Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae
Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.
In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Some people will believe almost anything apparently.
They could apparently also simultaneously believe the Treasury Department would conspire with 0bama to print fake money AND that the money printed from the Treasury presses would be an easily discerned counterfeit!
Yep, a vast conspiracy is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY reasonable answer! /s
You cannot change the Constitution with a statute. 1790 is just like the resolution saying McCain was eligible, and that is worthless.
The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”
It has not been decided if children of illegal aliens and born in the USA are in fact US citizens, it has been interpreted that way but not decided by the USSC.
But all Constitutional issues aside - whether the law is Constitutionally correct or not is immaterial to the fact that it shows the understanding of the term during the time of our founding most certainly did NOT entail born of citizen parents in the USA if one citizen parent (father) and being born overseas was acceptable criteria to be deemed a natural born citizen - and thus with no need to be naturalized and eligible for the Presidency.
...But all Constitutional issues aside - whether the law is Constitutionally correct or not is immaterial to the fact that it shows the understanding of the term during the time of our founding most certainly did NOT entail born of citizen parents in the USA if one citizen parent (father) and being born overseas was acceptable criteria to be deemed a natural born citizen - and thus with no need to be naturalized and eligible for the Presidency....
You are making a supposition. You cannot read their minds. Show me some documentation. It is just as likely they tried to expand the meaning to include persons that were not included in the NBC accepted definition.
Which of our founders had children born overseas or were likely to have such while they were working for the govt and may have desired to make them eligible?
Indeed, the 2008 election exposed widespread ignorance on what it means to be a natural born citizens, particularly among the entire voting body. That maternal descent is respected today doesn’t discount the idea that both parents should be citizens. The biggest misconception is that you can be born to NO U.S. citizen parents and be natural-born.
It isn’t a conspiracy. Go plug the URLs into the waybackmachine for yourself and see. You can SEE where the references were scrubbed and the case numbers changed. Its all right there.
How is THAT a conspiracy? Someone altered SCOTUS cases at Justia.com. Thats a FACT.
Great comment and I agree 100% and a huge BTTT for the article!
And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
So true. You believe that a person born in the US of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father is a natural born citizen.
I mentioned the scrubbed files because that is the topic of the thread. And your response, ridicule, is the same as all the other rebuttals that have been presented on this issue. No facts, no case law, no expert legal opinion, no evidence, just ridicule.
At least you are not alone -- the MSM joins you in that game. And Alinsky would be proud. Nice work.
Anti-birthers or whatever they are use the word “conspiracy” as though it means “a fantasy that gullible people believe in that doesn’t exist”.
That’s not the meaning of the word at all, here are some definitions of the word “conspiracy”:
(Just did a search using “conspiracy definition”)
con·spir·a·cy
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
con·spir·a·cy
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design
conspiracy
1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret
Now this next reference is especially interesting as it is a legal definition, there is more at the link but I posted the most relevant. By all the definions here, there was and is a large conspiracy. These fools are trying to throw poo like monkeys at a zoo; unfortunately their use of the word “conspiracy” is actually apropos and quite accurate. Actually the crimes committed go much, much further than mere conspiracy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.
****Note this section below****
Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.
Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.
Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.
****Note this section below****
The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.
According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually amorphous and complex.
< snip >
Other Considerations
****Very interesting stuff here too!****’
A conspiracy exists as long as measures are taken to conceal evidence of the crime. A person who did not participate in the original agreement can become a coconspirator after the actual criminal act if the person joins in the concealment of the conspiracy. Whether a coconspirator received personal benefit or profit is of no importance.
Generally, conspirators are liable for all crimes committed within the course or scope of the conspiracy. The application of this general rule varies from state to state. Ordinarily, an act is within the course or scope of the conspiracy if it is a foreseeable result of the agreement. In some states, a conspirator is not liable where he or she has no knowledge of the specific act and argues successfully that the act was beyond the scope of the conspiracy. Also, if the purpose of the agreement is later changed by coconspirators, a conspirator who did not participate in the alteration may not be held liable for the new conspiracy. A person is liable for conspiracy only in regard to the meaning of the agreement as he or she understands it.
In some jurisdictions, a person may be guilty of conspiracy even if a coconspirator is immune from prosecution. For example, if two persons conspire to commit murder and one is found to have been insane at the time of the killing, the other conspirator may not be exempt from prosecution for conspiracy.
One who provides services to conspirators will not be guilty of conspiracy if that person has not participated in the agreement and does not know that a conspiracy exists. There must be a willful participation in the conspiracy, as well as an intent to further the common purpose or design for conspiratorial liability. Therefore, aiding a conspiracy by selling material to further it does not make someone a conspirator if the person does not know of the conspiracy, even if that person knows the goods sold will be used for an unlawful purpose. However, if the circumstances indicate a conspiracy, one who cooperates and knowingly sells goods for illegal use may be guilty of conspiracy.
Generally, if a number of conspirators agree to carry out different functions in furtherance of the conspiracy, the agreement constitutes a single conspiracy. This is so even if the different functions amount to more than one unlawful purpose. In some states, however, the different functions may constitute multiple conspiracies if there is an agreement to commit more than one crime.
Punishment for the crime of conspiracy is ordinarily defined by statute and varies in accordance with the conspiracy’s objective. For example, a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor will not be subject to the same punishment as a conspiracy to commit a felony. Conspiracy may be alleged in a civil case if the plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the conspiracy. Civil conspiracy is ordinarily not a Cause of Action, but the existence of a conspiracy may be used in determining the amount of damages in a civil action and the respective liabilities of civil codefendants for the payment of damages.
Thanks for the post. BTTT.
True enough.
If everyone involved were caught and held accountable, it would be a lot of people. Barry should be at the top of the list.
Good Lord... and they thought NIXON was bad!!!!!!
You are misreading what I posted.
I was not in any way addressing the children born to illegals. Those cannot possibly be citizens, since they are a part of an invading force, and cannot be said to be here under US jurisdiction.
That is excellent!
Have you send your article and Donofrio’s around to the usual suspects? I have ideas (not that they’re any good, mind you).
I know you are not in the speculation buisness but would I be out of line to ask you to speculate on who had the precience, prior to Obamas announcement to run, who knew Stanley well enough or could coerce or buy off Stanley to take a risk of 25 year prison-time, to subvert supreme court findings. Only a few names could come to mind given the timeframe reference. These would be Chicago politicians and political operatives. Did Stanley come into some money at that time. Why would this not enrage every lawyer, right or left, who is faithful to the Constitution and the law? Is there any way a cause can be brought against him to allow discovery? And if this subverted the political process and electoral process is not the fruit poisoned derived from that tree and all eminations from that point forward in time? This is treachery in its rankest form? How can this not become a topic of a Congressional inquiry...is that going too far, given Congress investigates baseball players taking anabolic steroids. This is in character for Obamaites but it should not be allowed to stand.
Send it everywhere whichway!
I know this much, Stanley sold FindLaw to West Publishing for 37 million and a 200K salary. He didn’t get along with them so well, got sued for breach of contract by them and settled. He started Justia after that.
It SHOULD enrage EVERYONE. The trouble is getting it into the media.
If people knew.. yea, there would be some serious ramifications.
Just sent you a freepmail.
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.