As stated before. Hate him for policies if you must, but for gawd'ssake, get over this birther stuff. The thread with obvious results, done again. Move along guys. c
Why does it bother you so? Just don't read this thread if you don't like the discussion. Everytime you Obama goons beg to end the discussion, it makes me chuckle and want to support more investigation. As the lawyers have stated, there will be an appeal and this test is going to happen in other states also. Like Obamacare, it is going to go on until it reaches the SCOTUS or, in this case, Obama is voted out of office. Whichever comes first. So, get used to it playing out like the Energizer Bunny.
In case you weren't aware the Supreme Court has already thrown out 2 birther cases Rhodes v. Macdonald In September 2009, Taitz, filed Rhodes v. MacDonald (Colonel Thomas MacDonald - Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, Georgia) on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician, sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land (the same judge who heard Cook v. Good) rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous.[50] Within hours of Land's decision, Taitz told the news site Talking Points Memo that she felt Land's refusal to hear her case was an act of treason.[51] Two days later, she filed a motion to stay Rhodes' deployment pending rehearing of the dismissal order. She repeated her treason allegations against Land and made several other intemperate statements, including claims that Land was aiding and abetting purported aspirations of "dictatorship" by Obama.[52] Land rejected the motion as frivolous and ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process.[53] Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[57] On March 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz.[58] On August 9, 2011, the federal government filed an abstract of judgment, a document placing a lien in the amount of $20,000 plus interest on all her real property,[59] prompting Taitz to say, "I will pay the money, and I will continue fighting."[60] On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case. Hollister v. Soetoro On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[35] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[21] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case. Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court administering the oath of office to President Obama
I guess I have to say that I still find the discussion, well, interesting. A term for that, can't think of it right now. Oh yeah, guilty pleasure. Well, hardly pleasurable, but interesting nonetheless. I'll probably leave the two teams to go at it though. c
Why did something happen? Do you imagine the looney birther brigade learnt anything even after another of their so many silly suits just fell flat on its farcical face? Birther Jem learned how to spell cite, but I doubt he or Oily T learnt much about the law or what constitutes a valid claim in court.
Here are some interesting conclusions drawn in a story written by Cindy Simpson. .......Whatever one's opinions on the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," the arrogance exhibited by this president and his defense attorney to the judiciary of a state, and the abject lack of reporting by the major networks and mainstream media, should trouble every citizen in the nation. More remarkably, such behavior, especially when viewed as part of a disturbing pattern throughout this administration, should be of grave concern to members of Congress. And the fact that Judge Malihi took note of and relied upon on the established rule of statutory construction in his earlier order, but then made assertions contrary to that principle in his final decision, should not go unnoticed by those versed in constitutional law. Opponents of the controversial birthright citizenship practice should also take note, since Judge Malihi's opinion further entrenches the notion that every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of its parents (presumably even an "anchor baby" or "birth tourist" baby) is a "natural born" citizen. So would have been Anwar al-Awlaki. I wonder if the founders of the Constitution, the framers of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark, ever imagined that such an idea would be considered the rule of law. The mainstream media calls those who dare to argue otherwise "crazy" and "racist" "birthers." Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge, but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered a crippling blow. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html#ixzz1lX7wK0CL