alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[dcraelin]

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

well you can listen to me because I, unlike the Indiana court who is paid to do so, got the section of the constitution right.

you have to wonder even if that court didnt deliberately get the section wrong in order that they could slap off what they saw as a pesky inconsequential lawsuit without setting precedent.

There are other parts of the opinion that also point in this direction, misleading statements as to what the Wong case says for instance.

All this after stating near the beginning that the suit was essentially against the wrong people, which was really the basis for the decision, and so other wording is really what I believe they call obiter dictum........... pompous lawyer talk for "bull shit".

And in the end- Ankeny v. Daniels is being cited in numerous courts- and you aren't.

The authors of Ankeny v. Daniels are actual legal experts- and you aren't.

But hey- believe what you want- its a free country.

Im not having an argument with legal experts now am I, I'm having it with you, and this is like the 4th time you've refused to try and defend them instead falling back on "you're not a lawyer" ....... so fucking what......"professional" gate-keeping is locking in more and more fools...... try regurgitating their arguments then if you want ...until then............"you're not a lawyer" is not an argument its just diversion.

 

[Syriusly]

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

well you can listen to me because I, unlike the Indiana court who is paid to do so, got the section of the constitution right.

you have to wonder even if that court didnt deliberately get the section wrong in order that they could slap off what they saw as a pesky inconsequential lawsuit without setting precedent.

There are other parts of the opinion that also point in this direction, misleading statements as to what the Wong case says for instance.

All this after stating near the beginning that the suit was essentially against the wrong people, which was really the basis for the decision, and so other wording is really what I believe they call obiter dictum........... pompous lawyer talk for "bull shit".

And in the end- Ankeny v. Daniels is being cited in numerous courts- and you aren't.

The authors of Ankeny v. Daniels are actual legal experts- and you aren't.

But hey- believe what you want- its a free country.

Im not having an argument with legal experts now am I, I'm having it with you, and this is like the 4th time you've refused to try and defend them instead falling back on "you're not a lawyer" ....... so fucking what......"professional" gate-keeping is locking in more and more fools...... try regurgitating their arguments then if you want ...until then............"you're not a lawyer" is not an argument its just diversion.

Why yes you are- you are arguing with all of these legal experts- every time you declare that they are wrong

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.
    

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

Sadly, your reading comprehension issues persist.

So basically, I've never said it, and the law doesn't say it, but you want to take on a vague, supercilious tone and pretend otherwise.

No, you demented bitch. No one accused you of saying that. That's why your reading comprehension is at a pre-K level.

"LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives."

Now, as a response to my post, specifically saying "about your post", either your girlfriend DCraelin was saying I hold or am somehow responsible for this argument - which I have never made - or it is utterly fucking irrelevant to my post and has no place being mentioned in the response to it at all. In which case, it is completely appropriate for me to ask what the fuck it has to do with my post, since I have never said it and am in no way responsible for what a handful of "conservatives" I don't know do or say, even assuming I am willing to accept at face value DCraelin's assertion that "virtually all" the people making this argument are conservatives, which I don't.

And now that I've drawn YOUR pre-K level ass a fucking diagram of what all those little squiggles on the screen (we literate people call those "words", in case you were wondering) mean, you can stop protecting your asshole buddy and let him fight his own battles.

Because again, as I said, I wasn't responding to you or addressing my question to you, so at no point in time was your input actually required or desired.

Or, to put it in terms more appropriate to your reading comprehension level, piss off. I'm bored with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

When did i say you did?

There are various strains of Birtherism- but other than Grayson- virtually everyone who is claiming that Obama or Cruz or Rubio is not a natural born citizen- is a Conservative minion of WND.

Like Stevie the racist, like Keys the Delusional.

I didn't say you did, you five-second-memory retard. I was originally addressing DCraelin, who DID bring it up. No one told you to jump in and answer the question.

Try to fucking keep up, dipshit.

I love it when the fragile ego's of Conservatives get their panties in a wad

Well, since all of that is taking place only in your fevered imagination, you could probably get your jollies without wasting valuable screen space on here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

a so-called "Constitutional Conservative" should know that the section of the Constitution dealing with presidential eligibility is not the same one as quoted above which gives the Congress power to make rules on naturalization.

Constitution of the United States | The Constitution of the United States of America – U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

You're having a problem with . . . what, precisely, about my citation?

Let me explain the logic chain of the post, since you seem to have gotten lost in all those words.

Article 2 establishes the requirements for Presidential eligibility, which has been established and noted. It is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 which gives Congress the power to pass laws (known as the US Code) which define the term "natural-born citizen" in that eligibility through the "uniform Rule of Naturalization", ie. how is citizenship conveyed.

No one ever said the two Constitutional Articles were the same.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

When did i say you did?

There are various strains of Birtherism- but other than Grayson- virtually everyone who is claiming that Obama or Cruz or Rubio is not a natural born citizen- is a Conservative minion of WND.

Like Stevie the racist, like Keys the Delusional.

I didn't say you did, you five-second-memory retard. I was originally addressing DCraelin, who DID bring it up. No one told you to jump in and answer the question.

Try to fucking keep up, dipshit.

I love it when the fragile ego's of Conservatives get their panties in a wad

Well, since all of that is taking place only in your fevered imagination, you could probably get your jollies without wasting valuable screen space on here.

LOL- and that applies to virtually all of your posts.

 

[Syriusly]

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

Why would I excuse you?

I didn't mention anyone or anything born in Kenya.

 

[washamericom]

i think he meant obama was born in kenya, which he probably was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

Why would I excuse you?

I didn't mention anyone or anything born in Kenya.

Read your post, dumbfuck. And I quote:

"Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- "

 

[Cecilie1200]

i think he meant obama was born in kenya, which he probably was.

Not my job to try to puzzle out what he MEANT to say. Nor am I feeling particularly forgiving of babbling today.

 

[Syriusly]

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

Why would I excuse you?

I didn't mention anyone or anything born in Kenya.

Read your post, dumbfuck. And I quote:

"Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- "

LOL- heh I did say that didn't I? Typo's for the win. My apologies for the mistake.

My corrected statement- to Vigilante:

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Canada- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

 

[washamericom]

i think he meant obama was born in kenya, which he probably was.

Not my job to try to puzzle out what he MEANT to say. Nor am I feeling particularly forgiving of babbling today.

it's really not a job, posting here. christmas is the season of forgiving holiday babble.

 

[Syriusly]

i think he meant obama was born in kenya, which he probably was.

Not my job to try to puzzle out what he MEANT to say. Nor am I feeling particularly forgiving of babbling today.

it's really not a job, posting here. christmas is the season of forgiving for babble.

LOL_ your funniest post here ever.

Thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

Why would I excuse you?

I didn't mention anyone or anything born in Kenya.

Read your post, dumbfuck. And I quote:

"Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- "

LOL- heh I did say that didn't I? Typo's for the win. My apologies for the mistake.

My corrected statement- to Vigilante:

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Canada- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

I believe Vigilante HAS actually called Trump a RINO, just FYI.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i think he meant obama was born in kenya, which he probably was.

Not my job to try to puzzle out what he MEANT to say. Nor am I feeling particularly forgiving of babbling today.

it's really not a job, posting here. christmas is the season of forgiving for babble.

Reading some of these posters without pounding my head on the desk is serious work sometimes.

And Christmas is just going to have to accept that I'm not a very nice person.

 

[Syriusly]

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

Cruz was born in Kenya? Excuse me?

Why would I excuse you?

I didn't mention anyone or anything born in Kenya.

Read your post, dumbfuck. And I quote:

"Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- "

LOL- heh I did say that didn't I? Typo's for the win. My apologies for the mistake.

My corrected statement- to Vigilante:

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Canada- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

I believe Vigilante HAS actually called Trump a RINO, just FYI.

Well in reailty- he has by calling anyone who believes what Grayson believes a RINO.

But Vigilante will never admit that- he is a big Trumpet.

 

[washamericom]

this is a pretty dull thread, you guys should just let it go.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Suddenly, all the forum Communists are dedicated birthers...

There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

 

[dcraelin]

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

well you can listen to me because I, unlike the Indiana court who is paid to do so, got the section of the constitution right.

you have to wonder even if that court didnt deliberately get the section wrong in order that they could slap off what they saw as a pesky inconsequential lawsuit without setting precedent.

There are other parts of the opinion that also point in this direction, misleading statements as to what the Wong case says for instance.

All this after stating near the beginning that the suit was essentially against the wrong people, which was really the basis for the decision, and so other wording is really what I believe they call obiter dictum........... pompous lawyer talk for "bull shit".

And in the end- Ankeny v. Daniels is being cited in numerous courts- and you aren't.

The authors of Ankeny v. Daniels are actual legal experts- and you aren't.

But hey- believe what you want- its a free country.

Im not having an argument with legal experts now am I, I'm having it with you, and this is like the 4th time you've refused to try and defend them instead falling back on "you're not a lawyer" ....... so fucking what......"professional" gate-keeping is locking in more and more fools...... try regurgitating their arguments then if you want ...until then............"you're not a lawyer" is not an argument its just diversion.

Why yes you are- you are arguing with all of these legal experts- every time you declare that they are wrong

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

yeah you said this before....and have added nothing to the argument