How dare you make such an outrageous claim? How can anyone doubt that Obama was born here on earth? I have absolute proof of it. It has recently been revealed that Obama has been identified as having visited Mars at least twice as part of the CIA’s Mars program, the existence of which was confirmed by Eisenhower’s great-granddaughter, yes, General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, stand up, salute, and place your hand over your heart when I mention that name, you commie doubter. Would a space-born Obama need the assistance of the CIA to visit Mars? I think not!
Whilst it is beyond dispute that Obama was on Mars sometime during the eighties, I remain skeptical about some of the claims made in the article.
Too bad you threw Kenyan born off. She was posting some interesting stuff. How come you imposed a more stringent courtesy standard on her than those criticizing her?
We’re assholes.
Well, it looks like this whole silly business and the silly people behind it still ain’t goin’ away.
I explained this already, but in addition to being abusive, she was complete detached from reality. And in fact the other posters did a better job of follow the rules than she did, which isn’t surprising since most of the people who were talking to her are long-time posters. Dopers enjoy playing with somebody like that for a short time, but it gets old. I consider it pretty much a mercy banning.
There is a presumption against moonbattery of any kind here. It kind of goes along with the whole “fighting ignorance” thing.
There’s no such presumption against out-there political opinions.
Don’t know much about the camps, but do know that the hated KBR (of Halliburton) was contracted with to build some and that was under Bush, not Obama, although he has continued it.
I eagerly await the credible cite you’re going to post for that claim.
Presumably there were some private contractors building camps for victims of the Gulf hurricanes.
How could anyone possibly confuse those for detention camps?
Easily. Quickly set up. People displaced, confused and unsure of their future (or even their short-term safety). Massive amounts of people cut off from their private support network (friends, neighbors, family). Vulnerable people with private-sector workers in charge of their fate. Can’t you see how the stress would build? Is it any wonder that some insiders started calling them the tension camps?
C’mon, say it with me. Out loud if you have to.
When you all say it out loud, I can’t concentrate. Maybe you could find a nice quiet camp for that purpose.
:(:smack::dubious::(:eek:
Wow–that’s really reaching. “The case being referred to is Minor vs. Happersett case from 1875 in which the Supreme Count defined natural born citizen as one who has 2 parents which were citizens at the time of the child’s birth.” Well, aside from the fact that this case was about women’s suffrage, not about Presidential qualifications, it looks to me like the Court was very clear in their decision that their definition was not intended to be applied to that:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
I.e. we’re not sure whether someone born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents is a natural-born citizen or not; but since the petitioner in this case was born to citizen parents, and that obviously makes them a citizen, then we don’t need to decide that question today.
I’m amazed the court is hearing this; I predict a motion to dismiss being summarily upheld once this all starts …
It’s an administrative law court, which has no authority to decide constitutional issues anyway. I strongly suspect the matter is a procedural one, and the presidential qualification issue has been tacked on to make it look like it will actually be considered.
Maybe their taking the case to directly answer the question of “someone born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents” and put the second prong of the Birther’s attack to rest. Not that the birthers will rest, of course, but at least future legal challenges will be moot.
It’s a state court. Even if it wasn’t an administrative law court, its ruling won’t be binding on anyone except Georgia officials.
Dale Gribble tried to use that same defense on King of the Hill! So he wasn’t just full of shit (well he was on the issue, but he didn’t make it up)
Originally Posted by SCSimmons
“Wow–that’s really reaching.”
No, not really, in fact it’s a binding precedent, which has been continuously upheld and cited many times, including some:
Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627
Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816 (1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
This cannot be easily ignored.
Even more interesting is that someone deleted ALL of these references , within Justia.com during the controversy, suggesting an inside job. They were found out when a well-known, knowledgeable Constitutional law attorney noticed the absence of case citations and checked archives to confirm it, then raised hell about it, providing proof of the fraud.
::Humming an old Doors tune:
Waiting for the cite… waiting for the cite…