Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
Five Georgia men have challenged President Barack Obama’s inclusion on next year’s presidential ballot, with at least some citing an oft-discredited theory that Obama is not eligible for office because the Constitution says that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”
All the challenges have been made through the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, which referred them to the state administrative hearings office. Hearings have not yet been set.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
[BladeBryan had written:]Well then let's examine my "overreach" on the very bit you decided to quote me on there. I got "clear" from Gordon's article in Maryland law review:When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,I don’t want to be mean, Mr Bryan, and I won’t be. I’ve read through your posting history and found nothing but argumentative overreach. Your material is a stretch at every point in your journey.
It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." -- Charles Gordon, 'Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,' 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968).I got "settled" from Jill Pryor's Yale Law Journal article:
It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." -- Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).Then my words, the one bit that you, widdle_wabbit, chose to quote in making your "overreach" point were:
When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,Oh look -- the sources I cited said exactly what I claimed. Can you explain how that is "overreach", widdle_wabbit?
Even more interesting, widdle_wabbit, is that you chopped my sentence in half. Here is that one sentence of mine that you chose to partially quote:
When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled, no one came out in disagreement.Now that reads as a bold reach, so easily refuted if incorrect. All you'd have to do is cite any rebuttal of my citations and I would have to eat my words. I claimed that there was no disagreement until the 2008 election, giving you decades to work with. How come you snipped my claim in half instead of simply citing an example that shows my bold overreach to be wrong?
widdle_wabbit wrote:
You post as if you are a well respected constitutional scholar, you are not.No, I've made clear that I am a debunker, as a hobby, not a legal scholar as you falsely put me on. I identified myself as a hobbyist debunker in this thread, and Widdle_wabbit, you claimed to have read through my posting history. Were that true you would have read me explaining over and over that I am not "a well respected constitutional scholar". As you wold know if you had read my posting history, as you claimed, I assert that the issue here is utter crank nonsense that demeans the conservative cause.
“or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
‘OF CITIZENS’, IS RELEVANT.
But whether
a person
born abroad of American parents, or of one American
and
one alien parent,”qualifies/as
natural
born has never been
resolved.”
Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government,
reads as if Black’s secretary is writing for Webster giving a definition relating to countries, in general, not United States. She goes on to write, “or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad”.
reads as if being born ‘TO CITIZENS’ means two parent household, ya think?
“The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.” — Charles Gordon
reads as if Mr Gordon and Al Gore might be related.
“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” — Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).
reads as if Jill wrote that one just for you! Except you cut off the next sentence,BLADE BRYAN CHOPPED OFF WHAT SHE WROTE IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE;
“But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural
born has never been
resolved.”
Uh Oh....
The three judge panel used Wong Kim Ark and that should tell you how learned they are, but in case you need someone to draw you a picture....
“Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.” — West Publishing, /Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases/, Volume 5, 1904, quoting Town of Hartford v. Town of Canaan”
Tell me BLADE BRYAN, look up for me please what is West Publishing, /Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases/ DEFINITION FOR: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE and please include the link so I can see i for myself.
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” — In Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawyer 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905 (Fed. Cir. (Ca.) 1884), citing Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)
I’m sure the Vice Chancelor means well but he never met the Kenyan with his Dreams From My Communist Father”.
Furthermore, His mother was a commie and her parents we’re to so the alliegience issue is important. BlADEBRYAN YOU ARE CONSORTING WITH COMMUNISTS.
Other than that I’m sure you are really a neat person.
widdle_wabbit wrote: “You don’t even understand what you posted.”
When making a comment like that, tradition is to show that the posted material does not support the poster’s stance.
My point, in case you missed it, is the difference between fantasy and reality. Real courts have written that native-born children of foreign parents are natural-born citizens, which refutes the claim to which I was responding. Or maybe I misunderstood which post of mine you were addressing. You did not give me much to go on.
widdle_wabbit asked me: “Did you go to law school?”
No. Widdle_wabbit, in a previous post you claimed to have read through my posting history. Were that true you would have seen me explain over and over that I’m not a legal expert, jut a hobbyist debunking utter crank nonsense.
In post 80 widdle_wabbit wrote: “The post above is the post I am referencing.”
There were 79 posts above, numbered for your convenience. Check it out. The hardest part of debunking you is telling what you were talking about.
Our site pest Blade Bryan obtains posting information from the known fraud DrC and the Marxist web site Fogbow.
#27
And its clear to me its more than a hobby. If you don’t yet work for Center for American Progress then you are letting your ‘talent’ go to waste.
Looky here, TROLL.
You only post on Barry Fauxbama’s eligibility and you have worn out at two knee pads servicing him.
Why don’t you take a hike and leave this next election to the adults.
You kids got to play for a couple of years but now you need some time out.
BTW, you are a mental midget with a one dimensional viewpoint that is so narrow minded you could see through a key hole at 100 yards and you’re using a digger where there ain’t not dirt.
You’re clever but a curiosity for your defects.
IBTZ
It seems to me that for every supreme court decision found supporting the two citizen parent belief;
there is yet another decision found that does not support it.
It seems to me that the supreme court is inconsistent and with their rulings on this issue over time.
It is wrong to believe that 9 men in black robes have the final say on everything.
“Our site pest Blade Bryan obtains posting information from the known fraud DrC and the Marxist web site Fogbow.”
That was you, bushpilot1, who linked DrC’s site. Your citation agrees with what I’ve written in this thread that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens. In our time no one questioned that until October or November of 2008 when a certain faction desperately wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.
The more interesting question, bushpilot1, raised in the article you cited is whether *only* native-born citizens are natural-born citizens. On that point I disagree with your citation and the Honorable Pinckney G. McElwee and his essay that was read into the Congressional Record. I’m on record right here on FR that the McCain eligibility deniers were almost as stupid as Obama deniers.
In our time there has been no question that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens potentially eligible for the presidency, apart from recent crank nonsense. The serious question before legal scholars was whether children born abroad who received U.S. citizenship upon birth by statute were Article II natural-born citizens. We now have convincing evidence in the affirmative.
Counterfactual reasoning is perilous business. Nevertheless we do know that any branch or agency of our government that was going to deny the eligibility Panamanian-born candidate John S. McCain III was going to do so *after* he was elected President of the United States. McCain lost the election, hence the counterfactual consideration, but anyone who thinks he would have been denied the presidency had he won is living in fantasy.
So, do you agree then that if Obama is proven to have been born outside the USA, that he is ineligible? I am not at all convinced that he was born in Hawaii.
Thanks for the ping, bushpilot. You know I love that graphic!
Blade, let me ask you something. The question is honest, sincere and serious. What have you ever posted on FR that hasn’t been posted first on Fogbow? Link, please.
Then there’s this, bp, courtesy of southerngrl [originally addressed to BladeBryan]:
“Yeah FogBlow you’ve been busted on several conservative blogs. Take a hike and go lick Obozo’s boots. Any idiot that still supports that commie lover isn’t worth the time of day. Your “king” is on his way out, mark my words. There are several other investigations going on (that aren’t being published) so go ahead and bloat. You’ll be eating those words real soon.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2807531/posts#28
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.