No, I didn’t!
AHHH, a link to NOWHERE! NICE!
How do you know, when you haven’t even looked at the video or sources? LOLOL, FUNNY!
Until you look at the video and SEE the facts, there is no sense debating with you. I have the facts and you don’t and others can SEE that. Watch the videos and SEE my sources and original documents and then maybe I will listen to your assumptions!
YES, I do and my facts prove that as well!
Nah, I already know thanks to other respected posters, what we do know is that you skipped on purpose the MSNBC cite I brought that showed the legislative and the executive (Congress voting declaring that Obama was born in Hawai and the governor of Hawai) saying the Obama has the right to be president.
This is evidence that you are not really capable of judging who is a good source and who is a bad one.
You’re very bad at these sarcastic rhetorical questions. I am not sure why you are even bothering to ask because you’ve already explained what your loophole is: the phrasing used by Trumbull.
The link works, but maybe you’re having a firewall issue. Here’s a more direct link. In any case, it’s a link to a Washington Post article from December 2008. It begins this way:
This seems to be the exact same argument you’re making, just with a slightly different basis.
I don’t need to see your video.
And yet you’re relying on this 14th amendment issue. I guess this reflects the fact that you realize most people think the theory is silly. Which it is. It’s not even a legalistic argument. It’s a theory that nobody should believe because it’s ridiculous on its face.
Of course you did. You claimed that state courts have no jurisdiction then admitted that your claim was brought in state court.
One just needs to look at the link that was broken to see that is referring to the supreme court refusing to even hear the previous challenge based on Birther nonsense:
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/217841-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-obama-citizenship-challenge
Not hard to figure out, but as pointed out before, you are not really good at finding good information.
Did you see the resolution Obama and Hillary signed that proves McCain is a Natural Born Citizen? It clearly states:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
WOMP WOMP WOMP
Keep your head in the sand, that’s your problem!
Is that supposed to be the sound of me sticking my head in the sand? Why does sand make a WOMP sound? I’d expect more of a scratchy sound as I twisted my head around to burrow it down there.
If a Congressional resolution “proves” citizenship, then Congress’ certification of the electoral college votes proves that Obama is eligible to be President.
Until the Congress makes an amendment to the Constitution, it doesn’t matter what a state CASE says what a Natural Born Citizen is! However, on a totally different issue of Election Law, they states are the ones who vet a candidate to be on the ballot. All they need to do is look at the law and the Library of Congress sources that I supply which proves what a Natural Born Citizen is and then he will not be allowed on the ballot.
No messing with Constitutional amendments!
NO, that’s the Charlie Brown teacher!
The states all determined that Obama was eligible in 2008. Why would 2012 be different? Do you think they all forgot about the 14th amendment in 2008?
Not when Nancy Pelosi has to forge Obama’s eligibility papers in Hawaii…why did she do that and remove the Constitutional Clause from the form?
NOT Hawaii. Pelosi’s changed the wording and took out the constitutional clause, so Hawaii did NOT say he was eligible!
And she stuck her head in the sand?
I think most people represent her voice as “Wah wah wah,” since the sound was made by a muted trombone. WOMP sounds more like a collision.
What does Pelosi have to do with this? When did she become a master forger.
Obama was on the ballot in Hawaii both in the primaries and the general election.
You can substantiate this apparently absurd claim, right?
The state court has to apply the federal law to the circumstances.
When you go to court, you will be asking them to apply a federal law in order to determine whether Obama is eligible to appear on the state’s ballot. In order to do that, the state court will have to determine for itself whether Obama is a natural born citizen under federal law.
I think what you mean is that the decision of an Indiana court is not controlling in another state’s courts, and you are correct. However, the court of your state will apply the same reasoning and come to the same conclusion.