Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE
PREAMBLE
This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.
For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.
At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.
Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.
A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.
What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.
PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT
Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens.
In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.
They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation.
The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.
McCain and Obama know that.
And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite.
*snip*
As to John McCain they would have found this:
Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.
He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.
I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.
IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY
~~~
Rest at link
You said:
“Yes he was. The whole gist of the case was summed up by Justice Gray when he wrote, “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” The Court confirmed the concept of two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court confirmed that any person born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a citizen at birth. Therefore it confirmed that any citizen at birth can be president. “
You can keep on dreaming all that you want that you read the words “natural born citizen” in there or that it claims to be ruling on Article II - Section 1 of the Constitution but nowhere in what you post does it claim either of these things.
There is a difference between a citizen and a naturalborn citizen and the judge you are quoting never claims otherwise.
Will people demand the contributions to the campaign back, demand he be prosecuted for fraud?
Thanks ... your post said Obama, not McCain and I was confused. Referring to the post that you quoted and your response.
There’s plenty of information available from Leo Donofrio’s site, if one’s interested enough in his position to look for it.
__________________
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.
The word “born” has meaning.
It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.
Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”
If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
*snip*
The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.
Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.
But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.
Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.
*snip*
Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run - and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run - with very harsh treatment.
McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil.
Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.
*snip*
Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run - and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run - with very harsh treatment.
McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.
*snip*
I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, as well as in the actual application submitted to the Court, asserted my belief that Obama was probably born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.
My original lower court suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least, requested to see Obama’s BC.
But that is not a core issue in my case. And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue - that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject.
As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen “at birth”.
His own web site told me so. And factcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948. Montgomery cites factcheck.org as a “nonpartisan” source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at birth” through his Father.
My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/
So, anyone born outside the country, but by law a citizen at birth, is what? Naturalized or natural born? The 14th amendment does not cover that situation, does it? It only covers "born or naturalized in the United States", not born outside the US but still a "Citizen at birth".
Logically those folks could be considered "naturalized at birth", because Congress only has the power to "Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization", not to define Constitutional terms, such as "Natural born citizen".
If that is true, then McCain was "naturalized at birth", and not a "natural born citizen". For Obama it depends on just where he was born. If born in Hawaii as claimed, he would be natural born (if one accepts that the 14th amendment tweaked the definition of that term a little). If not, then he is not a citizen at all, let alone a natural born one, unless he was later naturalized, in which case he'd still not be natural born.
So it all hinges on his place of birth. IMHO of course.
I would respectively challenge that!
You said:
“(if one accepts that the 14th amendment tweaked the definition of that term a little). “
___
There is absolutely no historical context as to the 14th Amendment being written to change or override Article II - Section 1 of our Constitution. Absolutely none.
Historically it was written purely in the context of defining a citizen. There is a historical difference between the term citizen and natural born citizen that Leo’s argument clearly documents.
When I was in high school our government teacher asked on a test how many form of citizenship and what are they . We all said two (that's what one of the text books we used said): Naturalized and those born in this country (anchor babies). He marked us all wrong
We argued for days.We looked, and looked, questioned, argued, and generally became obsessed with the problem.
Finally, told us there were three and that if we found the third he would give us extra credit at the end of the semester......
At last one day, while studying the constitution, he passed out various books, booklets etc and asked each to read from the paragraph marked....Finally the AH -Ha moment hit each of us. The third type is Native Born, as described in the article above (did you read it).
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
BOTH parents and the individual are born in the US. The only person that it matters to is the President.
Three types:
Natural born: Those born here EX: Anchor babies
Naturalized: Those taking the oath of citizenship EX: Ahhnold
Native Born: Those who are born of parents that are born here EX: the general population.
Bump!
I am amazed at how hard of a time some are having in understanding this.
At least your highschool class was able to get it. It is not that unknown to many of us.
Some seem to think that this was all made up out of thin air by some conspiracy theorists when in fact it is the orginalist intrepation of the Constitution.
SOme don’t think at all.....
By the way, Welcome to Free Republic.
I agree.
Education is everything. Hopefully if the conservative movement gets more and more revitalized then there will be a resurgence of education in this country and even possibly worldwide.
What some are missing in this thread is that the Constitution is a historical document and not a living breathing document.
That also goes for all of it’s Amendments and for all judicial decisions made in reference to it.
Leo’s case is in that context. He is making an ‘orginalist’ argument in regards to te Constitution. The arguments being made against his case are all made with a disregard to the historical context. They try to cite things that have no historical signifigance at all to Article II - Section 1 of th Constitution.
However this turns out this year with Obama, you can bet the Dems and media will challenge the legitimacy of Jindal if he should run. And with what will likely be a left-leaning USSC by then I sense a strong possibility Jindal would be ruled ineligible.
If anyone is annoyed because there are letters missing in my posts please understand that something is wrong with my computer or my keyboard. I may have some sort of virus on my system that is really annoying and strikes out certain keys that I type.
Hopefully I can fix it soon but I just thought that I would explain that since when I re-read some of my posts it is annoying me.
Sorry.
“I wonder what the reaction will be when the SCOTUS rules that Obama is qualified but McCain is not.”
I would love to see it. It would be historial.
There is no 'however" about it, Obama will take the oath of office on January 20th and Jindal is qualified to be president.
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.