By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So, Obama not a US citizen lawsuit picking up some steam

Aiemond on 22 November 2008
Tyrannical said:

Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Dismissed due to lack of standing, which says nothing about the facts or merits of the case. All the ruling means is that Bergman does not have the right to bring the matter to court, but Keyes does.

I worded the records part poorly, I was pointing out your use of immigration for his mom.

And I'll point out my use of immigration was correct. That's who stamps your passport when you re-enter the country, though they are referred to now as US customs and border patrol, which I think is part of homeland security.

The Supreme Court never has to take a case. The chief justice has to preside over Presidential Impeachment hearings - but that is just the CJ not the U.S.S.C.

Wrong, they must take cases in which they have original jurisdiction that are filed with them. The cases they refuse is a refusal to hear the appeal and they let the lower court ruling stand.

Honestly, are you really in pre-law or did you just think that sounded better then history or poly sci major?

 

Nope, they can dismiss it. They don't have to hear it.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Around the Network
Aiemond on 22 November 2008
Tyrannical said:

Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Dismissed due to lack of standing, which says nothing about the facts or merits of the case. All the ruling means is that Bergman does not have the right to bring the matter to court, but Keyes does.

I worded the records part poorly, I was pointing out your use of immigration for his mom.

And I'll point out my use of immigration was correct. That's who stamps your passport when you re-enter the country, though they are referred to now as US customs and border patrol, which I think is part of homeland security.

The Supreme Court never has to take a case. The chief justice has to preside over Presidential Impeachment hearings - but that is just the CJ not the U.S.S.C.

Wrong, they must take cases in which they have original jurisdiction that are filed with them. The cases they refuse is a refusal to hear the appeal and they let the lower court ruling stand.

Honestly, are you really in pre-law or did you just think that sounded better then history or poly sci major?

 

Honestly, did you ignore my post or did you read it and realize it tore your arguments to shit?



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Max King of the Wild on 22 November 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
Max King of the Wild said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
Max King of the Wild said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
who cares?

if you let someones birthplace influence your opinion of them, then youre an idiot.

 

 So what I gathered from this post is... If someone murders someone but you like the guy you should let him go!

 

wtf?

 

 indeed wtf?

 

i dont understand? my post was saying that someones birthplace does not neccessarily impact who they are, i dont see how Obama bring born outside the us should be a problem for people. where does my post mention murder?

 

Do some research on US Presidencies to understand. I don't have the time to give lessons right now. 



Tyrannical on 22 November 2008

As to being born on soil outside the US, it is obvious what the founding fathers ment. I am tired of dregging this up, please everyone read this. THIS IS WHAT THE EARLY AMERICANS THOUGHT OF IT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

"Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)"

So, if you talk about "doing what the founding fathers wanted" and "protecting the constitution" this is what it is. Obama, by the founding father's and early america's standards, is a natural born citizen even if he is born in Kenya. Because, as we all know, the people who have this lawsuit want the spirit of the constitution followed right?

Nice try, but......

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf (top of page nine)

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

The statute in effect at the time stated that the parent had to be a minimum of 19, while Obama's mother was only 18. When the statute was changed, it was specificaly mentioned that it was NOT retroactive. But that's what you get when you drag out some law passed in 1790.

 That whole "renounce citizenship thing" of yours. Wrong statute. The below one mentions loss of citzenship through becoming a naturized citizen of a foreign country. Oh, and before you to quote happy with it, this is the current version, which is probably different then the one in effect in ~69 when Obama naturlized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and he was forced to give up other citizenships. Obama could have re-applied to be a US citizen when he moved back to the US, but the deadline for that was 6 months after his 18th birthday.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

 



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

That Guy on 22 November 2008

To all the haters, Barack says this:

KNOW YOUR ROLE, AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH



Around the Network
madskillz on 22 November 2008
steven787 said:
Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Your back up for experience is the Beta club, national honor society, and volunteering for the library... (Which is funny cause we have a;; three in common.)

Jeez I support the opposing argument better in my posts (before I tear them apart) than you do when you are seriously defending them.

When you're in the real world, and you need smart, capable people to work for you and be loyal or you need to sell big ticket items this illogical reasoning isn't going to fly.

You are a smart guy, you can do better: collect your thoughts, organize them, and check them to see if they are going to be relative and significant to your audience.

Dang, Steven ... if I didn't know any better, I think you just OWN3D halogamer X2. I will pay whatever you ask when I get into legal troubles.

OT: I actually read through this foolishness and just think it's hella funny. Get over it - Obama won and he will be Pres. 44. Try again in 4 years.

 



steven787 on 22 November 2008
madskillz said:
steven787 said:
Your sources are Youtube and Obamacrimes while citing a case that was thrown out...

Your back up for experience is the Beta club, national honor society, and volunteering for the library... (Which is funny cause we have a;; three in common.)

Jeez I support the opposing argument better in my posts (before I tear them apart) than you do when you are seriously defending them.

When you're in the real world, and you need smart, capable people to work for you and be loyal or you need to sell big ticket items this illogical reasoning isn't going to fly.

You are a smart guy, you can do better: collect your thoughts, organize them, and check them to see if they are going to be relative and significant to your audience.

Dang, Steven ... if I didn't know any better, I think you just OWN3D halogamer X2. I will pay whatever you ask when I get into legal troubles.

OT: I actually read through this foolishness and just think it's hella funny. Get over it - Obama won and he will be Pres. 44. Try again in 4 years.

 

I own no one, they own themselves

Wrong, they must take cases in which they have original jurisdiction that are filed with them. The cases they refuse is a refusal to hear the appeal and they let the lower court ruling stand.


The Certiorari Act greatly reduced the number of decisions in either state courts of last resort or federal appeals courts that parties could appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. It greatly expanded the cases in which parties could seek review only by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court, leaving it for the Court to decide whether or not to grant the petition and hear the case. This authority made the single biggest difference in the Supreme Court's docket. No longer did the Court have to hear almost every case an unhappy litigant presented to it. Instead, for the most part, the Court could select only those relatively few cases involving issues important enough to require a decision from the Supreme Court.

http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/jan04ttb/ii/

If you want to read the text of the law, it's at http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/15b

SEC. 237.

and...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2007rulesofthecourt.pdf

PART III. JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on
Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but
of judicial discretion. (p.5)

As for "original jurisdiction" the cases are not compulsory.

Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action

1. This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s
original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of
the United States.

5...The Court thereafter may grant or deny the motion...



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 on 22 November 2008

An interesting side note, the Gov. of Hawaii is a Republican, and will not order the release of the records.

It's a bipartisan conspiracy, I knew that the GOP couldn't possibly have been trying to win.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Aiemond on 22 November 2008
Tyrannical said:

As to being born on soil outside the US, it is obvious what the founding fathers ment. I am tired of dregging this up, please everyone read this. THIS IS WHAT THE EARLY AMERICANS THOUGHT OF IT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

"Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)"

So, if you talk about "doing what the founding fathers wanted" and "protecting the constitution" this is what it is. Obama, by the founding father's and early america's standards, is a natural born citizen even if he is born in Kenya. Because, as we all know, the people who have this lawsuit want the spirit of the constitution followed right?

Nice try, but......

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf (top of page nine)

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

The statute in effect at the time stated that the parent had to be a minimum of 19, while Obama's mother was only 18. When the statute was changed, it was specificaly mentioned that it was NOT retroactive. But that's what you get when you drag out some law passed in 1790.

That whole "renounce citizenship thing" of yours. Wrong statute. The below one mentions loss of citzenship through becoming a naturized citizen of a foreign country. Oh, and before you to quote happy with it, this is the current version, which is probably different then the one in effect in ~69 when Obama naturlized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and he was forced to give up other citizenships. Obama could have re-applied to be a US citizen when he moved back to the US, but the deadline for that was 6 months after his 18th birthday.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

 

 

the statute is not in effect, that is correct. But the usual argument for this is that we need to keep the constitution and laws in a way that the founding fathers wanted, am I correct? its obvious what the founders wanted in this case. Second, if you rea;lly think the US is going to DQ someone based on what his parents did when he is 8 years old, you are crazy. He is a minor, he has no ability to give up his citizenship that easy. The SC will not rule in favor of minors being able to lose citizenship based upon parents.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

akuma587 on 22 November 2008

Watching people try to explain the judicial system and the legal system who have no idea what they are talking about is just plain hillarious...



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson