Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth

SeattleGriz wrote:Was reading a story about Marco Rubio and how a reporter from the Washington Post was trying to prove he cannot be POTUS because he is not a rightful citizen and came across this link about someone who "scrubbed" a Supreme Court case ruling on citizenship from the site Justia.com before Obama got into office. Thought it was interesting.

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate - Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in ... z1bWaKj6Wt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

houndawg wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Was reading a story about Marco Rubio and how a reporter from the Washington Post was trying to prove he cannot be POTUS because he is not a rightful citizen and came across this link about someone who "scrubbed" a Supreme Court case ruling on citizenship from the site Justia.com before Obama got into office. Thought it was interesting.





Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate - Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in ... z1bWaKj6Wt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was the same people who rigged the charges at the Towers.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:all of this is done in a bunker in Area 51...

travelinman67 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:all of this is done in a bunker in Area 51...

...under the command of JFK, kept alive all these years.

Gil Dobie wrote:Elvis and Michael are keeping them entertained.

CID1990 wrote:What a faggoty a$$ thread this is.

CID1990 wrote:What a faggoty a$$ thread this is.

Skjellyfetti wrote:So, the creationism proponent SeattleGriz is not convinced that there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

But, does believe there is sufficient evidence that Obama is not eligible to be the president.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:So, the creationism proponent SeattleGriz is not convinced that there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

But, does believe there is sufficient evidence that Obama is not eligible to be the president.

No. Just saying the saga continues. You do have to admit this is odd. Why get rid of the references?

but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:So, the creationism proponent SeattleGriz is not convinced that there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

But, does believe there is sufficient evidence that Obama is not eligible to be the president.

No. Just saying the saga continues. You do have to admit this is odd. Why get rid of the references?

danefan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
No. Just saying the saga continues. You do have to admit this is odd. Why get rid of the references?

Because people are idiots.

Who gives a shit what happens on some website? Do you think people do real legal research on justicia.com?

but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.

And this is complete BS. 100% of the population has access to official legal references at your local bar association and/state and most private law schools.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:What a faggoty a$$ thread this is.

So you feel right at home - just like your school days