Breaking!!!!SCOTUS refuses to hear another "birther" case!!! Will you Vattel people NOW admit that you are wrong?

.


Obama's father was never an American citizen.



That alone makes Obama Jr at best a Citizen; but never a
Natural-born Citizen as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 demands.

_

In our system they are the final arbiter.

Surely you can do better. That has been debunked. Thats kinda the point of the thread.

.


They are a separate but equal branch of government, cockbag.

Get your facts right.

_

LOL. Ze Papers! Unfortunately, I'm not corrupt enough to hold a position in political office, in any capacity I'm afraid. I would actually work for the people of whom I'm representing, 110%.

"STFU" great argument! Over 30 you said with a family? Enjoy your thread OP, just tell all those that disagree with you that they're idiots, should STFU, etc. It's working out nicely for you thus far.

When it comes to interpretation of the constitution. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter. That is their power that makes them equal. Dumbass.

I guess nobody has the backbone to stand up to an illegal black president.Had this happened when a white guy was in office everyone would be lining up to hang him in the street.

You started it with that profile. Condescending to me as if im some kind of moron. When you actually believe this nonsense, racial, political propaganda. Its just ridiculous. If you all hate the man so much then vote him out, dont say that he is ineligible. Because he is.

.


Congress believes otherwise.

They've tried to define Natural Born Citizen nearly 30 times since the Civil War.
The last attempt was in 2008 with McCain -- [link to www.opencongress.org]

Supply the legal definition of NBC if you can.

_

Well until it acts, on nonsense modern conservative racism. The traditional interpretation. Is that anyone born in the United States, is an NBC.

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen."

Congressional Research Office.


You satisfied now?

yeah but what about all the money he as stole ,and appointments he as made ,and laws he as made ,guess he gets away with that

How the fuck can a hillbilly talk better English when they only have two teeth.

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...

I also have all of my teeth and I even wear shoes. Stereotype much?

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.

Do you have a pet goat tied to the bumper of your trailer ?

Time to bring back Dredd Scott, that was a great SCOTUS decision too.

when Obama was a senator, he freely claimed that he was born in Kenya.

he accepted a foreign aide scholarship while in school.

he has the ss# of someone who was born in Massachussetts in 1890, and his grandmother had the ability, knowledge of how to perpetrate this fraud and worked where she could do it.

why did he and Michelle surrender their bar cards?

the "birth certificate" issue is wide open as a relative (such as his grandmother) could obtain one in Hawaii withput proof. all that was needed was a certification on her part, no proof was necessary.

his background is all questions and no answers except to can he sing and dance, was he a senator and does he have a pleasant personality.

there is so much smoke around his backgroaund that a huge fire could be blazing and it would be difficult to see.

obviously, the banksters love the controversy. while we are arguing the pros and cons and continue to stay divided, they put all their efforts into total, fascist, brutal control of the planet should they fail, it will be in spite of our shortcomings.

Dont have a trailer. I dont live in the hills anymore.I Just grew up there.

Refusing to hear does not mean its been decided it's been decided that they WONT hear the case. That does not equate to a DECISION!

They didnt have ss#'s in 1890. There was no such thing until Roosevelt in the 1930's. Wanna try again?

or they could ignore it, like they do many issues.

Um, no. In our system, the People are the final arbiter. Read the DoI.

Yes and they spoke by ratifying the 14th amendment. That is why it is now the law of the land. Now the Supreme Court must interpret that law, not challenge it. That is not their role in government.

I can think of no better reason for a political judge to NOT hear a case. If they did, they would be opening a "entire case of damages" claims from every disgruntled citizen, it would be never ending, and further bog down the completely bogged already system! Every associate they had would hate their guts cause they would blame them for the "current" condition of the legal system.

frangas, non flectes: You may break me, but you shall not bend me.

Who knew

I am a "birther" as you put it (and frankly a bit disturbed that there aren't more of us in light of the mountain of evidence that has YET to be refuted in any substantial form), but have always known that this case would never see the light of day.

WTF would you expect of SCOTUS? They're damned either way they might rule, so they're simply going to refuse to hear any case that comes close to legitimizing either side. That is the only reason birthers (like me at least) have backed away from devoting much more energy to this, and focused instead on the obvious travesties this administration has undertaken since taking office.

The system is most definitely fixed though, and the SCOTUS position clearly reflects it.

In short, it is very much time to clear ALL houses come November - including many republicans (i.e. RINO's - of which most are today) - in hopes of cleaning up the rest of the shitpile over the next 50 years or so (because that's about how long it will take to right this ship given the insanity of the past 8 years or so).

Unfortunately, I fear that it might be too late, but that won't stop me...

5-4 of these judges have conservative political agendas. That is a majority of the court, and you will all be applauding them as heroes when they strike down the individual mandate in the health care reform law. When you are Ill be reminding you of your posts here.

Chief Justice- John Roberts(George W. Bush)
Associate Justice-Samuel Alito (George W. Bush)
Associate Justice-Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan)
Associate Justice-Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan)
Associate Justice-Clarence Thomas (George H.W.Bush)
Associate Justice-Ruth Ginsberg (Bill Clinton)
Associate Justice-Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton)
Associate Justice-Elena Kagan (Barack Obama)
Associate Justice-Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama)

If I had to guess, I'm sure he meant 1990 which is a year in which Obotched was attending Harvard.

So you yanked out one statement from this poster of which was very likely a typo and ignored the rest?

I'm beginning to see the extent of your debate skills there OP.