Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
My bad, relying on my memory from my college freshman-year American Government which was many moons ago. I knew a Sen. did not have to be a NBC.
Re: “What I think is important here is that Cleaver had to show his birth certificate to determine whether he could get on the ballot. (I don’t know for sure but I guess Biden had to show his also.) It’s good precedent and I don’t know if the courts will notice this.”
On what probable cause was Cleaver required to show it in 1968? Profiling? The norm seems to be *not* having to show it.
Although Minor v. Happersett is a very important case, I have been trying to read all the posts, and have yet to see another integral case not mentioned:
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
John Elk was an American Indian born on US soil, who was born on an Indian reservation, then moved to non-Indian terriroty in Nebraska. He renounced his tribal allegiance, and when he registered to vote, was turned down by Charles Wilkins, Registrar of voters.
“Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[2] Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Based on this case, Obama does not qualify under the citizenship test, much less natural born citizen, since he did not owe “direct and immediate allegiance” and completely subject to the United States due to his dual citizenship. Therefore, under the allegiance test at birth, Obama does not qualify.
Also understand, Obama at one time had citizenship in four countries (US, Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia). He lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21, but, according to the British Ntionality At of 1948, once a British subject, always a British subject, meaning you never lose British citizenship unless formally renounced. Obama still may have Indonesian citizenship as well.
No, I’m asking honest questions. It is through open, critical and challenging discussion, the marketplace of ideas if you will, that opinions and political positions are become the strength of liberty able to overshadow false liberal critics and activist thought. If you are more comfortable with conformity, political correctness and lemming-like thinking, that frankly characterizes the loony left, then why don’t you just tell me what you would prefer to read, and I’ll see if I can’t accommodate.
Good reading....
In Cleaver’s case it was because he was younger than 35, and people knew it.
Ah. Your understanding is complete, Grasshopper...
No where in the majority decision in U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is ‘natural born citizen’ addressed. Only by Fuller in the dissent.
I can see the motive to falsely claim to be a US citizen, even if one isn't doing it to become the most powerful man in the world.
What's the motivation for a descendent of a long line of career US military to claim to be a Panamanian?
Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.
Show me proof.
Twitter is down and I have to wonder if this is related. Obama has a powerful hacker for him. Twitter is a big problem for Obama because it allows genuine reports and not the phony msm reporting.
TwitterTwitter is currently experiencing extended downtime: a 30 minute outage that’s one of the longest in recent months. Back in 2007 and 2008, Twitter downtime was relatively frequent: this year the site has been far more stable and its early outages have been largely forgotten.
In the last 5 minutes, Twitter has acknowledged the downtime on its status blog, but adds that it’s unsure of the cause:
Site is down. We are determining the cause and will provide an update shortly.
What a disaster!
"A Republican Party candidate for Senator, Representative, Vice-President, and President must provide his/her long form birth certificate and his/her college records to Republican Party officials before she/he can be approved to run in a Republican primary.
Such documents will become part of the public record where the public can examine them when it wishes."
1. Remember, the eligibility bylaws of a political party have no legal connection to the Constitution of the United States.
2. That is, each political party is responsible for the eligibility rules and background checks within its own party.
3. In other words, as long as its bylaws of eligibility do not conflict with the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the Republican Party---or any political party---can set its own rules as to what documents a Republican candidate must present to Republican Party officials.
4. Putting pressure on the Democratic Party: If the Republican Party puts the rule above into its own bylaws, such an action might put tremendous pressure on the Democratic Party to put a similar eligibility bylaw in its own rules.
The Emperor is naked and every darned one of us knows it...
Why?
Just saying.
Your view of Burr may be more accurate. Of course in my day the very reason for the duel — a woman — and the fact that the more famous Hamilton died was enough to tarnish Burr forever. The facts were lost in the sanitized re-telling.
Then again — didn’t the odious Gore Vidal write a bio of Burr? That would be enough to seal him (Burr) as a suspicious character forever!
Sorry. I’m punchy from reading this thread for 5 days. BTW, I appreaciate your thoughtful contributions to it. Thanks.
Of course...
In 1968, MOST of the country still followed the rules and conventions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.