Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligiblity

[Warren Dew]

And Warren, one need not be a truther or other fringe element to see the Bush administration in a bad light. One need only look at what the bastards actually did.

Sure ... they kept Guantanamo open for indefinite detention of prisoners, tried to apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens, and kept troops in Afghanistan long after Bin Laden had left ... just like Obama.

Unlike Obama, though, they didn't actually assassinate U.S. citizens.

[Tero]

9 months to get it to SC, then it's too late.

[Seth]

9 months to get it to SC, then it's too late.

It's never too late. Even if it takes till after the end of his second term, the law would be settled and his presidency would be besmirched by his dishonesty and his legacy stained. Not really acceptable, but better than nothing.

Besides, many states, including Colorado, don't allow an election to be challenged until it's over. Here, anyone in the state has ten days after the election is certified to file a claim of disqualification of the candidate, which if won causes the removal of the candidate. In the case of a presidential election, I believe it would result in the withdrawal of the electoral votes, which would create a constitutional crisis in Washington potentially resulting in Obama being removed from office.

No matter how it goes for Obama, I hope this will get to the Supreme Court so that the core question can be fully and finally answered, so at least we don't have to suffer through it again.

[Ian]

And Warren, one need not be a truther or other fringe element to see the Bush administration in a bad light. One need only look at what the bastards actually did.

Sure ... they kept Guantanamo open for indefinite detention of prisoners, tried to apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens, and kept troops in Afghanistan long after Bin Laden had left ... just like Obama.

Unlike Obama, though, they didn't actually assassinate U.S. citizens.

And no doubt you've noticed how much flak Obama has taken from his left for continuing or revising some Bush administration policies.

On the other hand, where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush was racking up the lion's share of debt that we've now got? Heaven forbid fiscal conservatives criticize a Republican while in office...

[Seth]

And Warren, one need not be a truther or other fringe element to see the Bush administration in a bad light. One need only look at what the bastards actually did.

Sure ... they kept Guantanamo open for indefinite detention of prisoners, tried to apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens, and kept troops in Afghanistan long after Bin Laden had left ... just like Obama.

Unlike Obama, though, they didn't actually assassinate U.S. citizens.

And no doubt you've noticed how much flak Obama has taken from his left for continuing or revising some Bush administration policies.

On the other hand, where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush was racking up the lion's share of debt that we've now got? Heaven forbid fiscal conservatives criticize a Republican while in office...

It was around, just not organized. I certainly didn't approve of Bush's wild spending, but then again I knew long ago that Bush was a Progressive, not a Republican. But, he was the only game in town other than the other guy, and it would have been insanity to elect Gore, so I held my nose and voted for Bush.

[Tero]

Seth, there is only Newt, all your republicans are gone except 2010 TP congresspersons.

[Ian]

And Warren, one need not be a truther or other fringe element to see the Bush administration in a bad light. One need only look at what the bastards actually did.

Sure ... they kept Guantanamo open for indefinite detention of prisoners, tried to apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens, and kept troops in Afghanistan long after Bin Laden had left ... just like Obama.

Unlike Obama, though, they didn't actually assassinate U.S. citizens.

And no doubt you've noticed how much flak Obama has taken from his left for continuing or revising some Bush administration policies.

On the other hand, where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush was racking up the lion's share of debt that we've now got? Heaven forbid fiscal conservatives criticize a Republican while in office...

It was around, just not organized. I certainly didn't approve of Bush's wild spending, but then again I knew long ago that Bush was a Progressive, not a Republican. But, he was the only game in town other than the other guy, and it would have been insanity to elect Gore, so I held my nose and voted for Bush.

It's a historic axiom that right-of-center groups tend to be cohesive while left-of-center groups tend to splinter.

It's just the way the two different mind-sets work.

[Seth]

Seth, there is only Newt, all your republicans are gone except 2010 TP congresspersons.

Yeah, that's pretty scary, given Newt's admiration of Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism. He's cut from the same big-government cloth as Bush, but he's better than Obama because at least he wasn't raised by Marxists and wants to keep his Progressivism strictly home-grown and not global.

And Ron Paul is still in the race.

[Warren Dew]

On the other hand, where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush was racking up the lion's share of debt that we've now got?

Evidently, they were doing their arithmetic correctly, instead of making false statements like you are:

National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Obama is racking up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And the bulk of Bush's debt increase happened after the Democrats got control of congress in 2006, which is exactly why they lost control in 2010.

[Ian]

On the other hand, where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush was racking up the lion's share of debt that we've now got?

Evidently, they were doing their arithmetic correctly, instead of making false statements like you are:

National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Obama is racking up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And the bulk of Bush's debt increase happened after the Democrats got control of congress in 2006, which is exactly why they lost control in 2010.

Well, I guess the Democrats are responsible for everything after all.

Except your bullshit cherry-picked statistics. Why has the debt continued to increase during the first few years of Obama's administration? Could it be because he inherited the biggest recession since the Great Depression, and the fact that the economy plus the GOP pushed him into allowing an extension of the Bush tax cuts for another 2 yrs? (Note what was written there: the Bush tax cuts. Not the '06-'10 Democratic Congress' tax cuts). Nah, the continued debt must be because the Democrats came to power. If McCain was elected, surely he would've straightened everything out that Bush and 6 yrs' worth of a GOP Congress did not.

Main drivers of the current amount of public debt, 2001-2011:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ ... e_2001.pdf

But where are the trend lines heading into the future? Towards shrinking debt again. Surely that's somehow all the recent House's doing though, since Democrats just love racking up debt, right?

Always the partisan wankery from you.

[Tyrannical]

There was always a much easier way to solve this
On the candidate form requesting to be added to the ballot it already requires affirmation that you meet eligibility requirements. Add the phrase "and by doing so you grant permission for the Secretary of State office to request any and all documents needed to ascertain the stated eligibility"

So when Obama signs up, you would then be free to sue your Secretary of State to subpoena an original birth certificate, passport and immigration records, and other fun stuff. Obama would have already waived his rights to object as a requirement to be added to the ballot.


Of all the little Obama conspiracies that have gone around these last few years, the one I always felt most likely was that on his college admission forms to gain financial aid / acceptance implied dual citizenship or had used an Indonesian passport.

[Tyrannical]

This is interesting......

Since Obama's lawyer included a copy of the birth certificate Obama has already released and it was entered into evidence, they claim that gives them the right to inspect the original


http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light- ... aii-files/

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,”

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, please.

I am a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for President.

I was born in the US to two parents who were not citizens. I have been a citizen since birth. You're wrong. Natural born citizen does not mean "born in the US TO TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS."

Natural born citizen means:

1. Born in the US, other than to diplomats serving a foreign country.
2. Children of US citizens born abroad.
3. Children born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

In short, the citizenship of Obama's father doesn't mean anything, if Obama was born in the United States.

You're also wrong about the Supreme Court having "defined" the term. It hasn't. It has mentioned the idea of natural born citizen in passing, in obiter dicta, but it has never, ever ruled on the issue.

Section 1, Article 2 - 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.

Fourteenth Amendment: 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.

If you're born here, naturally, you're a natural born citizen.

A Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, as can governors and other such positions in government. The President has to be a natural, not naturalized, born citizen. That just means he has to be born here.

Chester Allen Arthur's situation is very similar to Obama's. Arthur was born in Vermont, to a Vermontian mother, and an IRISH FATHER. Arthur's father was not naturalized until Arthur was 14 years old, yet Arthur was a citizen since birth.

Some people claimed Arthur was born in Canada, not Vermont, but that was never proved.

The C.A. Arthur situation is very similar to the nonsense spouted about Obama now. It's deja vu all over again. Same shit, different day.

At least Arthur's situation belies the MSNBC-fomented allegation that the question of Obama's birth must be some sort of racial thing. Birth "questions" raised about Presidential candidates have been pretty common.

The issue of a person's parents' citizenship has been raised many times in the past, but never came to anything. Like Hughes' run against Wilson back in 1916. Shit was raised against Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it was a State. Lawsuits were filed all over the place to stop McCain from serving, because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.

Bottom line, though. The idea that you're presenting that a person, to be eligible to run for president, must not only be born here in the US, but also have 2 US citizens for parents, is just not supported by the law or the constitution.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is interesting......

Since Obama's lawyer included a copy of the birth certificate Obama has already released and it was entered into evidence, they claim that gives them the right to inspect the original


http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light- ... aii-files/

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,”

Well, they would, of course, be so entitled. They can subpoena the records from the State of Hawaii, I suppose.

They probably don't want to do that, though, because Hawaii will produce a certified copy, because they don't retain the original, and they'll certify that Obama is a citizen. And, if Obama lost the original, oh well. Losing the original birth certificate doesn't make one ineligible to run for President.

[Seth]

Seth, please.

I am a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for President.

I was born in the US to two parents who were not citizens. I have been a citizen since birth. You're wrong. Natural born citizen does not mean "born in the US TO TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS."

Nope, you're not eligible to be President. You're a "citizen," not a "natural born citizen," or so the existing case law suggests.

Natural born citizen means:

1. Born in the US, other than to diplomats serving a foreign country.
2. Children of US citizens born abroad.
3. Children born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Citation?

In short, the citizenship of Obama's father doesn't mean anything, if Obama was born in the United States.

Well, that's the bone of contention.

You're also wrong about the Supreme Court having "defined" the term. It hasn't. It has mentioned the idea of natural born citizen in passing, in obiter dicta, but it has never, ever ruled on the issue.

Yup, you're right, the Court has never ruled squarely on the subject, and if you read the amicus brief I cited, you will see why there is a legal controversy here.

Section 1, Article 2 - 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.

Fourteenth Amendment: 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.

If you're born here, naturally, you're a natural born citizen.

Nope. You're conflating two classes of citizenship. Section 1 Article 2 says "natural born citizen" and the Fourteenth Amendment says only "citizen." You are improperly adding "natural born" to the Fourteenth Amendment language when it does not exist there.

Because "natural born citizen" is only mentioned in ONE PLACE in the Constitution, and because in every other qualification for office, such as Senators and Representatives, only the word "citizen" is used, the well-known rules of statutory interpretation come into play, and as you well know, one of those rules is that every word of the Constitution has meaning. Therefore, "natural born citizen" means something DIFFERENT from "citizen."

The unresolved question for the courts to answer is what, exactly, "natural born" means, and the current cases that mention the term point towards a child of two citizen parents. As the amicus brief explains, there is good reason to believe that this is the construction understood by the Framers when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution, and was the construction understood by the Ratifiers.

A Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, as can governors and other such positions in government. The President has to be a natural, not naturalized, born citizen. That just means he has to be born here.

Yes, a Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, or a citizen, but the President must be a natural born citizen, which is a higher level of citizenship intended to protect the office from foreign influence.

Chester Allen Arthur's situation is very similar to Obama's. Arthur was born in Vermont, to a Vermontian mother, and an IRISH FATHER. Arthur's father was not naturalized until Arthur was 14 years old, yet Arthur was a citizen since birth.


Some people claimed Arthur was born in Canada, not Vermont, but that was never proved.

The C.A. Arthur situation is very similar to the nonsense spouted about Obama now. It's deja vu all over again. Same shit, different day.

At least Arthur's situation belies the MSNBC-fomented allegation that the question of Obama's birth must be some sort of racial thing. Birth "questions" raised about Presidential candidates have been pretty common.

Doesn't matter. If no one challenged his status as a mere citizen and not a natural born citizen, that doesn't change the law. His violation of the Constitution does not remove the requirement.

The issue of a person's parents' citizenship has been raised many times in the past, but never came to anything. Like Hughes' run against Wilson back in 1916. Shit was raised against Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it was a State. Lawsuits were filed all over the place to stop McCain from serving, because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.

Again, the fact that the issue has never come before the Supreme Court is irrelevant. McCain's birth in the Canal Zone was not relevant because both his parents were born in the US.

Bottom line, though. The idea that you're presenting that a person, to be eligible to run for president, must not only be born here in the US, but also have 2 US citizens for parents, is just not supported by the law or the constitution.

So you say. There are a good many legal experts who disagree with you who have some very strong legal arguments contrary to your bald assertion, which is why it's an issue today. You have no caselaw stating that a "natural born citizen" MAY have one foreigner as a parent, so the question remains judicially unresolved. And it needs to be judicially resolved, by the Supreme Court, one way or another, in the immediate future, so as to forestall any future controversy like this.