It’s a binding precedent which has jack shit to do with whether Obama is a natural born citizen, since it doesn’t reach the question.
Indeed, interesting, but not as you expect it, as usual what is interesting here is where you got the idea that there is fraud here.
The best way to deal with these Google Vomit like cites is to deal with the latest one to see if it is relevant.
To begin with, RODRIGUEZ V. POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, 457 U. S. 1 (1982) is still at Justia.com:
So, let me guess, someone told you that that reference was deleted, **who **was that?
The decision there:
Leads then one to ask, why is that case relevant? And again, who told you it was relevant or how it was altered?
“I’m amazed the court is hearing this; I predict a motion to dismiss being summarily upheld once this all starts …”
Well, I heard that three GA cases had a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Therefore, those cases are probably open to discovery now- subpoenas, testimony, etc. Should be interesting.
Certainly Birthers have never been wrong about the outcome of a court case before. 
Marley23 - You apparently are the moderator of this site?
I am concerned about your response regarding banning Kenyanborn.
“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.”
Yours are outrageous statements. Is it because you did not agree with what she had to say that you felt it necessary to employ a “mercy banning”? In my estimation, not only was this person not abusive, but you had no right to say she is completely detached from reality! Show me your credentials as a Psychiatrist. I wonder…would you say the same of someone who supports Obama…if he/she made such a statement? I doubt it.
You might want to rethink your stand on this one. I happen to know this person…she’s a dedicated PATRIOT who is fighting for the laws of our Constitution to be upheld, something for which the current occupant of the White House seems to have NO regard! I’m with her 100% (as are millions of others)…and just in case your posters want to sling some mud at me, I’m perfectly OK with that; but to relieve everyone’s minds…I do not wear a tin hat, a straight jacket, nor am I from Mars, so no need to go there. The fact is - Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as our POTUS, because he is not a natural born citizen. It would not matter if he were born on the 4th of July on the Capital Building steps, he is not considered natural born, because his father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Period! That is the very reason true patriots are making every attempt to keep Obama, and anyone else who is not a natural born citizen, off of any voting ballots.
Oh, no.
Hmm… I think the woodwork around here needs some patching.
What do true patriots put on their oatmeal?
I’m the moderator of this forum, and one of about 20 mods on the message board.
No, it’s because her statements were - and I’m going to use the technical term here - obsessive and batshit insane.
You joined the board today, and you don’t interpret the site rules. I do.
I spent several pages talking to her and reading this discussion, and even saw a few of her YouTube videos. I didn’t diagnose her with a mental illness.
Why would an Obama supporter ramble on and on about his birth in Kenya, the illegality of his presidency, and the detention camps he’s building for his political opponents?
Not going to happen. In addition to being nuts, she attempted to return under another account name. That’s a very big no-no.
I could not possibly care less.
With that, we’ll have no more discussion of moderating in this thread. You can send an email or private message, you can start a thread in ATMB, but don’t post about it further in this thread. That goes for everyone.
And just to add-the cite to Minor v. Happersett in that case is to support the claim that the right to vote is not one guaranteed by the Constitution: “However, this Court has often noted that the Constitution “does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178 (1875) …” I don’t doubt that that decision is still binding and is used as precedent on issues it actually decided (although the primary issue, about restricting from all women from right to vote, was rendered moot by the 19th Amendment); but I’m strongly suspecting that it isn’t used as a precedent on issues that it explicitly did not decide. Just a hunch, you know.
Their true patrioats. Inquire no further.
Cite the caselaw.
Oh, and Minor v Happersett ain’t the caselaw you’re looking for,
Period!
CMC fnord!
SCSimmons pointed that out last page.
Legal nitpickery aside, there are two practical problems with this argument:
-
If true, it would disenfranchise vast numbers of Americans. Never mind Obama; anyone without two citizen parents would not be a citizen and neither would any of their descendants. This could affect (at a WAG) hundreds of thousands of people. How many elections historically would be nullified by the vast number of ineligible votes cast?
-
If on one hand you say that your relatively unique interpretation of the Constitution and case law is correct and on the other hand the vast, vast majority of judges, lawyers, politicians, civil servants, legal scholars and pretty much anyone having a say in the matter for the past 150 years disagrees with you, why would you expect all those people to suddenly throw away all agreed current and past legal practice in order to uphold your interpretation? Is your argument really that compelling? (Hint: no.)
So we’re left with the proposal to destroy pretty much the entire US legal and electoral system to please a few whiny people who don’t like Obama. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
Cite? The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution to mean that you must have to US Citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen. President Obama is the 7th US President with a foreign born parent: Hoover, Wilson, Arthur, Buchanan, Jackson, and Jefferson also had at least one foreign-born parent.
-
doesn’t really apply. They’re not saying he’s not a citizen (well, they are, but not because of this), just that he’s not a natural born citizen. Hence, eligible to vote, just note to be POTUS.
-
isn’t a very compelling counterargument either, except in terms of legal nitpickery. If they’re right, they’re right. They’re wrong, of course, but it’s really only the principle of stare decisis which would hold back an effort to fix things if they were right.
ETA: that was in response to Gyrate.
It’s laughable how birthers keep moving the goalposts. First, he wasn’t born in the US- despite the NO EVIDENCE (a garbled conversation through a translator with Obama’s step-grandmother that was clearly misunderstood and even corrected by her in the same conversation is not evidence) that he was born anywhere but Hawaii (and lots of evidence for Hawaii). So they demanded the long-form. He showed the long-form. Some still call it a fake, but mostly they’re now harping on the non-citizen father, despite the fact that several US Presidents were born to non-citizen parents. What’s the next move of the goalpost?
Face it- if you believe this stuff, you’re not believing it because of evidence. You’re believing it because you desperately want it to be true.
I think you’ll find it in the Dred Scott opinion.
Completely false. If a Nigerian Muslim couple moved to Mexico and the wife had her baby seconds after crossing the US border, that child would be every bit as eligible to run for president as someone who was descended from the Mayflower and never left the US for a moment.