Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mississippi Democrat party running scared
scribd ^ | 05/06/2012 | edge919

Posted on 05/06/2012 12:21:36 PM PDT by edge919

The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certificate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 last
To: Save-the-Union
To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2. There are some that would argue that that the matter is settled. They would have us worship at the alter of precedent either judicial or historical. Those that argue this, use defective logic. Think about it..... If someone publicly breaks a law and the violation is intentionally ignored or distorted by those whose duty it is to define or enforce it, does that make the law less valid? No it does not.... So better our discussion should focus on what the framers actually meant in article 2. Obama might get a pass simply because the matter is not settled. So far, most courts including U.S Supreme Court have not had the courage to take on this matter. We need to clearly define what is meant by the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of president of the United States. It is as simple as that.

I would suggest that the definition is in fact clear, rather we need to make people understand that the definition is clear, and likewise WHY it is clear.

The concept of being a "natural" citizen is relatively simple. It is a case in which citizenship is inherent in ones nature and requiring no act of law.

Without the 14th amendment *AND* the Cable act, Obama would not even be a citizen, and that is only *IF* he was actually born in this country. ( A circumstance yet to be demonstrated beyond doubt.)

101 posted on 05/09/2012 9:18:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Actually, I agree with you but there are a significant amount of people who don’t. (Hence this thread) They maintain that natural born means something different. Unfortunately, because there has been no judicial intervention, their argument seems to have a kind of merit. So now, we are in danger of not only having a second term of the Bama but if Romney chooses Marco Rubio, having a running mate on the republican side who also does not meet the natural born qualification to be president. This is the crises.

Yes Obama’s place of birth hence even his regular citizenship remains in doubt. We still need his original birth certificate as well as so many other documents. BUT how do you expect we will see them if the courts cower and do not order discovery? Remember the term “Controlling legal authority”?


102 posted on 05/09/2012 1:21:42 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union
Yes Obama’s place of birth hence even his regular citizenship remains in doubt. We still need his original birth certificate as well as so many other documents. BUT how do you expect we will see them if the courts cower and do not order discovery? Remember the term “Controlling legal authority”?

At this point I say "FIE" on the courts. I have little doubt that if we found a certified Canadian birth certificate for little Barry Dunham-Marshall-Obama-Soetoro, that the court would take any action.

I don't think ANY proof would provoke a response from the court other than a refusal to look at it. This is not about Law, it's about fear and politics. No court in the land wants to be responsible for burning cities and thousands of deaths.

We need to hammer on this man's ineligibility for the sake of our History and not yet written future, not for any realistic belief that a court would ever dare touch this.

103 posted on 05/09/2012 1:50:18 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“”We need to hammer on this man’s ineligibility for the sake of our History and not yet written future, not for any realistic belief that a court would ever dare touch this.”””

For the sake of our history, we need to do both.... hammer on the ineligibility and insist that the courts do their duty.

I just hope that Romney does not choose Rubio as his running mate so I can vote Republican with a clear conscience.


104 posted on 05/09/2012 2:17:06 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union

“To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2.”

But that is not how some members of the Supreme Court view it.

Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.


105 posted on 05/09/2012 2:29:23 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

“”””Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.””””

Well at this point, even that would satisfy me..... Because if the court takes up the issue and can accurately state what the words actually meant, then original intent will be more obvious.


106 posted on 05/09/2012 2:48:53 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union

“Well at this point, even that would satisfy me”

Maybe. Here is what Justice Scalia said in 2005.

“Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don’t think it changes since then.”

“Now, obviously if you have that philosophy... foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like “due process,” the “right of confrontation” and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it’s all old English law.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352357/posts


107 posted on 05/10/2012 7:46:41 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
This is all the more reason why Minor is THE legal precedent as a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..." Of course, the "nomenclature" is actually the Law of Nations since the definition of NBC is a near verbatim match:
Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

Law of Nations: those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

108 posted on 05/10/2012 8:09:40 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Barack Hussein is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, pure and simple. People can go to www.scribd.com and read their pages 20 thru 32 ,
For those of you who don't know, remember this:
8 Congressional attempts from June 2004 to February 2008 to alter Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution, proves to meRead it for yourself.
Then look at these links.
Just before the 2008 election Barack Obama's election team spent $1.4 million blocking access to all of Obama's records.

Barack Hussein Obama II is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED.
There were 8 attempts by Democrats to try to "Change the Qualification Rules" BEFORE Obama was elected.
They KNOW Obama's ILLEGAL ... AND .... UNQUALIFIED!

Obama's record is hard to find.
Think about this.
Here's something to ponder. Now think about those facts,and statements.
The forgeries I'm aware of, are the three Birth Cretificate Barack Hussein Obama II has forged.
I don't trust evidence put forth by Obama supporters.
The disappearance of too much evidence on Obama is strong enough for me to know that he was born in Kenya.

Read INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!




In summary as stated by WhiskeyX

Ponder that!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation
109 posted on 05/10/2012 8:35:48 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Let me first say that I believe the framers intended that only children born to 2 citizen parents should be considered natural born.
But to me Minor is not clear enough to be used as precedent...... Minor basically clarifies something we all agree.... That children born of 2 citizen parents are natural born but it leaves open the possibility that others are also
“”””... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. “””””
Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?
Minor never really clarifies the difference between regular citizenship and nbc. This confusion is further reinforced by the following “”””Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “”””
So from this we can conclude that there is no doubt that children born to 2 citizen parents are Natural Born but there are doubts about everything else? This is all too vague to be considered clear precedent. We need to put pressure on the courts to clarify this matter


110 posted on 05/10/2012 6:18:33 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union
Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?

Because it's paraphrasing from the Law of Nations. Second, I believe this court was taking a stand against the 14th amendment becoming too broad. They make a very fine point of how natural-born citizens don't need the amendment neither before nor SINCE it was adopted. Third, they are recognizing that the various states had different citizenship rules of which there was doubt, but that for persons who fit the characterization of natural-born citizen, there is no doubt. In effect, they're saying that the characterization of natural-born citizenship means citizenship WITHOUT doubts. As we learned in Wong Kim Ark, the 14th amendment carries plenty of doubts that have to be reconciled. This decision did so by using permanent residence and domicil to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment, thereby limiting it's impact to the children or resident aliens, which Obama does not fit, same as he does not fit the natural-born citizen definition.

Otherwise, what point did it serve the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the parents being citizens unless it was used to exclusively define natural-born citizenship?? This is the question that Foggers and Faithers can't answer without admitting that citizen parents were used to define natural-born citiznes. I don't find this vague at all. The Minor court explored every other way to become a citizen including naturalization (which is also part of the 14th amendment), but the court only characterized one set of circumstances as natural-born ... those persons born to citizen parents. If it could mean something else, they would have said so, especially considering that Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen. All the court had to do was accept that argument, but they did not do so.

111 posted on 05/10/2012 11:48:01 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Perhaps you are speaking above my head but to me, it is not very clear or complete. In this case (Minor v Happersatt) no one was arguing that Minor was not a citizen. The distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen was not even an issue. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. The reason for her action was simply her gender. She was being denied the right to vote because she was a female.
The courts remark saying that it was never doubted that children born of parents who are citizen are themselves natural born, points us in the right direction but is more like a passing remark (obiter dictum) because it is not central to the actual case.
I maintain that we need a clear spicific definition. ....

example

A Natural Born Citizen Can ONLY be a child born of 2 U.S citizen parents who are subject only to the laws of the United States and not subject to any foreign authority or hold any foreign allegiance etc .... etc

Relying on Minor to come to the above conclusion is a mistake. Sorry, I just do not think Minor is a strong enough precedent.


112 posted on 05/11/2012 4:17:57 AM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union
Perhaps you are speaking above my head but to me, it is not very clear or complete. In this case (Minor v Happersatt) no one was arguing that Minor was not a citizen. The distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen was not even an issue. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. The reason for her action was simply her gender. She was being denied the right to vote because she was a female.

Minor made an argument that she was a citizen on the basis of the 14th amendment. If it wasn't relevant or not an issue, there would be no reason for the court to bring it up. Second, why would they not accept that argument??

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.

The part in bold above is the citizenship clause from the 14th amendment. The court had no problem recognizing this and then rejecting it:

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.

Do you understand what this is saying?? Women did NOT need the 14th amendment to give them the "position" of being citizens. They were already citizens without this provision. The court goes on to explain how people became citizens, and ONE of those ways is by the criteria that they exclusively characterized as natural-born.

And if it's not clear that they are rejecting the 14th amendment argument, they make it clear a few paragraphs later:

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

When they defined Minor's citizen through the law of nations definition of natural-born citizen, it wasn't a passing remark. She has "always been a citizen from her birth." For this statement to have meaning, it has to rely on the natural-born citizen definition because that was the ONLY definition given that did not have doubt. We know this declaration was a legal precedent because the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed the definition of NBC by quoting the exact paragraph from Minor and THEN by giving the holding in Minor:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
I maintain that we need a clear spicific definition. ....

There's no citizenship statute or definition that matches the language of your example, especially using the word ONLY to establish the criteria.

The Minor precedent was quoted and affirmed by another panel of Supreme Court justices more than 20 years later. Despite a split decision, that court agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen, and it said the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." Minor introduced its definition of natural-born citizen to say there were two ways citizens could be added to the United States (after the first way, which was by being a member of the new society). The first way was birth and the second was naturalization. The natural-born are distinguished specifically from aliens and foriegners who must rely on naturalization or have the doubts about their citizenship resolved. Natural-born citizens do not have this doubt. They are simply defined as: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Eighteen Supreme Court justices agreed. There's no higher legal authority.

113 posted on 05/11/2012 7:12:12 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Thank You for your careful and complete reply...... Since we both agree that Obama is in no way eligible, the next step is for our position to prevail in court. If this can be done as you say by using Minor as the primary precedent, I am all for it. But whether we use Minor, fall back on original intent or use both, because a crime has been and is currently being committed in the highest office of the land, this matter needs to be adjudicated. The sooner the better. In spite of what you say, I still maintain that in order to end this controversy, we need a clear and complete definition by a current court using today’s language of the Natural Born Citizen requirement as it relates to the office of President of the United States. And I am not alone in my opinion. Doing nothing only reinforces historical precedent especially if Romney selects Marco Rubio as his running mate.


114 posted on 05/11/2012 2:47:03 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson