Thread: Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped! #2

Originally Posted by rahl

and guess what, obama perfectly meets the requirements in article 2 section 1.

Then show me the text in WKA that you say proves your claim!

( . ) ( . )

Originally Posted by rahl

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZS.html

..................

I don't want the case link, I want you to show me what part proves what you claim!

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

You have not even seen the evidence and any judge that reads it, will not be able to say that I am wrong because it's all sourced with Government documents and congressional records!

MY CASE which you can not dispute:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86426592/M...rom-the-ballot

And for the record, not one of our cases have been heard on the merits, so you can not fail, until you get to the merits of the case!

yes, your case will be dismissed. and yes, there have been several cases that were heard on the merits, and every one of them resulted in yet another birther fail

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

Then show me the text in WKA that you say proves your claim!

( . ) ( . )

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZS.html

....................

Originally Posted by KenyanBornObama

I don't want the case link, I want you to show me what part proves what you claim!

well, you're getting the case link.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZS.html

Originally Posted by rahl

already refuted in the last thread.

Actually you refuted nothing. Your reply was something about "ELG". I didn't not give you a case that had anything to do with ELG, the case I gave you was Elk v. Wilkins.

But nice try!

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

I am not going to try to argue with you-

LOLOL, that's because you can't. You have no way of disputing my facts, so now you don't want to debate..wah wah wah!

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

I am not going to try to argue with you- I will just point out that every legal authority that has reviewed this issue has said you are wrong:

There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has actual real legal experts.

I find them far more convincing than you.

Especially since their opinion is reflected by the opinion of the voters, and Congress and every other legal authority.

First of all, state court decisions have no bearing on Federal law, nor does it trump it! Indiana can not change the definition of natural born without an amendment to the Constitution.

Secondly, The Indiana Court quoted something from WKA, that was not in WKA! LOLOL

Ankeny clearly states in the footnotes on page 17
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...120903.ebb.pdf

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States."

hahahaha you lose again!

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

See the thing is....we don't have to prove anything to you.

I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I am the one proving it to you and because you can not dispute my facts, then they stand until they are refuted!

I can't help it that you people don't like facts, that's your problem!

Originally Posted by rahl

and yes, there have been several cases that were heard on the merits, and every one of them resulted in yet another birther fail

Could you name them please!