Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Clarence Thomas pushing this absurd Obama suit?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Clarence Thomas pushing this absurd Obama suit?

    Among the many absurd lies about Obama during the election was that he isn't legally eligible to be president because. Even though this has been debunked repeatedly, there are still a couple of lawsuits about it, and some of the right wing web sites (worldnetdaily, for example) are still frantic over it. According to the NY Times today, Thomas was been actively carrying the water on this. Unbelievable. I couldn't find a lot of links besides this one, but the original report was apparently in the LA Times.

    http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyousho...itizenship-15/

  • #2
    Help me on this...

    I heard rumblings about this during the campaign, but didn't pay much attention because Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother, right? Is that not the case?

    What is the question of his citizenship? Are they questioning whether he was really born in Hawaii? Whether his mother was a citizen?

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh, there were SO MANY rumors. Some say he was really born in Kenya - that his relatives in Kenya say he was born there. He produced his birth certificate, but some say it was a fake. Others argue that since his dad was Kenyan even if he was born in the US he is not a "natural born" American citizen. And, I guess there's some discussion of joint citizenship with either Indonesia or Kenya ... I honestly couldn't follow it all. The bottom line is that while all of these accusations were debunked they kept being brought up.

      http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/o...02/146805.html

      http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

      I am just apalled that a Supreme Court justice would have any involvement in this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jvirginia View Post
        Others argue that since his dad was Kenyan even if he was born in the US he is not a "natural born" American citizen.
        Sounds ridiculous to me.

        I know this wasn't your original intent, but I think we need to get better a definition than 'natural born'. My dh was born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother, but he's an American citizen because his father was American. He couldn't run for President, but I'm okay with that. So I assume natural born in this case to mean born on American soil. Living here for all but 2 years of infancy makes him unsuitable for presidency.

        Then there's the question on school forms: Is there a natural parent living outside the home? How is an adoptive parent supposed to answer that? Do we reply yes and have to provide adoption papers to comply with the next question of Are there legal custody orders regarding this parent? If so, please provide them. Can't the form just say legal parent so us adoptive parents can just move on? This frustration for me over the word 'natural' goes back several years.

        So, as ridiculous as I think this lawsuit against Obama's legitimacy is, I hope that it causes the powers that be to clarify or possibly amend our 'rules' to reflect the current American population.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by HethD View Post
          . So I assume natural born in this case to mean born on American soil.
          Not always, I don't believe McCain was born on US soil due to his father's tour of duty in Panama. He is still considered the same as if born on American soil.

          Comment


          • #6
            So, what is the definition of natural-born?

            Originally posted by jordansmom View Post
            Not always, I don't believe McCain was born on US soil due to his father's tour of duty in Panama. He is still considered the same as if born on American soil.
            Has no one ever thought to clarify these rules before now?

            Comment


            • #7
              Not to take this off on a tangent

              Originally posted by HethD View Post
              Sounds ridiculous to me.

              I know this wasn't your original intent, but I think we need to get better a definition than 'natural born'. My dh was born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother, but he's an American citizen because his father was American. He couldn't run for President, but I'm okay with that. So I assume natural born in this case to mean born on American soil. Living here for all but 2 years of infancy makes him unsuitable for presidency.
              but do you mean your dh is not eligible to be President? I thought if one of your parents was American, you automatically had American citizenship and were able to run for Prez. Just curious. (btw, our ds was born in Ukraine and came here at 20 mos, but of course could not be Prez because we adopted him. I sort of wish there was an exception for adoptions, but then where to cut it off? I could see people abusing it and "adopting" adults so they could be Prez).

              Pleaky

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pleaky View Post
                but do you mean your dh is not eligible to be President? I thought if one of your parents was American, you automatically had American citizenship and were able to run for Prez. Just curious.
                Pleaky
                I actually can't really tell by reading the definition. It looks like he can be since his father was a citizen, but for whatever reason today I can't make sense of all the 'howevers' involved.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

                Comment


                • #9
                  We're talking Thomas here. Anything is possible. The man is an embarrassment on the Court.

                  I doubt he has much credibility with the other justices. He rarely asks questions and writes fewer opinions than the others. He's mostly just a vote.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Actually, that's never been definitively resolved either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jeannie View Post
                      We're talking Thomas here. Anything is possible. The man is an embarrassment on the Court.

                      I doubt he has much credibility with the other justices. He rarely asks questions and writes fewer opinions than the others. He's mostly just a vote.
                      And, reportedly, he is ticked off at Obama for some comments that Obama made about Thomas at the Saddleback Forum. When asked which Supreme Court justice he wouldn't have nominated, he said Thomas, because, quote, "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution."

                      Thomas is known to hold a grudge.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X