I hope (and frankly doubt) Georgia will give a damn what Illinois thinks.
Why do you always add “SarahPalin” as a keyword to your eligibility threads?
Not sure how they reached their decision but what does Obama’s PDF file certificate have to do, or show, regarding the citizenship of his father at the time of Obama’s birth - wherever it happened. Isn’t that the question before the court here? We’re beyond that other stuff and getting to the real crux of the matter with that question.
With that said, I know some people who work at the ISBE and to put it mildly and as nicely as possible; they aren’t the brightest bulbs in the string.
Eligibility is a super loser of an issue. It's a Grand Snipe Hunt that Marxist Obama and his minders want us to pursue. I fully acknowledge that the BC issue is likely legit, but the dark forces can fog this in the courts for decades.
A better issue exists!
That better issue is Marxist Obama has never released his full, complete, unxpurgated, unedited, and unscrubbed college transcripts (including his full name right there on the official and unmodified documents).
Please let go of the eligibility loser! Transcripts is the winning issue.
.
What is the Reson for overrule, they gotta give something more than “he is our brotha!”
Nah, it won’t. This is what I expected from a state dominated by corrupt Chicago politics.
I cannot find the decisions on any of these cases on the site. It is not surprising. They probably used Amendment XIV along with the “he was born here” nonsense. This means all of the judges flunked grammar in grade school.
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana reflects current legal consensus on NBC:
“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Many here disagree and I respect their views but the idea that the judicial system will do a radical 180 on the issue is wishful thinking at best.
The PDF should never have been accepted as proof of anything, as it is not a tangible original document.
Even if it were to come from a legitimate original document, it is not the original legitimate document itself, nor is it an authorized, embossed issue from an authoritive source.
What slippery slope will we be headed down if our courts start accepting virtual evidence in place of real evidence?
-PJ