark into a natural born citizen.

And you obfuscate future Zot.

We do know that the SCOTUS opinion 1875, Minor v. Happersett stated with no doubt that having two parents and being born in country is a natural born citizen. We also do know in 1830 Hanks v. DuPont cited the same definition.

And in 1890, United States v. Ward cited de Vattel by name and having two citizen parents and born in country as being a natural born citizen.

Tsk tsk Obot.

Gee, isn’t it interesting then that with FIVE, count ‘em FIVE conservatives on the current US Supreme Court that they aren’t even interested in hearing oral arguments in ANY Obama eligibility appeal?
Not ONE single US Supreme Court Justice has asked Obama to submit a brief defending his eligibility to be President of the United States.
Whenever the Supreme Court is seriously considering granting a hearing to an appeal, they order the respondant (defendant) to submit a brief stating why the plaintiff’s case should not be heard. With Obama eligibility appeals, not one single brief has been ordered and Obama has submitted NO briefs on his own initiative.

“If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, “birthers” who who insist Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”—Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2010.

So which are you Red Steal, a “crank” or a “conspiracy nut?”

Gee, isn’t it interesting then that with FIVE, count ‘em FIVE conservatives on the current US Supreme Court that they aren’t even interested in hearing oral arguments in ANY Obama eligibility appeal? Not ONE single US Supreme Court Justice has asked Obama to submit a brief defending his eligibility to be President of the United States.

I think I've explained it to you a number of times to why these guys are afraid to take the case. However, the scuttlebutt is that 3 of the 4 conservatives on the court have voted in favor of taking the case on the father jus sanguinis passing citizenship to their children that causes duel allegiances, but Obama has not really proven that he is even a US citizen. Kennedy is not really a conservative and so that only makes 4 of them - not 5 conservatives. Obama is on very thin ice by only one vote if the grapevine is correct. Only one vote could separate Obama from getting kicked out of the White House. It is pretty stupid on your part to crow about that Obama is getting all the votes not to remove him.

Not fret OBot, Obama may just be stupid enough to challenge the ballot laws that would keep his lying rear-end off the state ballots. You would likely get your wish and the Supreme Court would then take up the case they have been avoiding and rule on his usurpation.

So which are you Red Steal, a “crank” or a “conspiracy nut?”

I'm not a nut for Obama like you. I can actually logically articulate why Obama is not legally pResident while you cut and paste nonsense that I easily slam.

funny how I recall McCain had to go through a senate hearing and the only requirement that anyone knew of including a supreme court judge was that

he was born of “american citizens” plural.

Not a kenyan ... AMERICAN.