Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible

lol, birthers

 

I don't care who wrote it, it says

Defendants assert bolded, ie the Defendants said.

 

So what? The Defendants did assert that they can nominate anyone they choose.

But, if you read their Motion, you would see that they did NOT argue the part about nominating someone who is ineligible.

Your whole purpose for this thread is that, supposedly, the "Dems" made that admission, and they didn't. It's part of the Judge's decision, not their argument.

So, let's see... You don't know how a 12(b)(6) argument works, you can't tell the difference between the Judge's decision and the motion papers, and you somehow think this decision proves anything other than that Birthers are morons.

That about wrap it up?

 

You don't have to "explore" it.. Its right there in black and white for anyone who can READ.

Cornell Law School makes it easy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

Let us address truth and lies a little. The claim made in the title of this thread is "Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible" but the lawsuit was brought by the "LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION" which is a "birther" organization of right-wing wackos and is in no way representative of Democrats.

On the Liberty Legal Foundation website they make a completely false claim related to the US Supreme Court's decision on "natural born citizenship" by stating:

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/

This is completely false as the definitive establishment of natural born citizen was in the US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898 ) where it determined that Kim Wong Ark, born in California which was a State, was determined to be a natural born citizen of the United States even though both of his parents were Chinese and prohibited from becoming US citizens under the naturalization laws in place at the time. The 14th Amendment is explicit in establishing the two criteria that must be met for natural born citizenship (born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and the citizenship of the parents are irrelevant.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

Natural born citizenship in the United State as established by the 14th Amendment is based upon Jus Soli (Latin: right of the soil) and not by Jus Sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

The parents of a person are not addressed anywhere in this Amendment to the US Constitution which established the Constitutional difference between Naturalized and Natural Born Citizens.

The parents are irrelevant to the citizenship of a person born on American soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only two exceptions that exist are the childrend of a nation occupying US terrority which are subject to the jurisdiction of their nation, not the United States, and the children of diplomats that are exempted from US jurisdiction by the statutory laws and treaties of the United States. Any other child born on US soil is a natural born citizen of the United States.

If we want to address "truth" and "lies" then it's the "Birthers" that have been consistant liars.

 

Then he committed fraud when he claimed citizenship from another country to get through college and used another ID to travel the mid-east as a young man. So what's the big deal, he is, afterall, from Chicago. You, maybe, expected something different?

 

President Obama has never held citizenship in another country to my knowledge and nothing in the 14th Amendment prohibits a person with dual citizenship from being president so long as they are a natural born citizen of the United States. President Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii in 1961, it was a part of the United States, he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government at birth and he is a natural born citizen of the United States based upon the 14th Amendment.

Of note John McCain was born in Panama and did not meet the requirement of "Born in the United States" and is a naturalized US citizen based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress. Natural born citizenship cannot be established by Congress as it is a Constitutionally protected Right for all individuals born in the United States and subject to the jurisdicition thereof. Once agian this was established in the Supreme Court decison of the United States v Kim Wong Ark where the Court ruled that statutory laws cannot infringe upon the Constitutionally protected Right of Natural Born Citizenship.

 

"Nominated anyone they choose including someone ineligible." Which they wouldn't have to argue or assert if they hadn't nominated Obama.

 

From a President, Your (*)(*)(*)(*) right I expected something different.

 

And they didn't argue that. That's what I've been telling you. The Judge added that in, of his own accord. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

There's two things going on here. One is, you can't comprehend even what you're reading; that is, you think you're reading an argument, by a party, when in reality, you're reading a decision, by a judge.

With that part, I can (try to) help you. Here is the argument made by the Democrats. See if you can find where they admit, or even discuss as a possibility, that Obama is not eligible.

http://ia600806.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.tnwd.61189/gov.uscourts.tnwd.61189.4.0.pdf

Since their argument on this issue is short, and pro-forma, I can cut and paste it here:

2. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because: 1) Federal law prevents this Court from entering the relief requested because the determination of whether a candidate is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States is left, in the first instance, to the electorate and the United States Congress; 2) the Defendants have an absolute right to nominate whoever they want as their candidate for President of the United States; 3) Plaintiffs cannot show that they will detrimentally rely upon any misrepresentation made by the Defendants and therefore cannot state a claim for either intentional or negligent misrepresentation;
​

So, where in there do they "admit Obama is ineligible"? Nowhere. Now, are you ready to admit that your headline, and the purpose for this thread, was a lie?

Of course not. Because, being a birther, you can never admit even a minor error.

Which brings me to the second problem. Once we get past the fact that you don't even understand what you're reading, we get to the fact that you don't understand the very nature of a Motion for Dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 12(b) gives a listing of "general" defenses that a Defendant can make, either in a responsive pleading ("Answer") or in a Motion. 12(b)(6) is very commonly used.

12(b)(6) is a defense of, "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

When a defendant argues a 12(b)(6) motion, in essence, they are arguing, "so what?" In other words, they are saying, "even if every single thing the Plaintiff says is true, this court can't do anything about it." They're not making any admission of facts. They aren't even dealing with them. They're making an argument of law.

Let's say you don't like American cars. I own 2 Chevys. You file a lawsuit against me, saying, "I don't like American cars, and BullsLawDan owns two Fords, so I demand he pay me $1 million and buy 2 foreign cars."

Now, I file a Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). I say, "Even assuming I owned 2 Fords, Slyhunter can't get $1 million from me through this court, because people have a right to buy whatever car they want, and you can't sue someone in federal court for not buying a car you like."

I'm not admitting I drive a Ford. I'm not admitting anything. All I'm saying is that I can't be ordered to pay you in federal court, and the court doesn't have the power to order me to buy 2 foreign cars, regardless of whether I drive a Ford, a Chevy, or anything else.

And that's what's going on in this case: No person has the right to tell the Democratic Party - a private entity - whom they nominate for President. They can nominate anyone they want. They could nominate Adolf Hitler, and the fact that he was German, and is dead, and would get them precisely zero votes, is immaterial. They are a private entity and can take any action within their own internal rules. They are not obligated to follow the recommendations of anyone else.

And that's what they argued: That the claim should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have no right to tell the Democratic Party whom to nominate, and the Plaintiffs cannot sue in federal court to get a particular candidate nominated or not nominated.

The court agreed. As they should have.



So, to sum up, once again: The "Dems" have not "admitted Obama's Not Eligible." That is simply incorrect. It has absolutely no basis in the reality of what occurred in this suit.

Now, we've had some beneficial discussion here... You've received some free legal advice, or, if you prefer, some free instruction in federal procedure. My students usually have to pay tuition to get that.

But, your OP, and the reason for this topic, has been proven to be a complete falsehood. If you were a reasonable person, you would admit that you started this thread based upon an error or misunderstanding, and we'll all move on to something else. Ready?

 

And of course those are just more Birther lies.

Another demonstration that if Birthers didn't lie, they wouldn't have anything to claim at all.

 

And from this President, and this President only, you did.

He showed the voters his official birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.

Only President to ever show the voters that he is eligible.

 

McCain's parent were both US citizens. Obama's parents, one was and the other wasn't, so McCain and Obama aren't comparable,an illogical conclusion.
here's about his scholarships:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1820621/pg1

Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to get Scholarship
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College ...

Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.

To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship......

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/why_obama_touted_foreign_birth.html

I guess it’s ok to lie to make yourself appear more than you are. Sometimes it doesn’t matter because the consequences are nominal. But if he lied then, what stops him from lying now? To some, omission of the truth is the equivalent of lying.

"…Third, there was and always has been an academic advantage to claiming "foreign student" status when it came to applying for college scholarships and fellowships. The "diversity" agenda has made sure of that. There is some question whether Obama referred to himself and enrolled himself as an "international student" at Occidental and Columbia to take advantage of this. The Elizabeth Warren Cherokee incident has shown the ridiculous lengths to which racial preferences have taken us. This erroneous appeal to foreign student status and its paper trail alone may be the reason President Obama has not released his college transcripts. Could it be that eager academics encouraged him to apply as a foreign student knowing that they were fudging the record?"

Now, I'm neither against or for, but if I have questions and the answers lead to more questions, am I not entitled to the truth? I am trying to keep an open mind in this instance believe it or not, your beliefs do not dictate mine so, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not.
Someone once posed this question to me in another thread: "What do I need that I can't have? What is it I want and can't get?" These were posed as a response to closed society and open society.
Answer: the complete truth. That's part of what comprises Liberty.
......not what I just need to know

 

that's just not true

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

 

Another bunch of BS from the birthers!

You guys are so ridiculous!


Not worse responding with facts, since you are denying every fact that is presented to you!
So. . .enjoy your delusions, and let's re-elect Obama in 2012!

 

your evidence he claimed citizenship from another country to geth through college?
your evidence he used another ID to travel the mid-east as a young man?

 

Well you know Snopes is in Obama's pocket.......according to Birthers....so that article- the one that points out that this is an obvious April Fool's Day that Birthers ate up without question.....and the articles reference to actual Occidental College statements.....well none of that can be trusted.

The only source's that Birthers trust are anonymous internet sources.....only those can be true.

 

And McCain was not born in the United States and Obama was.

Personally I think McCain is still a natural born citizen, but actual legal expects wrote entire analysis's of the issue.

And since Obama was born in the U.S. there has never been any legal question that he is a natural born citizen.

 

First off, The American Thinker is NOT a reputable source.

Second, both of your parents do not need to be US citizens to be a natural born citizen. That is a myth concocted by Birthers.

 

Wrong and wrong.

Obama has openly admitted that he was born with British citizenship. And, the man who inserted the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the 14th Amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull, defined it as this:

So, while you are arguing whether or not his is a natural born citizen, you have just proven that he isn't a citizen at all.

 

Well then you should make sure that your boy Romney talks about nothing but birtherism from now till his defeat in November. You should contribute every spare dime you have to birther causes and get a second or third job and contribute tha tmoney as well.

After all....No one could have that much evidence proving they were born in this country unless they were really born outside the country and all that evidence is just lies.

Right?????????

 

The 14th Amendment, in establishing the criteria for natural born citizenship (i.e. born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) does not mention "parents" at all. Natural born citizenship is an inalienable Right of Amercans and inalienable Rights cannot be dependent upon any other person. In the case of the natural Right of Citizenship who the parents are or their nationalily cannot be considered nor is such a consideration expressed in the 14th Amendment. This entire issue was addressed by the US Supreme Court in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark where the court detemined he was a "natural born citizen" based upon the 14th Amendment and could not be denied that inalienable Right by the statutory laws which would have denied him citizenship at the time. Under Article I Section 8 the Congress is limited to creating laws of naturalization. John McCain is a citizen of the United States based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress. His parents were required to submit a petition for citizenship under the naturalization laws before he was granted citizenship.

Thank you. Birthers continue to progagate this April Fools prank as if it was a fact.

 

If a person's citizenship is not derived from their parents, then where does it come from?

Obama openly admitted that he was born with British citizenship due to his father being a British subject. Not due to where he was born. Which is still in question.

You're not going to win here.

 

except of course you have been shown over and over the SCOTUS decisions which have called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your definition of the 14th amendment.
particularly wong kim ark

 

he already won. that's why obama is still president, birthers maintain a perfect record of fail in court, and why you're (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about it on the internet.