Users Online Now:
2,377
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,230,643
Pageviews Today:
2,054,639
Threads Today:
843
Posts Today:
14,671
07:41 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Breaking!!!!SCOTUS refuses to hear another "birther" case!!! Will you Vattel people NOW admit that you are wrong?
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 16721256:MV8xODk1MzI1XzMxNjcwOTg1XzVBRjhGQkZF] [quote:Frangas non Flectes:MV8xODk1MzI1XzMxNjcwOTExXzhDNTc4NEFF] [quote:Anonymous Coward 16869130:MV8xODk1MzI1XzMxNjcwODUzXzdGNzRBQjE=] [quote:Frangas non Flectes:MV8xODk1MzI1XzMxNjY3OTk5X0VBRTI5NzlE] "Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal" "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit." AP Come on guys. Keep hearing all this Vattel garbage, and how I am wrong about what the constitution means. Well the SCOTUS and the 9th circuit agree with me. No defense of your argument? [/quote] Since they won't defend themselves, I'll try to do it for them: The ruling doesn't comment on the merrit of the lawsuit, but only the right of the challengers to file it - they don't have standing. This has nothing to do with whether the President should have been able to run for office. That is the best I can do... [/quote] It is a valid argument, without trying to be something your not and cut and pasting. Thank you. However, as I said, if the court thought that there were proof that the president was ineligible. Every citizen in the country could claim irreparable harm. [/quote] [/quote]
Original Message
OK Vattel people and "birthers" in general. SCOTUS has spoken again. They have refused to even hear one of these cases. Will you now admit that you are just wrong, about what a "Natural Born Citizen" means? Because the SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation.
[
link to hosted.ap.org
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>