So, are Obama birth certificate threads not conspiracy theories anymore?

I have reported the threads in current events and elsewhere several times and they are not being moved.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...mony-reveals-fake-social-security-number.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...birth-certificate-actually-photo-shopped.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/229662-media-blackout-obama-eligibility-case.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/law-justice/227413-uncle-sam-lady-liberty.html

Just the ones I remember from the last few days.

This is what happens when you have birther sympathizers for mods. It makes the board look as illegitimate as a place for serious discussion as the constant down-time does.

 

I don't see how they are.

There are real court cases goin on right now, specifically Georgia where this issue is real.

 

Yes, TheHat is correct. This is current because there is a real court case going on now. The courts obviously didn't toss them out as being mere conspiracy theories. So, why should we? We can't be the arbiters of truth on the issue....so we allow the discussions and debate to take place.

It's no different than years ago when all the news stories about Bush being awol during his military service weren't moved to the "conspiracy" section. EVEN THOUGH, at least in that case, there was some amount of actual conspiracy proven when CBS Anchor Dan Rather and his producer presented forged papers to the press to try to take down a president. They were both fired over it. EVEN THEN, we continued to allow discussions and debate on the issue and did not move them to the Conspiracy section.

We allowed those discussion in Current Events.....just as we are allowing these. We cannot silence one half of the Board when it's an issue we don't agree with....and allow it for the other half when we do.

 

Georgia is about to make a ruling, in favor of removing Obama from the Ballot. It has nothing to do with his Birth Certificate, like I have been saying for years now, it is because of who his Father is. A Natural Born Citizen needs to have "parents" who are Citizens, as defined by the SCOTUS, and Obama's father was never a Citizen. Case closed.

He will be removed from Ballots as more and more states come to the correct conclussion.

 

And how about the 4 threads on the same exact topic then?

 

The only reply to this would be:

LOL.


Succinct, derisive... it's the perfect reply.

 

Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Further...

Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (200. ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.

 

5

 

That would be called merging.

 

Actually, it's just more mindless trolling.

 

I started a whole thread showing how the Appeals Court of Indiana says this whacky theory started by failed Birther attorneys is false.

And please get back to us after Georgia 'removes' Obama from the ballot...I can wait...

 

I thought if the mother was a U.S. citizen, then the child is. Wouldn't that be the case if she wasn't married to his father?

 

Yes, threads of the exact same subject can be merged. I'll go take a look and do so for the ones that are the same.

 

That's roughly what 8USC1409(c) says. However, no one seems to be able to tell me whence Congress derives any constitutional authority to confer citizenship by birth on the foreign born; so I'd say if Obama wasn't US born, any citizenship he might have by birth would be under a state law.

 

You can be born a Citizen. But that doesn't make you a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.

The ONLY time such language has been used in a SCOTUS decision it said "parents" that are Citizens, using the plural. Whether they were married or not.

 

The only people to pretend such a distinction exists are birthers, and they only fabricated that distinction when President Obama took office. How convenient.

Meanwhile, back in non-crazy world, this was settled in 1898 with US vs. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme court unequivocally stated that being born in the US makes you a citizen, no matter what the citizenship status of your parents is. President Obama was born in Hawaii, therefore he is a natural-born citizen. End of story.

 

Hey I don't mind that my thread was merged with another Birther thread- but how come both the threads that are discussing the "blow by blow" case in front of Judge Malithi were not also merged. Those two threads are identical- at least raised a tangental issue.

 

Children (P) of parents (P).

SCOTUS precedent is clear though, a person born in the US is a natural born citizen.

The Constitution mentions 2 types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized. There is no mention of a third type of citizenship unless one counts the "grandfather clause".

 

It states no such thing. It states they are born a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. there is a difference.

 

The ONLY SCOTUS decision clearly states "parents", and not just soil. Why do you continue to misrepresnt this?

 

Why are idiotic Birther theories being discussed in this thread?

 

I'll tell you what's worse than birthers. Anti-birthers. You people are obsessed with protecting Obama. Seriously, you need help.

 

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

"We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.

Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ..... declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed."

 

I don't know. This is ALL a BIG stretch in my opinion. It's better to beat Obama at the polls next November and forget all this crapola. I want to be able to say that the American people spoke and spoke loudly at the polls about the kind of president they think he's been.

 

What are the titles and I'll be happy to merge them.