Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Georgia Judge Subpoenas Obama » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
rounder1  - posted
I stumbled across some articles that claim that an Admin Law Judge has commanded Obama to appear in court Jan 26 and to bring a laundry list personal records; including certified birth certificate,Selective service registration, school records, and social security info for his current name and all alias used prior......

I have not seen this on any major news outlets....mostly fringe sites that I stumbled onto by clicking a link someone attached to a comment they had made on another news story.

First, I can't be sure that it is in fact legit, but to my untrained legal eye, it appears to be.

Second, I dont think they care whethor or not he can produce these documents. If he can't the judge will recommend the SOS that he be removed from the ballot. If he can produce they will proceed with challenging his status as "natural born." Presumbaly, upon review, he would not the criteria prescedented in Minor vs Happersett and would still recommend to the SOS that he not be allowed on the GA Ballot.

Granted, BO was never going to win GA anyway and it is only 15 electoral votes. But one has to wonder if Georgia denies him a slot on the ballot, how many states may follow suit....

Supposedly there has already been a motion to quash the subpoena.....supposedly denied.
 
glassman  - posted
there 's no reason for the Judge to require Obama himslef to appear.


there is a Constitutional Article (#3) that seems to say that the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction here:

Article 3 section 2

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
What a waste of time, plus even if that judge WAS able to do so, Obama wouldnt show up. He does what he wants until the law catches up and says otherwise such as the individual mandate.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
What a waste of time, plus even if that judge WAS able to do so, Obama wouldnt show up. He does what he wants until the law catches up and says otherwise such as the individual mandate.

back when Cheney held his "energy meetings" the supreme court backed him.

this case is differnt cuz it goes to electability, but the same principle aplies. In general, we as a nation don't want he President being sunpeonaed by every voting district int he country to present his credentials.

This case doesn't need Obama in court, but it will shut up the birthers once and for all. It should go straight tot eh supreme court very fast, or be overtuned by the appeals court very fast.
 
glassman  - posted
OH and the odd social secuerity number? it was not unusual for parents not to get SS numbers right away in the early 60's... i didn't have on for several years, but my number did match my state. it's an intersting question, but irrelevant to his eligability. I registered for selective service and have no idea wher that paperwork is, i think i lost it by the time i was 19 [Smile] and i was still required to be registered even after i got out of th enavy, they sent me letter saying so...
 
rounder1  - posted
I took a few minutes to read up on the Minor vs. Hampersette case and I don't really see how it would apply. I think the challenge is intended to be on the phrase "natural born citizen" which is poorly defined and needs to be addressed.

First off, I don't think that Georgia should try and deny a slot on the ballot for obama. I am not fan of Obama, but I think he is a genuine statesman. I believe that his motives are what he feels are in the best interest of America.....even if I don't see eye to eye with him on 5% of it.

But this whole thing did get me to wondering. I do now believe that whenever Obama leaves office be it in January or at the end of a second term; congress needs to take up the issue. And after some consideration, I think that the requirement should be that both Parents must have been citizens. Again, Obama is definately not a "Manchurian President." However, his election has demonstrated a weakness in the criteria that could allow one to be placed by similar means. In years that follow his presidency, his unintentional pointing out of this weakness may prove to be among some of his most noteable achievments.

I did not do an exhaustive amount of research on the Framer's intent. But in lightly scraping the surface I did learn that the wording was changed from Citizen to natural born citizen (which should imply that they drew some distinction....although it is not defined). Supposedly it was intended to ensure that wealthy european aristocrats would not be eligable and so even with their wealth, power, and influence they would still not be able to usurp our newly formed government.
 
glassman  - posted
Article II
Section 1.

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 to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

the "natural born" has always been taken to mean born into citizenship, meaning here....

the 14th amendment went on to define "citizenship" after the slaves were freed:



U.S. Constitution



14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



the Founders counted slaves for partial "credit" to representation (the 3/5ths compromise) but obviously did not recognise them even as citizens. so the Founders did not intend for Voting to be a privilege or immunity.


U.S. Constitution



Article I

Section 2.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2


that said? i think we have all moved on from the Founders original intent. The only question is whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not. I don't think that's in question anymore. But Obama should send a representative down to present his credentials.

it's been decided many times in the past that siting president is "temporarily" immune to lawsuits... moslty cuz it would just turn into a political game like this one is..
 
rounder1  - posted
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/25/obama-ignore-order-atlanta-court/
 
glassman  - posted
so i assume he automatically loses the decision.

i expect for Obama's peeps to go to appeals, maybe even straight to to SCOTUS, who, if they don't take it, will be seen as not doing their job like not showing up for the state of the union.


right now, if you are born in the USA you are a natural born (as opposed to naturalised by oath) Citizen. even if BOTH your parents are not citiznes, you are a citizen simply by "luck" of brithplace. I beleive that is settled law, but i can't quote which cases.

If it is not settled law? we are about to find out.

Let's assume it is not settled law for a second, and the Supreme Court found that yo are not natural born unless both your parents are citizens too? There would suddenly be at least 50 million more Illlegal Aliens in our country than there already is maybe over 100 million. That would include OBama since he has never been thru a naturalization process.
Interesting notion-
You can't make this chit up can you?
 
The Bigfoot  - posted
Can't win by playing fair? Change the rules halfway through the game.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
Can't win by playing fair? Change the rules halfway through the game.

playing fair? they've never

on the 'other hand? one could argue that Obama is already a Natural Citizen simply by the definition of the presidency...
 
glassman  - posted
this is case could split this country in ways not seen since 1859...... but i don't think it will come to that
 
The Bigfoot  - posted
I'd bet the supreme court will be involved soon though.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
I'd bet the supreme court will be involved soon though.

SCOTUS was the proper venue to begin with.

Article 3 section 2

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


original jurisdiction is the key phrase
 
rounder1  - posted
Majority opinion of SCOTUS Minor Vs Happersette.

It looks like that is what they are hanging their hat on.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
 
rounder1  - posted
Relative portion (if it exists) appears to be paragraph 9
 
glassman  - posted
weel i'm reading the whole thing between other jobs ronder, so give me some time. I will go back after and look specifically at 9.

i find this statement to be important:

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens.

this is one of the things i've been trying to point out here for years. the Second amendment say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Voting was not exteded tot he people..

now back to reading [Wink]
 
glassman  - posted
OK, so we get tot eh end where the Constitution does not garantee the right vote (suffrage) to anyone. It's left tot eh state, but ti also points out that what one state allows others must. Thats why gay marriage has never been a state issue [Wink]

#9
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 [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

basically? the whole thing hinges on whether parents is parents plural (as in both) or parents in general as in either or of many:

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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

his mother was a citizen and ther's no doubt of that. he was born to her in Hawaii and i don't beleive there is any doubt of that anymore...

so there's no case- IMO.

you can go back to old salve laws for that- a miixed race person born to a slave was aslave, and mixed race person born to a free woman was free...
 
glassman  - posted
interesting, Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, so he says...
 
rounder1  - posted
hehehe..... I would actually be more interested in keeping him off the ballot....jk.....kinda.

I think that GA should probably drop it under the circumstances, but as previously stated, I do think that after this election it should be addressed. And I do think that it should be required that both parents be citizens in order to be a candidate for pres or vp.
 
rounder1  - posted
In reading about the "trial" (with my minimalist experience in understanding legaleez), one interesting point is that supposedly the judge did hear "evidence" from 3 lawyers and several "expert" witnesses for the plaintiff. According to what I have read, seems to mean that if whatever verdict or recommendation the judge gives is appealed; it can only be done on points of Proceedure. Apparently, due to the failure of the defendant to show and present a defense.....the evidence is conceded????
 
glassman  - posted
i understand how you feel rounder but:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[32])


i am all for legal immigration. But i am not for so much legal immigration during periods of high unemployment. others seem to see our country as not even a country, and that case you posted specifies how i feel about what makes a nation a nation:

There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

we go so far as try to offer protection beyond Citzenship to the people (as indicated in the Constitution) and other people not even in our country.

we are by nature very generous and welcoming, but too many people take advantage of that, in my opinion.

I don't think that i will vote for Romney in any case, but him being the President does not give me any more concerns in qantity or quality than Obama does.

I hope to be able to cast my vote for paul in Nov, knowing that it will only send amesage tot eh rest of the political and MEDIA community that they need to open their minds alot. If Paul is not on the blallot at all, i will vote for Obama again, but if he loses to Romney? It won't break my heart. Newt? Sorry, i think he;ll destroy our country from the White House. He's a lightning rod, and he may speak well, but his mind is not as sharp as he thinks it is.

I felt similaryl about Hillary, however i have much more respect for her mind. She and newt are made for each other IMO
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share