Where's the Birth Certificate?

[777 fixer]

Doesn't really matter who you choose.......SCOTUS made a decision in 1875 I believe that addressed this situation.......which has a direct affect on the wording "natural born citizen"...and which ramping up to the 2008 elections appears to been eliminated from a SCOTUS web site.
Wonder WTF was with that?
I'm sure in your scholarly views, you can see you are wrong.

That case was regarding voting rights, not citizenship. The wording says as much "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."

Now there is a Supreme Court case that does take on the issue of citizenship, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. To summarize Mr. Ark's case. Due to the fact that he was BORN in the USA despite the fact his parents not being US citizens he was still a US citizen.

The next time you read some birther crap on WND or some other site please take into account that facts are not their primary concern.

 

[delldude]

That case was regarding voting rights, not citizenship. The wording says as much "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."

Now there is a Supreme Court case that does take on the issue of citizenship, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. To summarize Mr. Ark's case. Due to the fact that he was BORN in the USA despite the fact his parents not being US citizens he was still a US citizen.

The next time you read some birther crap on WND or some other site please take into account that facts are not their primary concern.

I wonder who is wrong now?

Why then did you leave out the next sentence?

It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Is key legal lingo, enough in fact that laid out previous SCOTUS precedent for a ruled definition as to what constitutes a US citizen. There are about 6 or so articles with same or similar verbage from that time period that seems to have been removed from the primary lawyer reference for US Case law before the 2008 election....isn't that interesting?
Wonder why someone would challenge a natural born presidential candidate if both his parents were natural citizens? And why would someone go to the expense of hiding these decisions?

Maybe you need a little more research before you go popping off.

Date Published: October 20, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

These people researching and reporting on this have more skin and expertise on this matter than you or I.

World Net Daily...LOL

 

[777 fixer]

I can tell by your response that you cannot come up with anything therfore you try to keep the Minor case alive even though it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It is obvious that you did not read it as reading it would make you doubt your little birther conspiracy theory. Can't have that not now can we?

All you are really doing is repeating more birther non-sense without stoping and thinking to yourself "Is this really true, or are they deliberately over looking important facts". Facts like US vs Ark. Why don't you tell me how the Supreme Court is wrong in this case regarding citizenship. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very long time.

 

[777 fixer]

These people researching and reporting on this have more skin and expertise on this matter than you or I.

World Net Daily...LOL

Are you kidding me? An unamed blogger is somehow an expert? Evidently this person must not be much of an expert if they can't find US vs. Ark. Took me all of about five minutes. Or maybe they did and purposely did not mention it. So either this person is not that bright or is dishonest.

 

[777 fixer]

"...and which ramping up to the 2008 elections appears to been eliminated from a SCOTUS web site.
Wonder WTF was with that?

Says who, WND or an anonomous blogger?

P.S. Why has any mention in WND or various blos of US vs. Ark been eliminated from said sites?

 

[delldude]

Says who, WND or an anonomous blogger?

P.S. Why has any mention in WND or various blos of US vs. Ark been eliminated from said sites?

Never chk'd WND dude.....

 

[777 fixer]

Never chk'd WND dude.....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=elk+v+wilkins&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

 

[delldude]

I can tell by your response that you cannot come up with anything therfore you try to keep the Minor case alive even though it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It is obvious that you did not read it as reading it would make you doubt your little birther conspiracy theory. Can't have that not now can we?

All you are really doing is repeating more birther non-sense without stoping and thinking to yourself "Is this really true, or are they deliberately over looking important facts". Facts like US vs Ark. Why don't you tell me how the Supreme Court is wrong in this case regarding citizenship. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very long time.

I could care less about SCOTUS opinion you list....it has no bearing on tampering with previous opinions.

The original point is why someone would remove links to minor vs happersett and what was the motive for doing so?

That in itself is quite odd. Your link to one case is by no means the end of the argument, its only an opinion, one of many which would be looked at very closely. From what I understand
in a case all prior opinions in a related case are studied.
This has nothing to do with birther nonsense only the definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen and it made someone take steps to eradicate this info from one of the most used sites by law professionals.

Dispute that.

 

[777 fixer]

I could care less about SCOTUS opinion you list....it has no bearing on tampering with previous opinions.

That's seems to be the typical birther mentality. Someone says something they don't like and it's dismissed as not be important. Even if it comes from the highest court in the land.

 

[777 fixer]

The original point is why someone would remove links to minor vs happersett and what was the motive for doing so?

That in itself is quite odd.

Your original post was just the name of the case and nothing else. You said nothing about it being removed from the Courts website. Which by the way you have offered up no evidence that this even occured. Not that it matters since it had nothing to do with citizenship and what defines natural born.

 

[777 fixer]

Your link to one case is by no means the end of the argument, its only an opinion, one of many which would be looked at very closely. From what I understand
in a case all prior opinions in a related case are studied.
This has nothing to do with birther nonsense only the definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen and it made someone take steps to eradicate this info from one of the most used sites by law professionals.

Dispute that.

It is an opinion that is the LAW OF THE LAND. It seems that you are unable to accept this. You keep ranting about some case that is totally irrelavant to the issue yet still do not offer up any evidence that it happeend.

 

[SparrowHawk]

It is an opinion that is the LAW OF THE LAND. It seems that you are unable to accept this. You keep ranting about some case that is totally irrelavant to the issue yet still do not offer up any evidence that it happeend.

Other than the potential legal ramifications of the Birth Certificate being bogus this whole thing is rather silly IMO.

Assume for just a minute the BC is a stone cold forgery and Barack Obama isn't qualified under the COTUS to be in office. What really changes? What would be the impact of him being removed from office? What would it do to race relations?

1. 14 million plus will still be out of work
2. Commodity inflation will still rob the working class at the supermarket and the gas pump
3. The National Debt will still be there
4. The Federal Reserve will still be cranking out worthless currency
5. Black will see his removal as a white man's plot.

So if you don't like the guy and I certainly don't defeat him at the ballot box.

 

[delldude]

Your original post was just the name of the case and nothing else. You said nothing about it being removed from the Courts website. Which by the way you have offered up no evidence that this even occured. Not that it matters since it had nothing to do with citizenship and what defines natural born.

LOL.....it was covered through several links I provided....

 

[Dog Wonder]

Some people just can't get to the outer limits like you can Dell.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Some people just can't get to the outer limits like you can Dell.

While I'm no "Birther" by any stretch, the administration who leaders origins have been called into question don't exactly demonstrate a high degree of Trust & Credibility by their actions. This is what feeds the "Birther" movement.