• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Judge Lambasts Wingnuts!!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Judge Blasts Cases Doubting Obama's Citizenship

Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.


In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.


In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.


"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.


The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.


Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_citizenship_cases/2009/03/05/188991.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Ya, see there's the problem, they argued about the birth certificate.

Best to go with the "Natural Born", without the Birth certificate. if the judge asks about the birth certificate, let the defense bring it up.

He might be a citizen, but he is not a "Natural Born" citizen, Natural Born has nothing to do with his birth certificate.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Ya, see there's the problem, they argued about the birth certificate.

Best to go with the "Natural Born", without the Birth certificate. if the judge asks about the birth certificate, let the defense bring it up.

He might be a citizen, but he is not a "Natural Born" citizen, Natural Born has nothing to do with his birth certificate.

Show me the Constitutions definition of "Natural Born"....

This Judge is correct "America has too many lawyers with not enough to do."

Interestingly this Judge wrote the first Guantanamo decision that was overturned by an Appeals Court but later upheld by the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)... A case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.

Judge Robertson was also a on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court until he resigned in Dec. 2005....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So you're saying "Natural Born" was a slip of the tongue?

It's just a coincidence that (the only place it is written) it pertains to the President, and commander in chief?

They obviously knew about Naturalized, and citizen, and native citizen, but they chose to stipulate that the President needed to be "Natural Born"..

Do some more research, you're still out of your league!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
So you're saying "Natural Born" was a slip of the tongue?

It's just a coincidence that (the only place it is written) it pertains to the President, and commander in chief?

They obviously knew about Naturalized, and citizen, and native citizen, but they chose to stipulate that the President needed to be "Natural Born"..

Do some more research, you're still out of your league!

You can't can you :???: Because the Constitution does not have a definition for Natural Born......

The only thing close to a definition is in the 14th Amendment:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth "in the United States" and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”

This clause mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens). However, the full text of the fourteenth amendment does not mention the phrase "natural born citizen," nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, as is also true with most other constitutional terms.

Since children of Mexican illegal aliens that sneak across the US border to have their children- are considered citizens by birth- or in other words "natural born"- the whole natural born argument is a crock of rightwingernut bullsh*t....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tell you what OT.

You prove that the "Natural Born" clause means, born in the US, of only one US citizen. (Obama's situation)

Try to prove that to yourself! And then come back with some info. for us all.

Here's a hint. Start with the link I posted.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/divided-loyalties-pt-1/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Tell you what OT.

You prove that the "Natural Born" clause means, born in the US, of only one US citizen. (Obama's situation)

Try to prove that to yourself! And then come back with some info. for us all.

If children of illegal alien parents that are citizens of Mexico- that are born in the US are considered citizens by birth (which is the closest legal definition/precedent to natural born)- than Hawaii's certification that Obama was born in Hawaii, the son of a US citizen mother, is more than enough.....

And apparently a Federal Judge with much more expertise in the law than you or I believes that too.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
This clause mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens).

Now what might be the third? Natural Born?, which would be different than the other two.

So not citizenship, just because you were born in the US. and

Not a citizen by law, which would be anybody born and naturalized, or born to naturalized.

Go Fish!
 

Mike

Well-known member
There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.

Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.

This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."

The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.

Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.

Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.

So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.

POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Apparently Judge Robertson doesn't buy any of these arguments...

Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

From what dealings I've had with them- Federal Judges don't put up with much Bull.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
This case did not argue, the Natural Born issue, it argued the citizen by birth issue!

It's been over 200 years, if it's not defined, why doesn't a Judge take the opportunity to hear one of these cases, and define it?

Reader, do some research.

The reason they will not hear the cases, is because it would cause a very serious situation!

If they could discount the evidence, they would hear the cases, and that would be the end of them.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Apparently Judge Robertson doesn't buy any of these arguments...

Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

From what dealings I've had with them- Federal Judges don't put up with much Bull.....

now wait up a minute-- just a week or so ago Oldtimer you said that the taxpayers were paying obama's legal fees-- were you wrong??
if obama is so worried about attorney fees why doesn't he just prove up??
Birth certificate, what $12
proof to the American people--- priceless!!!!


This is NOT going to go away till he does!!!!
The more he stalls the more momentum it gains!!
This story is getting more press coverage all the time, more and more people are talking about it.
The more he hides the more it looks like he has something to hide!!!
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Americans need to know!!!
Anyone who believes in the U.S. constitution deserves to know!!!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
now wait up a minute-- just a week or so ago Oldtimer you said that the taxpayers were paying obama's legal fees-- were you wrong??
if obama is so worried about attorney fees why doesn't he just prove up??
Birth certificate, what $12
proof to the American people--- priceless!!!!


This is NOT going to go away till he does!!!!
The more he stalls the more momentum it gains!!
This story is getting more press coverage all the time, more and more people are talking about it.
The more he hides the more it looks like he has something to hide!!!
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Americans need to know!!!
Anyone who believes in the U.S. constitution deserves to know!!!

Even though I find your use of exclamation points very exciting!!!

I think you should probably know something very important!!!

The vast majority of the American people probably find this issue quite ridiculous!!!

And most of the inquiring minds that want to know are already wrapped in several layers of tinfoil!!!

But I'm sort of glad its keeping the wingnuts occupied!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Apparently Judge Robertson doesn't buy any of these arguments...

Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

From what dealings I've had with them- Federal Judges don't put up with much Bull.....

now wait up a minute-- just a week or so ago Oldtimer you said that the taxpayers were paying obama's legal fees-- were you wrong??
if obama is so worried about attorney fees why doesn't he just prove up??
Birth certificate, what $12
proof to the American people--- priceless!!!!


This is NOT going to go away till he does!!!!
The more he stalls the more momentum it gains!!
This story is getting more press coverage all the time, more and more people are talking about it.
The more he hides the more it looks like he has something to hide!!!
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Americans need to know!!!
Anyone who believes in the U.S. constitution deserves to know!!!

Answer me one question lonelycowboy- who does the Constitution say makes the decision :???:
Who does it say he should show it to- and who makes the decision-- YOU- Or the Banker in Podunk Nebraska- or the KKK Grand Poobah in Alabama :???:

He showed it and the certification from the Registrar of Records in Hawaii to the people -made it public- and to the only one that even closely is responsible by the Constitution to make the decision- the Electors- both the Voters and the Electoral College....

Or are you saying like Montana's Republican party did with their caucus's and is currently doing with the CHIPS program- that you'all Repubs are smarter/more qualified/above the voters..... :shock: :???:

(For those of you that don't know whats happening- the Montana Republican Party is fighting implementing the Childrens Health Program that was voted into place by the voters in November by Referendum by a 70% majority- using the excuse that they know better than the voters.... :roll: )
 
Top