Posted on 03/30/2011 9:01:16 PM PDT by circumbendibus
Arguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama's eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.
Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2.
"I can't believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case," wrote Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well, Pilly is part of the Sanity Insanity Squad ping list. LoL.
Sez who? Orly Taitz? Female British citizens did not have the same rights, as males, to pass along British citizenship, to their child born abroad, until the 1970s.
Go on try again.
Poor bugger, maybe oneday he will wake up.
Dude, you make up a hypothetical situation and then ask me to DISPROVE something which doesn’t exist???? WTF? WTF is that? Seriously...
Ummmmm I know its not just me, you might want to have that looked at, or put some ice on it or something.
If you want to discuss reality, real laws and real situations we can do that. But stop asking me and others to disprove things which don’t exist to begin with. Sonny, you might know the sound of one hand clapping, but no one else understands your verbal description of it.
Lets stick to reality shal we?
If you want to disprove your own hypothetical nonexistant scenarios, you go right ahead. This should be entertaining.
You are half right, which is batting 1.000 for a Birther. It doesn't matter what Spain does, or doesn't do, when deciding whether someone is a natural born citizen of the United States.
We decide who is an American, not some foreign parliament, potentate or poobah. By claiming that BO eligibility is affected, one way or another, by foreign law, you are abdicating American sovereignty, and perversely claiming to be upholding that sovereignty while doing so.
There are no court rulings or legislation that defines natural born citizen and without such laws being enacted, one cannot be in violation if a law that does not exist.
But, all you need to do is to call your congressman and ask him to introduce legislation which defines NBC in the manner you wish for it to be defined.
Fat chance of her doing that. I’m still waiting for them to define what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
I can totally understand why now.. what an insane conversation..... Seriosuly, how do you disprove an hypothetical situation which doesn’t exist?
1. No I didn't. (Every argument with a Birther eventually becomes ad hominem, as they are unmoved by facts, logic or history.) I pointed out a very simple fact. The "dual citizenship" that Birthers get their shorts in a knot over would not exist if you reverse the citizenship of BO's parents. That is a fact, not a hypothetical. Oh sure, there are still Birther theories that would disqualify him, but you wouldn't be bleating about dual citizenship if BO wasn't born a dual citizen. And he wouldn't have been born a dual citizen, and wouldn't be (in Birther fantasy) disqualified from the Presidency due to dual citizenship, if his mamma, and not his daddy, had been a Brit. So you believe that British law can disqualify someone from being President of the United States.
2. "Dude." Read what you just posted. [Y]ou make up a hypothetical situation and then ask me to DISPROVE something which doesn’t exist? Can you better describe the Kenyan/Canadian/Alpha Centurion Birth theories of Birtherism?
Obama was naturally effected. Little Barry Barak Barack Obama Soetoro received his foreign citizenship at birth through his foreign father. We don't know with any real certainty to where he was born. Their was no foreign law that bestowed multi-generational foreign citizenship upon him. In noway is Obama a natural born citizen.
The definition is used a number of times in the congressional records as well as a number of supreme court ruling.
Minor vs. Happensett ( U.S. Supreme Court ) is one case.
There has never been a problem with the meaning of Natural born until obama ran for office. The Constitution does not seem to apply to him. obama is not nor ever can be the legal President of the United States.
Listen, after BO/BS' landslide re-election in 2012, you will still have to spend some merely token time in a re-education camp, but with a willing spirit, as you have demonstrated here, and my recommendation, it should be minimal, 36-48 months max! You might even become a counselor!
I'll have the Mitigation Certificate sent to you as soon as we figure out what name our POTUS is using. Wouldn't be a bad idea to testify about your new beliefs to others. BO/BS loves enthusiasm!
Listen, after BO/BS' landslide re-election in 2012, you will still have to spend some merely token time in a re-education camp, but with a willing spirit, as you have demonstrated here, and my recommendation, it should be minimal, 36-48 months max! You might even become a counselor!
I'll have the Mitigation Certificate sent to you as soon as we figure out what name our POTUS is using. Wouldn't be a bad idea to testify about your new beliefs to others. BO/BS loves enthusiasm!
You are getting warmer beerman.
Natural Born Citizenship either exists or it does not in ONE instant, that of Birth. It describes Birth. Just like saying “This newborn baby has this footprint, it is shown here in this inkprint on this piece of paper.” Lets make it easier. It is the same as saying, this child was born in Honolulu Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. It is just a simple truth, a simple DESCRIPTION of a childs birth. Natural Born Citizenship is a Description which expresses the CITIZENSHIP of that child at birth. It isn;t a law, it isn't a demand. It is a DESCRIPTION.
Did you catch on to that yet?
It is a DESCRIPTION. That child was not born a Natural Born Citizen because he was born American and British, he was born in America to an American mother, but ALSO to a British father and has more than one citizenship because of where and WHO he was born to. Thats it.
A Natural Born Citizen was born in America, to American Parents, and IS a Natural Born Citizen because no other jurisdiction (citizenship/nationality) was involved.
I am a Natural Born Citizen. I was born in Hawaii to an American Mother and an American Father. I have NO other citizenship possibilities. That makes me no better than any other American. It simply describes the fact I was born in America to two American parents.
Citizenship isn't decided by us. It is decided by the CONDITIONS a person is BORN under! Hello! Citizenship is something which we are either born with or we aren't. It can change over a person's lifetime. thats nothing new. What is new is some bizarre assertion on your part that we can arbitrarily pay attention to one characteristics of a persons birth and ignore another. Sorry, but we do not get to just pick and choose which characterists to keep and which to throw off. You can't by law decide that a given kid doesn't have blue eyes. You also can't say that the son of a british subject doesn't pass his citizenship to his child. Both are equally impossible.
In the case of citizenship, the ONLY way you could do that would be to disavow every other nationality on earth. We are all Americans according to your illogic. So glad to know that you think every single person who comes to America is hereby an immediate American. Brilliant logic there beerman.
>.<
Ouch.. that hurts in the place where my soul used to be.
Post a link to where I ever said that, and I'll buy you a steak. What I have said is that it doesn't matter. 'Cause it doesn't.
But hey, pop a couple of blood pressure tablets, and explain more your exciting theory that the 14th Amendment allows for two categories of citizens born (not naturalized) in the United States. You think we have citizens born here with full rights, and quasi-citizens, born here, but with only partial rights. Just how does that work?
(Hint: It doesn't. BO is either a natural born citizen, or an illegal alien. So the Kenyan/Canadian/In Orbit Around Rigel 7 Birth is really the only way for Birthers to go.)
“1. No I didn’t. (Every argument with a Birther eventually becomes ad hominem, as they are unmoved by facts, logic or history.) I pointed out a very simple fact. The “dual citizenship” that Birthers get their shorts in a knot over would not exist if you reverse the citizenship of BO’s parents. That is a fact, not a hypothetical. Oh sure, there are still Birther theories that would disqualify him, but you wouldn’t be bleating about dual citizenship if BO wasn’t born a dual citizen. And he wouldn’t have been born a dual citizen, and wouldn’t be (in Birther fantasy) disqualified from the Presidency due to dual citizenship, if his mamma, and not his daddy, had been a Brit. So you believe that British law can disqualify someone from being President of the United States.”
Ok, Here we go. it is irrelevant whether it was Obama’s mother who was British, or his father. COMPLETELY. The child of a British woman is going to inherit his mother’s citizenship. The child is STILL born under the jurisdictions of two Nations. Or did Britain have laws saying women do not pass their citizenship to their children. The children of women do not have citizenship? Are you serious? Really??
Regardless, we aren’t speaking of hypotheticals. Obama admits he was born under the Jurisdiction of Great Britain, while being born in Hawaii. Even my 5 year old can see that there are TWO things going on here, the 1948 BNA and born in Hawaii.
Do you often tilt at windmills like this? How is that on your back? It must be kinda rough....
Anyway, your number2 - well, you seem to buying into an insanity far far more insane and rediculus. So I would have to advise you to look into a mirror on that one.
I am saying that Natural Born Citizenship means being born under the sole jurosdiction of One Nation. In this case, America. There are MANY historical records which display that EXACT concept. Going back to Vattel, all the way up to the debates on the 14th Amendment, to statements made by the author of that Amendment. And into the 1920’s and 30’s... there is SO MUCH historical evidence to the defination I gave you, it is utterly LAUGHABLE that you are trying to deny it!
Beerman.... I am sorry. Your paradigm does not exist. Reality and history prove themselves, and they do NOT equal what you attempt to assert.
Sorry, but Minor vs. Happensett (1875) has no relevance in 2011.
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.