Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Don’t know. You first have to determine if it is really Barack.
Oh please.I have been posting about this topic back when Donofrio and that Apuzzo character were totally ignoring the British law.
I wouldn’t vote for Newt under different times but I believe he is the only one of the current characters that has a chance to bring Obama down.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2388025/posts
Tsukiyama was in office around a year and stepped down in November of 2009. He was deputy attorney general prior to position.
‘I respectfully disagree. It’s NOT losing GA that matters; it’s how the liberals are going to explain that 0b0z0 couldn’t “prove his eligibility” in court!
Well, that would lead back to Brian Schatz (Chief of Elections in Hawaii) who is now the Lt. Governor of HI as to why in 2008 he originally denied Obama access to the state ballot. And would lead to why Nancy Pelousi had to step in.
Was the fact that both Obama and Pelosi in Hawaii over the Christmas holidays anything to do with “coordinating” their future testimony with HI officials???
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States,
- - -
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States,
- - -
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
In this review, the child of a foreign national father is completely dependent on the naturalization of the father and later, his intention to become a citizen. So, unlike Ankeny claims, this is contemplating and answering the question for the children born of aliens.
One other point that really needs to emphasized: Virginia Minor did NOT claim to be a natural-born citizen. She argued she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment birth clause. The court REJECTED this by arguing she was already a citizen, fitting the criteria that this court EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born citizens. While it said some authorities go further in declaring children to be citizens without reference to the citizenship of the parents, it did NOT characterize this second class as natural-born citizens. That characterization was linked directly to one set of narrower criteria.
If there was any reason to believe NBC could be defined more broadly, there would have been no reason to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument. Instead the court focuses on the different ways one can become a citizen, but ONLY one of those ways was characterized as NBC. Keep in mind there was no dissent, and keep in mind, this definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Vattel from law of nations. That is not by accident. Waite called this the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar and that it's found OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Where it came from was obvious.
What other reason would there be to emphasize the parents were citizens if NOT to specifically link this to the Law of Nations definition of natural born citizenship???
NBC definition has nothing to do with the case.
What is Obiter Dictum? See Black’s Law Dictionary or cases discussing the definition.
http://blackslawdictionary.org/dictum/
Yes, who knew that all it took was one administrative judge to help restore lost memories.
You are correct. The Court held that Minor was a citizen before the 14th amendment precisely because she was born in the country to citizen parents. Their discussion of NBC was absolutely a basis for their holding. The Court did not decide anything about other types of citizens because it was not a question put before the Court.
So do you believe the Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v Daniels case is much clearer defining a natural born citizen?
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
- - -
But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
Right there is the whole reason Waite defined NBC. Her rights and privileges were not created with the 14th amendment or with 14th amendment citizenship, but they existed before for natural-born citizens, before and since the adoption of the 14th amendment. Nowhere was there a right to vote from any of these rights and privileges. What other point is there for talking about NBC and the citizenship of the parents???
Not at all. It is the use of someone else's eyes, to see what they see. Let me give you my favorite example.
There is a closet with 3 black hats and two white hats. There are three men standing in a line all facing the same direction.
0-> 0-> 0->
A man takes three hats from the closet and places one on each of the three men's heads. He asks the man in the very back "What color is your hat?" The man looks at the two in front of him and says " I don't know."
He then asks the second man, "What color is your hat?" The Second man looks at the man in front of him and says "I don't know."
He then asks the third man, "What color is your hat?" The last man, who can see neither his own hat nor the other two says, "My hat is black." He is correct. How did he know?
If you understand how he got the correct answer to this riddle, you will understand what I mean about seeing the answer through the Minor court's eyes. They explicitly TELL us what is NOT the answer, and therefore they tell us what *IS* the answer.
That said, legal arguments are based on trying to contort things to fit an argument.
It might succeed. It might not.
If the Judges are not intellectually capable of understanding the point it will fail. If they are astute, it will not. It is a crap shoot.
But your contortion doesn’t make it law at this point. It’s only an argument that might or might not succeed. Great chance that it would be a failure.
It would not be the first time i've seen a miscarriage of justice because the Parties of the court lacked the comprehension to understand something. It happens far too often in my opinion.
Oh brother. Can’t you read.
“It claimed that it left open the question of citizenship for the children of two citizen parents, and elsewhere said that it CONTEMPLATED this scenario.
That is not what this says.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. 12”
Footnote 12 says:
Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
I can’t even bother with reading the rest of your post when you can’t even get ths right.
Btw, I had never even read this case until someone on this thread brought it up as if it proved his point. But it doesn’t . Because the court is saying Minor didn’t resolve the issue about NBC.
I follow all of your comment except the CT refugee bit introduced by Sven Magnussen with no backup that I have seen so far.
IIRC the CT SS# is in a series issued in 1977 when Obama was age 16, not age 10, as he was in 1971. Also, given Obama’s close association to identity forger, Bill Ayers, I suspect that Barry's SS# was taken by Bill Ayers from a dead child who would have had a BC but would never have been issued an SS# until Ayers got one for him and thus would not appear on the death registry even though dead.
Ayers would have given the SS# to Barry in 1980-81 after Barry transferred to Columbia, perhaps in the “missing year” when Barry may have fancied himself a Black Panther Party revolutionary...perhaps even being involved in some of the terrorist acts in CT in coordination with Ayers’ Weatherman underground.
Absolutely not.
I maintain, and the current SCOTUS agree, that it is NOT settled law and IS up for debate.
Precisely.
That's not exactly true (see post #585). The court did review all types of citizenship because it said:
The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
IMO, the most direct way to determine if there was a right to vote for all citizens, is to decide the narrowest, most exclusive, original way to define citizens and review whether that was accompanied with a right to vote, which is explained pretty well in this paragraphs:
It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [p172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.
After reviewing voting rights in the several states the court concludes:
Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage.
That is too much speculation upon which to base a solid theory. The fact that we haven't seen pictures of him under three proves nothing. My family has no pictures of me at that age. I know lots of people for whom this is true. Whether the Grandmother used a divorce to create a birth record, or did it from the very beginning is not in evidence, nor do we even know for sure that she did it at all. We also do not know that Virginia's birth certificate was commandeered by Obama. All of that stuff is speculation.
It is useful for thinking up theories to explore different possibilities, but it is not useful for narrowing the theories down to provable or not. To prove a theory, we must have facts which ARE proven.
I do not doubt at all that Hawaii learned of Barack Obama on August 4th, 1961. I do not accept that the newspaper announcements were forged, or created after the fact. I think the evidence for that is only speculative and inconclusive. At the moment I believe it is far more likely that those newspaper announcements are real, and reflect what was entered into the record at that time.
Ah ha. Now I see the problem.
There is one path to natural-born citizenship that mostly definitely is settled law: those born in the country to citizen parents. All other paths have unresolved doubts and are absolutely up for debate until the SCOTUS makes a ruling.
The way I read what happened in Hawaii is that Brian Schatz did not ‘keep him off the ballot’.
But what he did was submit a document that did not meet the legal requirements for which the document was submitted. That being a written statement confirming eligibility.
His action was one of omission - not commission.
But someone caught the omission before the election and thus forced Ms. Pelosi into action.
So one of the following happened:
1) It was an innocent omission. Sloppiness, forgetfulness.
2) Brian Schatz did not want to be on the record, in writing claiming Obama was eligible.
That’s it - pick one or the other.
Arguments against 1) - the form used in 2008 was the same format as 2004. And the 2004 form had the right language and met the legal requirements. The form in 2008 was not created anew in 2008.
Arguments for 2) - William Gilardy was Stanley Ann’s lawyer during her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. He was (is?) HDP legal council. He has access to what is behind the magic curtain. He would be in a position to advise Schatz on actions to avoid possible charges of fraud in the future.
Of course he can! He wasn't there and had to rely on what his mother told him for at least the first ten years of his life.
The first chance he would have to find out his father was a bigamist would have been his first trip to Africa when he met Kezia and his older brother and sister.
Now, just this year, the whole world is told that his father was kicked out of the USA by INS in collusion with Harvard on explicit suspicion of being a bigamist!
How the heck can Barry even pretend now that in all probability he is anything but an illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage due to his father being an international creep! It is all now on the public record in a best-seller.
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.