Obama Is Not A Citizen Of The Us?

[copernicus 0]

Only for you would I take the effort to actually look for that. I found only one instance where you accused me of lying: I really don't get it. The lawsuit was thrown out yesterday, how is this a lie?

There are others although at least one is over the same issue.It is a lie because it was not thrown out ON ITS MERITS. It was thrown out on STANDING, a judge claiming that a US citizen has no standing under the Constitution to enforce Article II.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

you guys were really bored today

[vbnautilus 48]

There are others although at least one is over the same issue.It is a lie because it was not thrown out ON ITS MERITS. It was thrown out on STANDING, a judge claiming that a US citizen has no standing under the Constitution to enforce Article II.

That is a semantic quibble which does not make my statement a "lie". Every case brought by a citizen in federal court has been thrown out for the same reason. I didn't hear any cries about this when Hollander v McCain was dismissed. The Berg case apparently did a pretty poor job at changing this precedent.In this particular case the judge ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion" and that the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."He should have gone to state court. Here's an interesting paper on the topic from the michigan law review, which concludes: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eli- gibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a pre- election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified candi- date off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given Congress’ dubious legal au- thority to not count electoral votes of a candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust off their state election codes and head to state court. But I'm off duty now, so that's pretty much it for this thread I think.

[Nimue1995 1]

That is a semantic quibble which does not make my statement a "lie". Every case brought by a citizen in federal court has been thrown out for the same reason. I didn't hear any cries about this when Hollander v McCain was dismissed. The Berg case apparently did a pretty poor job at changing this precedent.In this particular case the judge ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion" and that the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."He should have gone to state court. Here's an interesting paper on the topic from the michigan law review, which concludes: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eli- gibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a pre- election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified candi- date off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given Congress’ dubious legal au- thority to not count electoral votes of a candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust off their state election codes and head to state court. But I'm off duty now, so that's pretty much it for this thread I think.

You might be done but Cope & 85 won't be able to let it go.

[copernicus 0]

That is a semantic quibble which does not make my statement a "lie". Every case brought by a citizen in federal court has been thrown out for the same reason. I didn't hear any cries about this when Hollander v McCain was dismissed. The Berg case apparently did a pretty poor job at changing this precedent.In this particular case the judge ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion" and that the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."He should have gone to state court. Here's an interesting paper on the topic from the michigan law review, which concludes: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eli- gibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a pre- election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified candi- date off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate's eligibility, U.S. Supreme Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given Congress' dubious legal au- thority to not count electoral votes of a candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a presidential candidate's eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust off their state election codes and head to state court. But I'm off duty now, so that's pretty much it for this thread I think.

No, there is a huge difference between "merits" and "standing", both legally and in the impression you tried to create by using it. When a case is adjudicated on its merits it cannot be heard again in the same court. It also creates prejudice (in the legal sense) which is far more difficult to overturn on appeal.As far as impression, your use of that word implies that the court decided the question of citizenship, either by fact or by lack of evidence. The evidence never gets heard when a case is dismissed on standing.

[vbnautilus 48]

No, there is a huge difference between "merits" and "standing", both legally and in the impression you tried to create by using it. When a case is adjudicated on its merits it cannot be heard again in the same court. It also creates prejudice (in the legal sense) which is far more difficult to overturn on appeal.As far as impression, your use of that word implies that the court decided the question of citizenship, either by fact or by lack of evidence. The evidence never gets heard when a case is dismissed on standing.

You're right; I agree the use of the word merit there was a mistake, as it has a specific legal meaning. But my point was that his legal arguments are as lacking in substance as his "evidence" about Obama's African birth.

[rcgs59 15]

i really find this thread precious.vb, i think it's abundantly clear to the english-speaking world that obama is a US citizen at this point, and the truth, logic, and scientific evidence police all relieve you of duty. can you laugh along with the rest of us now?

I know your going to keep trying VB, and I see your reasoning and rational why to go on but looking at this from a realistic point of view the evidence is there, but there blinders are permently glued on, takes checky's advice lol, get some rest

[Balloon guy 158]

You're right; I agree the use of the word merit there was a mistake, as it has a specific legal meaning. But my point was that his legal arguments are as lacking in substance as his "evidence" about Obama's African birth.

So he was born in Africa?We should just check the birth records in Africa then.Until then I think he should go visit his ailing grandmother who may die any second, not take his children or wife, because life on the campaign trail is much better for the kids than seeing a person that was very important to their father ( if he actually IS their father). Of course maybe he had to keep his kids away because isn't this the racist grandmother?

[El Guapo 8]

We should just check the birth records in Africa then.

That could take a while, I think they have been moved to microfiche.

[copernicus 0]

That could take a while, I think they have been moved to microfiche.

you must have heard that on the radio...they were moved to micro-FISH, i.e. dumped in the river when they realized genocide is harder to prove if there are no birth records.

[x Swift x 0]

Has the fact McCain wasn't born in the U.S. been brought up yet?

[brvheart 1,752]

Has the fact McCain wasn't born in the U.S. been brought up yet?

no. You just broke the news.

[Jeepster80125 0]

So why haven't we seen her birth certificate yet? Or McCain's either for that matter? We only have his word that he was born in the Canal Zone. And at that time, how do we really know we can trust that source since it was so long ago and all?

Do you even think before you post? It doesn't seem like it.

Has the fact McCain wasn't born in the U.S. been brought up yet?

no. You just broke the news.

Awesome.

[vbnautilus 48]

The Hawaii Department of Health has verified the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/deta...on&psp=news

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I have met and spent time with Linda Lingle and if she says's Barry is a citizen then it's the end of the story for me.

[Sam Donaldson 0]

85, you gotta be shitting me. This is right up there with the Kos story about the Palin down syndrome baby being birthed by her daughter. I can't wait till this election is over.

[PaulMoore 0]

The Hawaii Department of Health has verified the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/deta...on&psp=news

Awesome, the final nail in the coffin.Take a bow VB, you have won