That’s because the truth is on my side! The truth only hurts those that are on the wrong side of it!
Also children born to soldiers of an occupying army. Not a pressing concern at the moment.
Welcome to The Straight Dope, KenyanBornObama. I hope you find your time here enlightening.
For your reference, a few points if I may.
-
There are a number of attorneys who are members of this board, of all political stripes, a few who are quite conservative politically, all of whom, I imagine, would say your pursuit is a fool’s errand.
-
Contrary to your assertion here, your specific issue has been dismissed by the courts in the past.
-
If you want to have a conversation, engage us. Using pejoratives like ‘Obot’ is not only not cute, or funny, but serves to diminish our assessment of your worthiness as a debater and someone to take seriously.
To change Art 2, Section 1, you need to amend the Constitution and it has never been amended, so NO, they have no jurisdiction!
States are the ones that vet candidates to be on the ballot, if they say he is ineligible, he is removed from the ballot and the nation can not vote for him!
Once one states removes him, the dominos will fall!
Like I said earlier, you don’t get to change the law by saying you found a loophole that nobody has noticed for 200 years. It doesn’t work that way.
He’s not going to be removed from any ballots. This is a matter of settled law.
The Library of Congress is my source!
WHAT courts saw that and deemed them not applicable, please show me!
Summarize the video, please. If you understand the arguments it makes you should be able to communicate them to me.
You just made a point and then refuted it in the same post. Don’t think I’ve ever seen that done before.
What law is that, can you show me?
Thanks, I’ve already been warned, it’s in the thread and I apologized.
Yes, I have a number of attorneys as well, that I email with on a daily basis and a few Constitutional Experts that also know the truth, we are doing everything we can to get the truth out! Thanks for allowing a fair debate here and not censoring my facts!
My issue has not been heard by the courts yet, but we are working on it!
Everyone has a right to dream!
Nope, I’m asking for the group or individual that is telling you what **spin **to apply to the library of congress, it is clear that your real and true sources are misleading you on what it really does say, and it does say that Obama has the right to be president, as all branches of government have declared so also.
You may wish to report those attorneys to your state bar association for failing to provide appropriate client counseling services.
You’d better get reading, GIGObuster; you have something like 22 million books to get through to find his sources.
I’m sorry to crush your dream.
OK, that’s a lie. I’m not sorry. Even if we put aside the race issue (because there are some nasty racists holding this opinion), the view that Obama isn’t a citizen is a sad and desperate delusion. If you think the guy is such a bad president, by all means vote against him. This idea of laypeople finding loopholes in the Constitution and arguing about centuries-old legal decisions is absurd. It’s bullshit on the level of The Protocols of The Elders of Zion or The Da Vinci Code or Lizard People or Secret Messages in the Denver Airport. It takes time away from serious issues in the court system and causes people to do some really ridiculous nonsense. The sad part is that after you lose, you probably won’t get over it - you’ll either file another petition or insist that the court is in on the plot and overstepped its authority or something like that. I hope you’re able to get on with your life, because some people never do. Orly Taitz isn’t one of them because she’s probably a money hungry charlatan more than an ideologue.
Incidentally, you do think the president was really born in Kenya, right?
Well, that would be like the scholar’s version of a Google Vomit. 
You jest, but IMHO when someone makes points that already have been seen and claims the outcome will be different or the evidence will soon overturn the precedent and decisions already made by all branches of the government (Not only the courts agree that Obama has the right to be president, in the end the legislative and the executive branches already said he has the right. ) I do not care how much they claim that they got their idea on their own, **by this time it is clear they got it from someone else **and it is becoming more clear that the poster here is clever enough to know his real sources will be laughed at.
This is like claiming that there are alien ships on the moon and declaring that schools will teach all future generations that incredible fact. Yes, one poster once said 10 years ago to us that this change would take place 10 years into the future, guess what happened?
In a nutshell, my video says:
On January 5, 1866, the Civil Rights Act was authored and brought up in the Senate by Senators Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard. The bill failed to pass. On January 11th, 1866, Jacob Howard submitted an amendment to the Civil RIghts Act which added:
“That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”
The bill then passed after the amendment was added and was sent to the House and passed along with Trumbull’s amendment! Honorable John Bingham, Father of the 14th amendment, is on record saying:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
The 14th amendment was then worked up by John Bingham to make the Civil Rights Act constitutional, which passed the House, but failed in the Senate, until Trumbull and Howard made an amendment adding in “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Others argued that they wanted to know what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant and Trumbull replies saying: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
The bill passed the House and Senate and went to President Johnson who vetoed it. The bill went back to Congress and they passed it over the President’s Veto!
Loophole, what loophole is that? The Library of Congress?