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

Skip to comments.

Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Kerchner v Obama - w/Historical NBC ref)
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 7/21/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 07/21/2009 10:25:57 AM PDT by rxsid

Monday, July 20, 2009
Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Filed
Filing Announcement: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint/Petition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.

A must read, it's replete with historical reference to the understanding of what the term Natural Born Citizen means.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss


TOPICS: Government; History; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; ineligible; kerchner; nbc; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; wolverines

1 posted on 07/21/2009 10:25:57 AM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Red Steel; null and void; LucyT; BP2; STARWISE; Amityschild; Calpernia; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 07/21/2009 10:26:28 AM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose; OSayCanYouSee

read later


3 posted on 07/21/2009 10:36:07 AM PDT by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Bookmark. Thanks for posting.


4 posted on 07/21/2009 11:08:23 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

A much better researched and written document as compared to those written by major Cooke’s attorney.


5 posted on 07/21/2009 11:20:02 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Going to read this all sometime today with anticipation.

And to all those trolls, and you know who you are (zotted Michael Michael) and the remaining of you intellectually dishonest people. Read this.

From the Brief:

"U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 649 (1898) only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not an Article II "natural born Citizen" ..."


But I expect you guys to keep up the lie that Ark settled who is a natural born citizen even though you trolls know you are liars.

6 posted on 07/21/2009 11:31:31 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Thanks for posting. ;-)


7 posted on 07/21/2009 11:32:44 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yes indeed. The truth will come out!


8 posted on 07/21/2009 11:38:33 AM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I just want to point out that an acting US Attorney and an ASSistant US Attorney are representing defendants. I thought they were supposed to uphold the Constitution? Our tax dollars at work.


9 posted on 07/21/2009 11:50:41 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Thanks for the ping.

Will definitely read later.


10 posted on 07/21/2009 11:59:30 AM PDT by azishot (Please join the NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Wow. Bombshell. Thanks for posting. I was familiar already with the cases regarding definition of 'natural born'. I was not familiar with the following cases:

State v. Hunt, 2 Hill (SC) (1834) – Explains the legal, ethical,, and moral obligation that an officer has to honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution
Cole v. Richardson, 405, U.S. 676, 92 S. Ct. 1332, 31 L.Ed.2nd 593 (1972) – explains the military officer’s oath to protect and defend the constitution provides standing
Bergdoll v. Kane 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1999) – the PA Supreme Court ruled that an attorney had demonstrated a substantial, direct and immediate interest as an attorney sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and therefore had standing to bring suit.

Seems to me that there is legal precedence for the military (such as Major Cook) to legitimately have standing and be able to sue to confirm that their oaths to defend the constitution are upheld and should not face any sort of court martial or disciplinary action in so doing as many Freepers have suggested! Freepers who have suggested this have themselves violated the civil rights of these military officers, such as Major Cook, and owe him an apology!

Secondly Bergdoll v. Kane has already ruled that any attorney seeking to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution HAS STANDING!!!!!!!!! Therefore, ANY suit seeking to protect and defend the Constitution regarding the natural born status of Obama being REJECTED due to lack of standing is FALSE and unconstitutional!

11 posted on 07/21/2009 2:25:18 PM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, attended the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in autumn of 1961.

Between these start dates, Miss Duham became pregnant with Obama on Nov. 1, 1960 while she was 17 years of age. Claims are that she married Obama Sr. on February 2, 1961. If this is correct and Obama Sr. was already married, it would constitute bigamy. Bigamy is outlawed in Hawaii, but legal in Kenya. Thus, chances are that Obama’s mother had moved to Kenya residing there the months preceding Obama’s 1961 birth.

Obama’s own grandmother states that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. Thus, he would not be a natural born citizen. Obama is reported to have been born August 4, 1961.

Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!

Is there any witnesses to Stanley Ann Dunham’s location and movement in 1961 up through Obama’s birth. Any medical clinic visits in the U.S. during her pregnancy? I have not heard of any which is a good indication that she was in Kenya.

Claims indicate that Obama was adopted and became Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He would then have lost natural born citizenship if he even ever had it. He attended Occidental College as Barry Soetoro. Occidental College informed Newsweek that Obama enrolled as a foreign student (info at FreeRepublic).

By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not. By spending an enormous amount in legal fees to keep his birth certificate hidden, it leads one to think that he is NOT a natural born citizen.


12 posted on 07/21/2009 2:42:11 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot. He has ALREADY declared via his fight the smears website that his father was a British subject. The defnition of 'natural born' requires TWO citizen parents, not just one. Therefore he cannot possibly be natural born.

This definition was defined by Emerich De Vattel in 1758. Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: defines 'natural born' as 'those children born in the country, of PARENTS who are citizens.'

This definition has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 in 1830 - they reinforced Vattel's definition in this case.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 in 1875 - again the same definition as Vattel was reinforced in this case.

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 - In this case not only was the same definition as Vattel reinforced yet again, but the source citation for this definition was Vattel!

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) - Vattel was again cited as the source for the proper definiton of 'natural born' as understood by the framers of our constitution.

Nowhere has this traditional definition ever been overturned. Not in the 14th amendment which only defines 'citizenship', not 'natural born status' - not in any SCOTUS decisions (quite the opposite) - and not in any Acts of Congress. I've been shouting this from the rooftops for over a year and very few are even listening.

13 posted on 07/21/2009 2:54:42 PM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
"By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not."

My understanding is that even if Barry could produce a legit HI long form B.C. he would still NOT be considered a NBC because of these to facts (unless he lied who his father was):

1) His father was a foreign national, who never had any "attachement" to this country. He only ever had a temporary student visa.
and
2) Barry himself admitted to having been born a foreign subject (British) and therefore the British govt' could also claim jurisdiction over him.

Attorney Apuzzo's filing is filled with references that state NBC = born in country, to two (2) citizen parents.
Barry obviously fails that no matter where he was really born.

On a side, but related note...

Vattel's original work: Le Droit des Gens (The Law of Nations) (1758) was written in French. Notice the title contains the word "natureles" (as in Natural) and that parents is plural in this original

A valid long form HI B.C. will ONLY prove weather or not he is a citizen and not an illegal alien (as there is no know naturalization record for him).

14 posted on 07/21/2009 3:04:39 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Try not to use up all the exclamation points? You see I had to substitute a question mark there.


15 posted on 07/21/2009 3:07:32 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Secondly Bergdoll v. Kane has already ruled that any attorney seeking to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution HAS STANDING!!!!!!!!! Therefore, ANY suit seeking to protect and defend the Constitution regarding the natural born status of Obama being REJECTED due to lack of standing is FALSE and unconstitutional!

Bergdoll v. Kane is a Pennsylvania state-court case. It is not a federal case and has nothing to do with federal law. There is a long line of SCOTUS decisions holding that a plaintiff has no standing in federal court if he is raising a "generalized grievance" that all citizens have in common. Such claims have to be decided by the elected branches, not the courts.

16 posted on 07/21/2009 3:14:27 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"natureles" should be "naturels" in my post above.

Of course, the translation most are familiar with is the English translation which was titled (in 212) "Of citizens and natives".

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212"
http://www.thebirthers.org/ (yes, that site does believe Barry is a usurper, contrary to their name. they've simply 'embraced' the so call slander from the obots.)

French to English translations do sometimes come with mistakes....case in point here.

17 posted on 07/21/2009 3:14:45 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
From Thomas Lee's (University of Chicago Law) essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute”:

On Monday, March 10, 1794, during the height of young Republic’s neutrality crisis, the Senate ordered: “That the Secretary purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.” The purchase order—the first books the Senate bought (and the only ones it apparently ordered in the eighteenth century) -- gives us insight not only into the reference books the members of the First Congress likely consulted for issues relating to the ATS, but also signifies the omnipresent, omnipotent dual influence—sometimes complementary as with the ATS, at other times pointing in different directions— of English common law (represented by Blackstone) and continental “public” law (represented by Vattel) on the founding group.

The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite.

Vattel’s work was first published in French in 1758, with the first English translation published in London in 1759. By 1787, there was another English edition and eight more French editions. The first American edition was published in New York in 1796 (BELOW). Vattel’s treatise, according to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1775, was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting.” The book was especially treasured for its directions on how the young Republic should conduct its foreign affairs. At one cabinet meeting in April 1793, Alexander Hamilton cited Vattel for the proposition that the United States could unilaterally revoke its treaty of alliance with France given the dramatic upheaval in that country. “Jefferson was not swayed by the citation, but it did cause Edmund Randolph, the attorney general, to reconsider his opposition to Hamilton’s proposal. Unfortunately, a copy of Vattel’s was not available at the moment, and so the meeting adjourned” until a copy could be located.
Natural-Born Citizen - definition
18 posted on 07/21/2009 3:36:29 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot.

I agree. The birth certificate helps the Joe six-pack crowd understand and it's harder for the MSM to lie by omission to persuade them if Obama was born outside the US. And the court system would find it easier for them to go beyond the BC issue to what really constitutes a natural born citizen.

19 posted on 07/21/2009 3:42:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I agree! Both parents must be American citizens.


20 posted on 07/21/2009 3:50:20 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

I agree! We need the government to enforce the Constitution as they would if it were a Republican.

You wrote-
“In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot. He has ALREADY declared via his fight the smears website that his father was a British subject. The defnition of ‘natural born’ requires TWO citizen parents, not just one. Therefore he cannot possibly be natural born.
This definition was defined by Emerich De Vattel in 1758. Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: defines ‘natural born’ as ‘those children born in the country, of PARENTS who are citizens.’

This definition has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 in 1830 - they reinforced Vattel’s definition in this case.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 in 1875 - again the same definition as Vattel was reinforced in this case.

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 - In this case not only was the same definition as Vattel reinforced yet again, but the source citation for this definition was Vattel!

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) - Vattel was again cited as the source for the proper definiton of ‘natural born’ as understood by the framers of our constitution.

Nowhere has this traditional definition ever been overturned. Not in the 14th amendment which only defines ‘citizenship’, not ‘natural born status’ - not in any SCOTUS decisions (quite the opposite) - and not in any Acts of Congress. I’ve been shouting this from the rooftops for over a year and very few are even listening.”


21 posted on 07/21/2009 3:55:39 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Yes indeed!

Just a few more examples..

Law of Nations

"Because the law of nations is rooted in natural law, its substantive content was understood by the Framers as being immutable."
http://yalelawjournal.org/112/1/109_michael_t_morley.html

The Swiss juirist Emer de Vattel (1714-1767) was one of the foremost theorists of natural law in the 18th century. His writings were widely read in the American colonies and had a profound impact on the thinking of the framers of the American constitution. The Law of Nations (1758) is a 2 volume work in which Vattel explores the application of natural law to the conduct of states and sovereigns. He discusses the rights of obligation of the state itself, those of the sovereign power, the nature of good government, the right of the people to secession or rebellion, and the proper relations between sovereign states. The latter includes international commerce, international legal agreements, and treaties.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1306&Itemid=299

Law of Nations was strongly influenced by Leibnitz and Christian von Wolff
http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Vattel.html

"Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796"
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

Thomas Jefferson to John Minor, August 30, 1814 "Before you enter on the study of the law a sufficient groundwork must be laid...[Latin and French ]...This foundation being laid, you may enter regularly on the study of the Laws....[Physics, Ethics, Religion, Natural law, Belles lettres, Criticism, Rhetoric and Oratory]...For these reasons I should recommend the following distribution of your time. Natural Law. Vattel"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj110142))

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, April 28, 1793 "It seems as if his arrival would furnish occasion for the people to testify their affections without respect to the cold caution of their government. Would you suppose it possible that it should have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill understood scrap in Vattel 2. § 192 toutefois et test argument &c. [ illegible] and that it should be necessary to discuss it?"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj070117))

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, April 28, 1793 "The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches, 1. The Moral law of our nature. 2. The Usages of nations. 3. Their special Conventions. The first of these only, concerns this question, that is to say the Moral law to which Man has been subjected by his creator, & of which his feelings, or Conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his creator has furnished him.....Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted, Vattel, 2. 197, and tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, & the degree great."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj070115))

Furthermore, Vattle's Law of Nations was openly read during the Constitutional Convention itself (from Madison's notes):

"In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers"
...
"To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford"
http://nhccs.org/dfc-0627.txt

And, less well known...

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789
Secret Committee Contract
"MS (Privately owned original, 1993). In the hand of Roger Sherman.
1 A copy of a 60-page notebook in the hand of Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman was made available for use in this supplement by Mr. Joseph Rubenfine of West Palm Beach, Fla. It contains 24 pages of notes on Sherman's readings from Emmerich Vattel and the Bishop of Bristol, various personal expense accounts from 1781 to 1784, and copies of reports now in the PCC on Continental expenses and indebtedness, battle casualties, and the hospital establishment as of July 23, 1781, of which only the present notes do not duplicate information available elsewhere."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:44:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

22 posted on 07/21/2009 4:15:28 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Bergdoll v. Kane is a Pennsylvania state-court case. It is not a federal case and has nothing to do with federal law.

Maybe not, but its still precedent which can be used in any state.

There is a long line of SCOTUS decisions holding that a plaintiff has no standing in federal court if he is raising a "generalized grievance" that all citizens have in common.

And there is a long line of SCOTUS decisions which clearly define the definition of Natural Born and that Obama isn't it.

23 posted on 07/21/2009 4:37:13 PM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
The above url (not hyper linked) for reference on Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman's notes was a temp url anyway. That info can be found here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg025422)):
24 posted on 07/21/2009 4:38:16 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
And there is a long line of SCOTUS decisions which clearly define the definition of Natural Born and that Obama isn't it.

If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court never reaches that issue.

And no, there is no SCOTUS case clearly addressing who is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II. There are some dicta in a few old cases, none of which involved eligibility to be president (and thus aren't binding precedent), which go in both directions. The more recent of those cases suggest thast anyone born in the U.S., even to foreign parents, is a natural-born citizen. (That doesn't help Obama if he wasn't born in Hawaii, but again, I don't believe any federal court is going to rule on the merits of that issue.)

25 posted on 07/21/2009 4:44:48 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Our Constitution Show - Patriot's Heart Network - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 p.m. EDT Tues 21 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/22/Our-Constitution-Foundation-and-Principles

26 posted on 07/21/2009 4:57:47 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court never reaches that issue.

BS. The standing issue is a court contrived monstrosity to pass on troublesome cases they don't want to have to deal with. Please show anywhere in the constitution itself where citizens 'must have standing' to have their civil rights upheld. Not court decisions, IN THE CONSTITUTION. And be specific.

In this instance there have been many cases with legitimate standing (Major Cook, Kerchner v. Obama, Keyes V. Obama, etc. etc.) The court is refusing to do its constitutional duty and protect the constitution and each and every single one of these judges who punted should be impeached immediately. The FACT that these partisan judges have failed to rule on any of the merits of these cases does not in any way mean any of these plaintiffs lacked genuine standing.

And no, there is no SCOTUS case clearly addressing who is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II.

More BS.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)

There are some dicta in a few old cases,

Glad you admit it.

none of which involved eligibility to be president (and thus aren't binding precedent), which go in both directions,...

BS. Since within the U.S. Constitution the restriction to being 'natural born' ONLY applies to U.S. Presidents that is pure spin. And not very good spin at that.

The more recent of those cases suggest thast anyone born in the U.S., even to foreign parents, is a natural-born citizen.

BS. These cases refer to citizenship alone, not the natural born issue. The natural born definition has not been altered anywhere to date since Vattel. Not in the 14th amendment, not in SCOTUS, and not by any Act of Congress.

The most recent congressional legistation dated April 2008 regarding John McCain's natural birth status submitted by Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Obama himself while still a Senator was put to a judiciary committee meeting to resolve the issue and the conclusion was:

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, [Please note the plural here - the definition TWO parents going all the way back to Vattel has not changed] you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff said.

Leahy concurred."

Reported here and again here. McCaskill later tried to pass legislation re-defining natural born to mean born to only 'one' citizen parent but it failed to pass. The definition requiring TWO citizen parents remains, co-sponsored by Obama himself, and was not revoked in spite of Democrats best efforts. The bigger question is why was McCain targeted but Obama got a pass with a known non-citizen father?????

Keep spinning but you're not doing very well.

27 posted on 07/21/2009 6:07:03 PM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!

Perhaps, but classes for the Fall term at U. Washington don't start until late September. She'd have needed to be there a week or two before that, to find a place to live, to register for classes, get her books, etc.

However her friend puts her in the Seattle area in late August, with a really tiny, and "all pink", little Barry, whose nappies she did not know how to change yet.

28 posted on 07/21/2009 9:17:36 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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