And again you have nothing of substance to add.
Just one of the typical behaviors of a person who can not make a valid rebuttal.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
1.) It probably will be.
2.) Contrary to your belief, it isn't Conspiracy. Even if moved.
3.) It is a valid issue that you can not show to be invalid.
More false statements I see.
It was completely backasswards.
Not only false but a mischaracterization as well.
I look at what is being said, not at the poster, or how new they are or aren't.
In this topic I asked a person a question and they replied with an answer that was not only non-responsive to the question, but totally inaccurate.
Wrong, inaccurate, false, a lie, take your pick.
They all fit because I have never been beaten down and this legitimate issue isn't a whacked out conspiracy theory, nor does it belong to me.
As I have previously said to you;"... it does not mean it is proven that this is exactly what our Founding Fathers or Framers meant.A Court could very well find that they didn't define it and make a finding that the Founders meant something different then what we have argued.
The proof would come in how our Court would decide their actual intent."
Do you have a link?
No this was not explained away by anybody, especially you.
So either you are mistaken or deliberately telling an untruth. Which is it?
Why don't you provide a link/s to the exact post/s where the following was explained away to back up your statement or admit you are wrong.
Heck, refute it yourself.
But already knowing that you can't, I would suggest that you just admit your statement was wrong.
Did you get that, or should I repeat it?88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Minor v. Happersett
It hasn't been fully defined.
And if the Fourteenth Amendment applied that is where the Court would have turned, instead of saying the Constitution doesn't define it and turning elsewhere.
This is a legitimate issue.
Now refute it.
Oh, I forgot. You can't.
Yes you did say this before and you were also told then that you were incorrect.
But I see you didn't pay attention, which makes you just as incorrect now.
Congress delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia, to hear the writ of 'Quo warranto', which is specifically designed to remove a usurper from office.
This doesn't preclude other Courts from hearing cases on other issues if they have jurisdiction and the plaintiff has standing.
Any findings or discovery that was detrimental to Obama from these cases would then be forwarded to the AG who should then, if warranted, file 'Quo warranto' proceedings.
As for this Treason Charge making any headway where it is at. I doubt it, even if they charged him.
What would be funny is if any indictments made were sealed. It would have the effect of bringing the issue more coverage.