Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[crimresearch]

Link: < http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...utional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ >

While it is a discussion blog, he did go back and edit some fallacies out.

"It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens."

So, that logic should be pretty easy to follow.

Whether Georgia courts, or any other, decide that it is pertinent is something worthy of discussion. Probably by Constitutional Scholars.

But the reason I posted it initially was that I thought it was news that a court was actually considering a Birther suit.

If the court upholds the argument, then the whole concept of "Birther C T" goes out the window, doesn't it? It's no Theory if it is found to be legal fact.

Explain how any court is going to make Eric Holder the US Attorney General a year before he got the job, put Pakistan on a *no travel* list, change the Minor wording from 'born to parents who are citizens' into 'must be born to 2 parents who are citizens', and otherwise turn all the bullhockey you've been posting into reality?

And you just threw away the excuse of 'I didn't know it was wrong' by repeating things that were biotchslapped in the other thread (like Donofrio) so hard that you *knew* they were whacko lies.

 

[CptColumbo]

This is still ignoring the fact that the Judicial Branch does not have the power to remove a President from office.

 

[Chaos]

For a nation at least partially founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution the United States of today seem to have surprisingly many hangups about what immigrants and their children are allowed to do.

For a nation at least partially founded by and for whites holding blacks as slaves, it is absolutely NOT surprising how many people have hangups about allowing a black man to become president.

 

[Mojo]

Link: < http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...utional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ >

While it is a discussion blog, he did go back and edit some fallacies out.

"It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens."

So, that logic should be pretty easy to follow.

Indeed it should.

The question is whether a person born in the US of parents who are not both citizens is a "natural born" citizen. What is being cited is a decision that says that persons born in the US of parents who are both citizens are "natural born" citizens. It explicitly says that it was not necessary to consider any other situation because the plaintiff fell into this category.
It therefore makes no decision about the status of a person born in the US whose parents are not both citizens.

Say that we were arguing over whether chickens are birds. Could you use a court decision saying that ducks are birds, but making no decision about chickens, to show that chickens are not birds?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Looks like Taitz may have a valid case this time. . . .words

You aren't even following the case very well, are you?

Orly didn't make the Mv.H argument. As near as any rational person can figure out, Orly's disjointed, rambling screech of an argument was that the birth certificate was forged, or that the President was not the same person as on the birth certificate, or something like that.

THe Minor argument was made by the other lawyer, the avowed neo-confederate Irions.

In any event, this case hasn't got a chance in hell of success.

The birthers still managed to lose to an empty table.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

This is still ignoring the fact that the Judicial Branch does not have the power to remove a President from office.

Never argue fact with a birther, it makes their heads explode.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

ANd Casebro, are you aware that two of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in last Thursday's hearing introduced copies of the COLB and the long form birth certificate into evidence and stipulated that they accepted them as real and genuine?

Talk about torpedoing your own case.

 

[Agatha]

Farrar is claiming (wrongly) that the cases were three separate ones, so that evidence introduced by van Irion and Hatfield don't apply to his case, and the items introduced by Orly stand on their own with no reference to the COLB or LFBC. Still, if you have the worst attorney in the world, you get what you deserve.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Farrar is also claiming: “All of the facts, documents and testimony entered into evidence during this hearing will have to been taken by the judge as the absolute truth, period. In a court of law, uncontested testimony is the truth.”

 

[Horatius]

Farrar is also claiming: “All of the facts, documents and testimony entered into evidence during this hearing will have to been taken by the judge as the absolute truth, period. In a court of law, uncontested testimony is the truth.”

So the Birthers have started channelling the Freemen on The Land?

 

[KDLarsen]

Farrar is also claiming: “All of the facts, documents and testimony entered into evidence during this hearing will have to been taken by the judge as the absolute truth, period. In a court of law, uncontested testimony is the truth.”

Quite amusing. Based on that, it's the absolute truth that Obama was born in Hawaii, just as it's the absolute truth that he wasn't born there

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So the Birthers have started channelling the Freemen on The Land?

Farrar has flirted with the SovCits in the past.

 

[Arus808]

Link: < http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...utional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ >

While it is a discussion blog, he did go back and edit some fallacies out.

Its still wrong.

"It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

Wrong again. Its womans voting rights case. the dicta said that they weren't going to solve these doubts:

DICTA:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen.

The supreme court did nothing of the sort. The determination was never at issue. No one disputed that Minor was a citizen because of her birth. The issue was that with citizenship does that afford the right to vote(especially for WOMEN at the time)?

The supreme court only weighed on that issue, and that issue alone.

Here citizenship was established agreed upon by both sides in the LOWER court. This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of a lower courts findings

The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens."

Nope. it wasn't in the holding.

this is exactly what the Supreme Court found:

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

Please show us where in their holding did they mention natural born citizenship.

also, please show us where in the decision that they ruled Minor to be a natural born citizen (hint: they didn't. they only said in dicta that she was a citizen by virtue of her birth).

 

[Arus808]

You aren't even following the case very well, are you?

Orly didn't make the Mv.H argument. As near as any rational person can figure out, Orly's disjointed, rambling screech of an argument was that the birth certificate was forged, or that the President was not the same person as on the birth certificate, or something like that.

This is her claim:

Barack Obama and Barry Soetoro are two different people. That the person in office is actually Barry Soetoro, who took the name Barack Obama (she never explained how or why) because two images from Barack/Barry childhood look "different". She never explains what happened to the real Barack Obama.

And that the COLB, the SSN are the result of a 50 year conspiracy to put Barry Soetoro into office.

Yes its actually the MOST crazy birther claim we have heard; I think she's watched The Manchurian Candidate and Invasion of the Body Snatchers a little too much.

THe Minor argument was made by the other lawyer, the avowed neo-confederate Irions.

In any event, this case hasn't got a chance in hell of success.

The birthers still managed to lose to an empty table.

And from real legal scholars:
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/10/14/president-chester-a-arthur-and-the-birthers-1880%E2%80%99s-style/

To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.

The Minor case involved Virginia Louisa Minor’s constitutional challenge to the Missouri law that limited voting to adult males. Her unsuccessful argument was that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws prohibited the state of Missouri from denying women the right to vote.

Ms. Minor was born in Caroline County, Virginia on March 27, 1824. Both of her parents were born in Virginia in the 1790′s, and all of her grandparents had been born in the Virginia colony. (One of her grandmothers was a cousin of President James Madison.) Consequently,the issue of whether or not she was a national born citizen had nothing to do with the case.

To latch on the comments made by Chief Justice Waite in passing and to claim that those comments are somehow definitive is simply absurd. Moreover, as Prof. Fallone pointed out in an earlier comment, Waite specifically stated that it was not necessary to define natural born citizen to resolve the case at hand.

 

[Multivac]

Quite amusing. Based on that, it's the absolute truth that Obama was born in Hawaii, just as it's the absolute truth that he wasn't born there

Then he must be a Quantum President!

 

[LSSBB]

Then he must be a Quantum President!

He is therefore 50% born in America. There is also a real yet approaching infinitismal probability, depending on the construction of his wave function, that he has or will appear on Mars.

 

[A'isha]

He is therefore 50% born in America. There is also a real yet approaching infinitismal probability, depending on the construction of his wave function, that he has or will appear on Mars.

The White House categorically denies that Obama has ever been to Mars.

Really.

 

[Arus808]

Transcripts from the Georgia Hearings:

Farrar v Obama ( Georgia - Farrar, et al. v Obama - Certified Transcript 1-26-12 Hearing tfb ) - represented by Orly Taitz

Swensson/Powell v Obama ( Georgia - Swensson|Powell v Obama - Certified Transcript 1-26-12 Hearing tfb )

Weldon v Obama ( Georgia - Welden v Obama - Certified Transcript 1-26-12 Hearing tfb )

 

[Paul]

The White House categorically denies that Obama has ever been to Mars.

The best thing about the story is that if you're British it was filed as an April fool from the future.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Orly's transcript (http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854011/...bama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb)
is just too funny.

"faster, faster, down lower, lower. . . . "

She also repeatedly forgot to say the magic words: "You honor, I'd like to move to enter this exhibit into the record." so that NONE of her exhibits were entered into the record as evidence.