Posted on 08/29/2009 9:19:49 PM PDT by rxsid
"The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone.
...
The dual citizen POTUS disqualification issue stands alone and should be set forth to stand or fall on its own merit separate from the birth certificate conspiracy theory. (Of course, conspiracies exist. But until facts are proved, they remain theories.)
Here is a rough draft of how I would accomplish the goal of setting forth the genuine legal question to stand or fall on its own merit in a complaint:
1. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
2. Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
3. This Honorable Court may take Judicial Notice of the following admissions published by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. [insert all published admissions in books, newspapers, official web sites etc.] For example:
- Admission #1. The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
4. This Honorable Court may also take Judicial Notice of the US State Department’s current policy under the Obama administration with regard to dual citizenship:
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“ (Emphasis added.)
That’s how you separate the issue and set it forth to stand or fall on its own merit.
Obama can’t provide any document which makes him eligible under the legal theory that a person such as him - a dual citizen owing allegiance to the very monarchy our founding fathers shed their blood to rid themselves of – was not at birth, and therefore can never be – a natural born citizen of the US."
Ping. Leo “suggests” how to proceed with an eligibility lawsuit, if he were to do it (paraphrasing).
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
BTTT
Ping
"The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."
In the case of the dual national Barack Hussein Obama Jr he has shown that he has no allegiance to our country. Just one example is him bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia!
This IS LENGTHY, but includes the relevant passages from Blackstone, Vattel, the Supreme Court, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. Otherwise, you have to get it off the ‘Net yourselves ...
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States. However, absent any CLEAR understanding of the language and law in the Constitution, SCOTUS has suggested time and again that Common Law ought be consulted in order to arrive at a decision. It has done this in order to ascertain the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.
See Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) for more information on the applicability of English Common Law …
Mind you, I said Common Law ought be consulted - not bound by ...
Why, you may ask ???
Because the Founding Fathers, in separating from England, DID NOT ENTIRELY abandon Common Law - they ONLY abandoned what they objected to specifically. * (See COMMENT, below).
In fact, the MAJORITY of Common Law became the basis of U.S. law. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were schooled in Common Law (Blackstone) and (to a lesser extent) the Law of Nations (Vattel).
Now, you need to examine and FULLY read Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives VERY CAREFULLY. It describes WHO is a natural-born subject.
Blackstone declares that, “ ... the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...”.
The OPERATIVE phrase is “GENERALLY SPEAKING” - it is NOT a definitively declarative statement, therefore, there MUST be AT LEAST one condition where children born of aliens in England ARE NOT natural-born subjects.
In order to ascertain this, you THEN need to examine the traits AND characteristics of a natural-born subject.
Per Blackstone, “ ... the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own … put off or discharge his natural allegiance … and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince ...”.
” ... Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien … for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only ...”.
” ... An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord ...”.
” ... And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once ...”.
” ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject … A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them … And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown ...”.
” ... Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable … of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. ...”.
Assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama fits the GENERAL definition of a natural-born subject since he was the child of an alien who was born in the U.S.
HOWEVER, Obama FAILS to meet the traits AND characterisitics of a natural-born subject. That is because he DOES NOT owe a SINGULAR natural allegiance to ONE sovereign or government.
Why, you may ask ???
Because, per the 14th Amendment, he is a citizen of the U.S. AND, per the British Nationality Act of 1948, he is a British subject:
British Nationality Act of 1948 Part II, Section V:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”.
Obama is a dual national which, if you look CLOSELY at Blackstone, EXACTLY fits his definition of a DENIZEN. A DENIZEN enjoys MOST of the rights of a natural-born subject, except that he CANNOT hold high office.
COMMENT:
Per Blackstone, a natural-born subject cannot sever ties with his sovereign. However, the Americans (who were natural-born subjects of King George III) did just that.
Their justification MUST have been rooted in Vattel’s Law Of Nations:
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
“ ... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ...”.
This shows that the Founding Fathers DID NOT entirely rely on Common Law.
FYI:
Per Vattel:
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights ... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children ... 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 ...
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country ... though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens ... Their children follow the condition of their fathers ...
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him ...
IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS STRICTLY ADHERED TO VATTEL AND NOT COMMON LAW, OBAMA WOULD NOT EVEN BE A CITIZEN - SINCE THE CHILD FOLLOWS THE FATHER UNDER VATTEL.
HOWEVER, THE 14TH AMENDMENT STILL MAKES OBAMA A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. AND, UNDER VATTEL, HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN - THUS, MAKING HIM A DUAL NATIONAL ...
CONCLUSIONS:
What does this ALL mean ???
1. The Founding Fathers DID NOT consider English Common Law to be the controlling law in the Colonies. For if they DID, as “Natural Born” English subjects, they NEVER could have severed ties with England without the Sovreign’s consent (per Blackstone).
2. The Founding Fathers seem to have borrowed from Vattell as justification for the severance. This seems to verify that the Founding Fathers DID NOT ENTIRELY rely on English Common Law when founding the United States.
3. Blackstone states that the children of foreigners born on English soil are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, “Natural Born” subjects.
4. HOWEVER, Blackstone ALSO declares that a “Natural Born” subject CANNOT serve two masters.
5. Therefore, per Blackstone, a child of a foreigner appears to be a Denizen rather than a “Natural Born” subject – assuming that the foreign father’s country recognizes the child as one of its citizens (dual nationality).
6. Per Blackstone, a Denizen enjoys MOST of the rights of a “Natural Born” subject – except that he CANNOT hold high office.
7. The British Nationality Act of 1948 recognizes OBAMA as a British subject AND the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes him as a United States citizen (dual nationality), IF he was born in Hawaii.
8. As a dual national, OBAMA DOES NOT fit the definition of “Natural Born” as the Founding Fathers knew it.
So ineligible, for so many reasons, yet not one bureaucrat had the bullox to question Der Fuhrer before the inauguration. He is the biggest scammer of all time. Will go down in history as the usurper he is.
What’s the next step? Can citizens take a class action suit against him? How do we get this con man off the payroll and out of OUR House?
More about our Governmental system, it's "origins" vs English Common Law:
Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law
"I. Judicial Power in the Early Republic
First, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an "initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations."6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been "settled in public opinion."8
A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, "the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic."10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule..."
This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law "immutable" and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, "the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text."16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be "destructive to republican principles."17
...More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers' decision explicitly to authorize Congress to "define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations."18
Much more here:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law
What’s the next step? Can citizens take a class action suit against him? How do we get this con man off the payroll and out of OUR House?
***
Well, most of these suits that have been thrown out one way or another have been for “lack of standing” ...
That is, they never get out of the starting gate ...
In modern jurisprudence, there is a three-prong test for standing, that I will not go into here ...
And, there is no definition or mechanism for standing in the Constitution ...
If we could find a condition of standing in Common Law or the Law Of Nations that would apply to ordinary citizens - then there might be a shot at it in court ...
Otherwise, you would need someone like Keyes or a disenfranchised McCain elector to bring the suit - and thats not a guarantee either ...
thanks for the ping. my favorite subject.
Mark for A.M. reading.
Other questions that need to be answered:
- WHY did the Supreme Court Justices (with the exception of Sam Alito) meet with 0bama prior to Inauguration in a highly questionable ex parte proceeding in the chambers of the SCOTUS? (Questionable because at that time there were cases on the docket in which 0bama was named as one of the parties, and the opposing parties were not permitted to attend the proceeding, very unethical and grounds for appeal in both civil and criminal actions)
- WHY did the prior Occupants of the Offices of President and Vice President (meaning Bush & Cheney)*relinquish* authority in the absence of absolute unequivocal proof of the eligibility of the incoming Occupants?
- WHY did all 50 of the individual Secretaries of State fail to confirm 0bama’s Constitutional bonafides and sign off on the election results for an unvetted candidate?
- WHY did not ONE of the members of the Electoral College refuse to go along with the charade of ‘confirming’ the electoral results for a ‘President-elect’ which had not been confirmed as Constitutionally qualified and remains so even today?
By his own admission, the Dear Comrade was a dual citizen at birth, that alone should be sufficient grounds to disqualify him from serving as POTUS.
Don’t get the ‘standing’ thing considering he’s the president - aren’t we all hurt by not having someone who has allegiance to the USA?
He's not too keen on the Brits either.
Under the Constitution, they had no choice in that matter. They could however have used the resources at their command to obtain much more "proof" of Husein's ineligibility. Instead they were afraid to even use his middle name.
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.