How many times are you gonna tell this lie?
www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ineligible.asp
The woman said no such thing and it has been proven false. Gte a grip on reality you sicko birther lunatic
Bite me.
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd as evidence toward proving Obama’s constitutional eligibility in court.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Bite me.
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd as evidence toward proving Obama’s constitutional eligibility in court.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.
The article that claimed that was a complete lie and everybody but the birther loons know that. No such thing was ever said by her or any other obama attorney. Try looking at transcripts of the court proceeding. Completely bogus story thats been debunked by the facts. Damn you are stupid.
Do you seriously need a history lesson on this?
On Social Security, 'progressives' flat out LIED to the people claiming it was an insurance program, but then before the Supreme Court FDR's lawyers argued that it was a tax. They always lie...because their programs never work, so they have to LIE to make enough stupid people believe they THINK it can work. And so it was on that representation (a tax, not an insurance program the way FDR sold it to the people) that the Supreme Court upheld the program in Helvering V. Davis.
Want more?
Actually, I want to make a greater point on the role of judges...
Judges are supposed to be like umpires in baseball, calling balls and strikes. They don't make the rules, they enforce them - either the ball was in the strike zone, or not. Judges are men, not Gods, and their God (in this case) is the Constitution, not what the ruling class wants or doesn't want.
Now...here's the difference between a constructionist like Clarence Thomas and a left wing nut in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Thomas will call balls and strikes, or at least he will make the most honest attempt at doing so. Either the ball enters the strike zone, or it doesn't. He won't cheat trying to massage his opinion into law, even if he's rooting for a particular outcome. Simple, but not easy...he's human after all.
Whereas a judge like Ginsburg is more, well - how I put this? - nuanced. She doesn't hide her bias or agenda. The Constitution pretty much says whatever the hell she wants it to say. So before the first pitch is even thrown, first she will assess each player's ability at the plate and then expand or contract her strike zone accordingly -- empathy for the shitty players, contempt for the superstars etc. In other words, she's not a judge at all, she's a social activist like every other 'progressive' who enters politics. Ginsburg is playing God or Emperor, something the framers NEVER intended.
And that is why I use words like 'illegal' when describing this massive, bloated, inefficient, corrupt ILLEGAL welfare state...because that's exactly what it is.
I don't care how many judges try to 'massage' them into law, there is no "social security clause" or "medicare clause" in the Constitution. There are, however, MANY military regulations, so your comment about the military being "socialism" speaks more about your ignorance than my state of mind.
So you want socialized medicine and think it's a great idea? Fine, there is a process...amend the Constitution.
Otherwise, there is no rule of law except mob rules, just like every other shitty socialist country the left wants to emulate.
Finchy?
