Sorry, but state rulings have no bearing on federal law! YOU LOSE!
Besides, Ankeny claims Wong Kim Ark made Wong a Natural Born Citizen and WKA never mentions that.
And secondly, Justice Horace Gray, who gave the opinion in WKA was illegal because he was appointed by Chester Arthur, the Original usurper!
You will lose, as precedent and history has shown already. Just a factual item that demonstrates that most reasonable Americans are not bothered by this at all. Just about the only one you could bother are reasonable Republicans that do get dismayed to see birthers still active and in bed with them.
So keep up the good work! 
NO, but I have been asked to do research for a lot of well known news websites, because I GET the facts and have great sources!
This is fun!
Even if you take out Gray’s vote, it’s still a 5-2 majority.
Spam? Where did I post spam?
The are disregarding what I am saying, when I have the facts and proof behind them!
I’m not afraid. People have been attempting to prove Obama isn’t a citizen for at least three years. It’s failed because he’s a citizen.
Nope: in the legal system, you don’t win on volume. They’re going to be dismissed just like all the previous ones. What Trumbull said 150 years ago is not as important as the body of legal precedent that has accumulated, and that precedent makes it very clear that Obama is a citizen. He was born in the U.S. (any other view is ludicrous) and his mother was a citizen. The Arthur argument is even more ridiculous. I’m going to guess you probably think income taxes are also unconstitutional - that’s another argument that people keep insisting is going to hold up in court one of these days because it’s so obvious to them that they’re right, but the courts have never agreed and never will. You don’t get to define the law based on loopholes you claim to have found in 150-year-old documents. Precedent also counts and it can’t be ignored that way.
Arthur was born in Vermont and was therefore a natural born citizen. Good luck in getting any court to ignore any opinion written by Justice Horace Gray. If Gray didn’t write the opinion, someone else would have in that 6-2 decision.
It was a “message primarily intended to promote a cause…”
I think it’s obvious that we’re not ignoring you. We’re just asking questions.
Such as?
The relevant phrase was “messages primarily intended to promote a cause, venture, organization, event (except Straight Dope-related events), website, or other entity or activity.” It’s not spam in the sense of selling v1agra, but it’s encouraging people to go to a site and join a campaign. We want people on this site to debate, not just try to enlist other people.
But you seem to be feeling no pain.
Sure they do. State courts do not have limited jurisdiction; they may consider matters pertaining to federal law.
Anyway, since your upcoming proceeding is a challenge to a state’s electoral procedure, won’t you be appearing in state court? You don’t have a federal question to raise.
Yes, precedent has been set, in Supreme Court Cases:
(1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”
(2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830): same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”
(3) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:
“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.” Id., at 167-68.
(4) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel): “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.”
You have to feed it, water it, clean up its messes, and walk it at least twice a day, or it goes to the farm.
Now that is even more fun to me! It has been a fascinating item to me that conspiracy theorists are usually clever enough to recognize that their sources will be laughed up over here, so while they claim to point at evidence in reality they do not point at where the spin and the real source of their “information” comes from.
So, who are your sources? And no, pointing out at “evidence” that was already looked at and deemed to be irrelevant even in the courts is not a source, **who **is the main source that you have that is still pushing the peculiar interpretation of your cites so far?
But you need to be a Natural Born Citizen, not just a citizen, unless Obama was alive when the Constitution was adopted!
And the courts already saw that and deemed those precedents not applicable to Obama, the problem here is that you do not know what a moot point is.
Arthur’s Father was not a citizen when Arthur was born, same as Obama, so Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen!
The video is posted on page 2. I am not allowed to post it here says the moderator.
He’s also a natural born citizen according to the body of law that exists. People have been challenging both points for years, and they’ve all failed. I expect a bunch of other people have already tried your argument and had it tossed out by courts who considered it a ridiculous waste of their time.