Obama's supreme court hearing?

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Ronald Reagan lies. 7,060,000. .39 seconds.
Jesus Christ lies. 26,500,000. .33 seconds.
whoop de doo.
And are those suppose to have something with your birtherism?

By the way, I assume you realize the so-called story you linked to in the initial post is completely bogus. As are your claims that Obama has tried to conceal all his personal records.

I'll wait while you produce even one post where I have ever said Obama's birth certificate wasn't real. In the meantime, I used Google to show you how to find out who those women were and why I made a joke about them lying, not to prove they lied 500,00 times in .48 seconds. I'm sure a smart guy like you knew that though..

[g8rjd]

Stay was denied today, as I indicated was highly likely.

It is on the Order List here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...13zor_19m1.pdf

[MichiGator2002]

My issue was not even an issue in that case, I don't think. It is basically left to any future dispute over eligibility for a game of Standing Whackamole. No taxpayer/citizen standing is hardly a surprise, pretty much the norm, but I personally would feel a lot better if I knew who is the interested party in challenging whether a Presidential candidate meets the constitutional requirements. And when that claim would ripen for that matter -- nomination? Placement on a ballot? Election day? EC vote? Inauguration?

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Stay was denied today, as I indicated was highly likely.

It is on the Order List here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...13zor_19m1.pdf

Pardon me Counselor but you can't be correct as my friend rivergator assured me the story was, well I'll just let him say it..

"By the way, I assume you realize the so-called story you linked to in the initial post is completely bogus.."

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

Pardon me Counselor but you can't be correct as my friend rivergator assured me the story was, well I'll just let him say it..

"By the way, I assume you realize the so-called story you linked to in the initial post is completely bogus.."

I'm not getting into that debate about the merits. My comments have related solely to the procedure. Thanks for the invite into it though.

[wygator]

To me, the more compelling question is the definition of "natural born citizen" as understood by the framers at the time the Constitution was written.

Since no definition was provided, but there is clearly a difference in the constitutional standard of natural born as applied to the office of President or VP vs. citizen as applied to Senator or Congress, there must have been a clearly understood definition in the day.

The definition from the common legal writings of the day seem to suggest that natural born means born to two citizens of the US so as not to have divided loyalties.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by wygator

To me, the more compelling question is the definition of "natural born citizen" as understood by the framers at the time the Constitution was written.

Since no definition was provided, but there is clearly a difference in the constitutional standard of natural born as applied to the office of President or VP vs. citizen as applied to Senator or Congress, there must have been a clearly understood definition in the day.

The definition from the common legal writings of the day seem to suggest that natural born means born to two citizens of the US so as not to have divided loyalties.

Yeah, I've seen that argument and it looks particularly weak. I find more compelling that it is that "natural born citizen" is as compared to a citizen who is naturalized after the adoption of the Constitution.