Well friends, here we are, again! But this time, the court has already ruled against obozo and stated that it will decide eligibility based on the Constitutional requirement of a 'Natural Born Citizen'!
This is from the class action suit that I'm a part of. Read all about it here!
Everybody listen up. Since this issue has never before been in court. Prior to the Jan 26th we must all begin to focus on the founders and use the Minor case as supporting evidence only. The bottom line is what the founders meant when they put Art II into play. Vatell is the key and this is the section. Use it and use it well if we are to win in these challenges...
§212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [Emphasis added]
Can we get any clearer than that?
Carl...very clear to me. Personally, I think the ss#,birth cert.,etc. cloud the basic issue as stated above.Thank you for your work.
fom a fellow Georgian.
A stolen SS# IS IDENTITY THEFT! So what if he did it BEFORE it became common! His using someone else's social security number means he shows a background of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY! I know he's from Chicago and that's nearly a prerequisite for getting a political start, but before 07 it wasn't for ALL of the rest of the United States.
Not just criminal activity, but strong possibility he couldn't get real ID.
go here to see many statements referring to vatell by the founders
Manning is a voice for reason, but sometimes he goes on weird rants.
I'm quite familiar with the good Dr. Manning's words and positions.
Not true that this evidence is available. Not to say it is untrue, though.. This is an old Internet legend.
- No transcripts have surfaced yet.
- No Supreme Court docket, either
Dorris........I removed the utube thing featuring H&R Block that was part of your post. I'm not sure what you're motive is here? We're not into advertising.....
I was about to ask about that.
More about Georgia