Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

[ggirod]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

This discussion is from Salon

Dec. 5, 2008 | Barack Obama can't be president: He wasn't really born in Hawaii, and the certification of live birth his campaign released is a forgery. He was born in Kenya. Or maybe Indonesia. Or, wait, maybe he was born in Hawaii -- but that doesn't matter, since he was also a British citizen at birth because of his father, and you can't be a "natural-born citizen" in that case. (But then, maybe his "father" wasn't really his father; maybe his real dad was an obscure communist poet. Or Malcolm X.)
You might think these rumors would have died off after Obama produced proof in June that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, his mother, Ann, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed in October that he was born there. You might think the rumors would have died off after he was elected by a comfortable margin. Instead, they've intensified. There have been paid advertisements in the Chicago Tribune questioning the president-elect's birth certificate and eligibility, and one group is raising money to run a similar ad on television. The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the issue almost nonstop. Numerous plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in various states. And Friday, the Supreme Court's nine justices will decide whether they want to hear one of those suits, which also contends that John McCain, born in the former Panama Canal Zone, does not meet the Constitution's requirements to hold the presidency.

And, my favorite quote from the article is

But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

There is more in the article, but it all has to be read to be appreciated. I hope maybe this can put the topic to rest.

Signed,

Part Of The Conspiracy

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You're right, the whole thing makes me sick.

Beats shooting each other in the street.

[tombat1913]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

This is a demonstration of how the right wing thinks. Let's reinterpret the constitution so we can bastardize the democratic process and keep a hold on power. No wonder they torture people and hold them without trial.

Would you quit this left wing right wing crap? If you don't pull your head out of the sand and realize that these two parties are two hands on the same body that really governs us then you'll never really grasp what's actually going on here.

If you really think the left and right are that different look at the people tortured by the CIA during the blue administrations. Go to the DOD website and look at how many american soldiers died during the last 10 administrations. Clinton's numbers top Bush's by far and your buddy Jimmy Carter heads the list. WAKE UP! It's two management teams bidding for the CEO job of tyranny incorporated. The only thing protecting us from the bastards is us defending our rights. You people point your finger at the righties who think the constitution is somehow irrevlevant during terror threats, but the constitution is somehow racist when you win an election.

You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

The Obama crowd are the ones who've gone mad, you think this guy is going to fly the plane and save us from the evil republicans? You think this guy represents change? You tool around this forum so I have to assume you know something about economics, if you know even a little bit you should be fully aware that the promises that guy made to the American people during his campaign are F-ing impossible! Which means he's full of s#!+ like the rest of them. A bunch of Clinton cabinet sloppy seconds, and CFR/Trilateral Comission/Bilderberg cronies is not change. A young senator who upholds his oath of office and follows the constitution 20% of the time when he even bothers to vote at all is not change.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Sounds like what you don't like is 'politics' Babbit

You're right, the whole thing makes me sick.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Sounds like what you don't like is 'politics' Babbit

[Slimprofits]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Actually Justice Thomas taking up the case for conference after another Justice had already rejected it is not common at all.

Is that so? I stand corrected. Still think the left/right is mostly phony as are most of the aspects of the campaign rhetoric....If anyone cares to discuss, I could go on and on for days, but here are two points:

Obama's "STUNNING" move towards the center with regards to the rhetoric that was used during the campaign (eat the rich and the oil companies).

Biden and Clinton telling us over and over that Obama was ill-prepared, that his foreign policy ideas are junk and than eagerly jumping at the chance for high level posts under him.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Actually Justice Thomas taking up the case for conference after another Justice had already rejected it is not common at all.

And while it's true that no ideology's filter is 'the one...'

The Washington Post just insists on equivalence without regard for who is right and who is wrong. If the right wingers are upset for no reason it must be shown that the left wingers are upset without cause as well.

Balance >>>>>>> Truth

[we_are_toast]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

http://www.freep.com/article/2008120.../81208033/1215

If you can't get the most conservative, crazy, court in a hundred years to even hear the case, it says a lot about just how silly it was.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

From the WaPo:

Right-wing blogs were outraged when Justice David H. Souter denied Donofrio's petition for an injunction, and left-wing blogs smelled trouble when Justice Clarence Thomas referred the matter to the full court for consideration.

In fact, both were routine procedures, as the court's action today shows. There were no recorded dissents to the decision dismissing the case.

The left-right paradigm is not representative of political reality.

Follow the money - not the surface ideologies.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

Dear Clarence,
Prattler's haughtiness of the jurists, as we say here.
Disguising futile pretense under legal rags, and drawing flimsy authority from such a fraud.
I have no political experience indeed, but have been instrumental in the career of at least two prominent European politicians.
Since Drumont, Gobineau and Daudet, extreme-right always have founded its ideology in Blut und Boden discourse, even in its "modern" avatars, and you don't fail to do so - even using the Constitution when convenient.
Clarence, as you're "naive" enough (meaning perverse) to hope the SC will give room to those childish judicial reveries, I'll leave you the so-called merits of this case - and the football - and Lenin.

[DemonD]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

My apologies. The correct legislation is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with the origins of course going back to 1790).

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...7211a6e6dfb763

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

What this person is doing is using a legal technicality by saying a "natural born citizen" is not a "citizen at birth." Morally and ethically I find this reprehensible, and all judges to this point have found that this argument holds no merit. The fact is there is no where in any legal statute or constitution that defines the term "natural born citizen." Because his argument has already been thrown out, the legal precedent has been set that "natural born citizen" = "citizen at birth." Because Thomas has brought it to the table, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to maintain this precedent.

Let's review, then:

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

You have no legal basis to "understand" this definition as such, because there is no law, and has never been a law that has ever defined "natural born citizen" in such a manner.

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes:

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I'm really torn on this one.

Having a conservative party that's completely loopy and believes only the things it hears in its own insulated echo chamber is good fun, and now that their era has ended will help insure that they are relegated to the deep wilderness for a long time.

On the other hand, democracy is well served by having a strong opposition and I'm sick of seeing outright lunacy treated with respect. (And the fact that Clarence Thomas takes up your cause after another justice has rejected it shouldn't exactly reassure you about its merits).

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes: