Court Rules Natural Born Citizenship Required for Presidency
Posted by By GeorgeM at 7 October, at 16 : 46 PM Print
More on the Hassan “Presidential candidacy.” This is just as much of a joke as “Obama’s,” but Obama has very powerful enablers helping him to violate the Constitution and abuse the American people daily. Do NOT tolerate either usurper.
Abdul Karim Hassan is a naturalized citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency of the United States. This even though the Constitution says “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Hassan v Scott Gessler, Colorado SoS
Business Insider reported on September 5, 2012, Abdul Karim Hassan’s series of lawsuits claiming his right to run for the Presidency have been denied in the Second, Third, and now Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A similar ruling was issued September 28, 2012 for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
more:
Well, hell glad they agree with the Constitution.
Elaine, 7 months ago
The only problem with this story is that the Judge fails to define EXACTLY what is a NBC. Most Judges are convinced that a U.S. citizen and a NBC are one and the same…which we KNOW is NOT TRUE.
ALL NBCs are U.S. citizens…but NOT ALL U.S. citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
Such are the cases concerning Sen. Marco Rubio AND now we learn of former Sen. Rick Santorum. BOTH their parentS were NOT U.S. citizens when they were born here in the USA.
I pray that BOTH parties DO NOT EVER try AGAIN to pull the wool over the United States and nominate a NON-Natural Born Citizen.
Joe M., 7 months ago
I question your statement that most judges don’t know the accurate definition of nbC. I’d rather believe that most probably do know the accurate definition, but in today’s political climate are reluctant to admit it unless ‘squeezed’.
Witness the volume of cockamamie reasons and questionable authorities given by all the judges involved in the Ballot Challenges in the recent past. None were in support of why Obama was an nbC, but rather why that particular judge didn’t have to give an ‘official’ definition because of jurisdiction, or standing, or that ‘someone else’ had already answered it.
One of the legal minds needs to figure out how to get a ruling on the definition only, with no reference to any person. Lord knows there have been enough legislative attempts to change it, and more than a few people denied a run for the POTUS by various courts because of foreign births of the individuals. So, there IS an accepted definition, just not one written down. Another one of the “everyone knows what it is, so no need to write it down’ examples I suppose?
Pete Bennett, 7 months ago