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

Skip to comments.

Craig v US appeal denied by District Court (Natural-born Citizen)
Obama Conspiracy Theories ^ | August 6, 2009 | Dr. Conspiracy

Posted on 08/07/2009 11:08:55 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Link to full decision.

Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.

(Excerpt) Read more at obamaconspiracy.org ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; conspiracy; eligibility; obama
Quoting the Judgment an Order:

[Quote]

In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827- 28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).

[End Quote]

The important aspect of this Judgment is that it reaffirms the Court's stance a Natural-born citizen derives their citizenship at birth from the US Constitution. A Naturalized citizen derives their citizenship from federal statutes AND it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation determining who is a Natural-born citizen.

1 posted on 08/07/2009 11:08:55 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
WE decide who meets the requirement of natural born. We decide what to do about a usurper. There is no authority other than us. No SCOTUS can tell us that someone who clearly is not eligible is actually eligible due to some "technicality". If WE say he is a usurper and fraud, then he is a usurper and fraud. I don't give a damn how many congresscritters pass whatever kind of resolution, there is no requirement that we pay them any attention. If WE say, "Enough" he goes. Period. End of story. Full stop.

We are the authority. We are the punishment.

Μολὼν λάβε


2 posted on 08/07/2009 11:53:05 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" and the Scout Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

And, so we are left with the same basic question: Is 0bama a natural born US Citizen, or not?

IMO, he’s not. All the bluster of the left aside, and all the talking heads nattering on don’t make it so. The most telling argument, IMO, is the hundreds of thousands of dollars the anointed one has spent to keep that information hidden from view.
Certainly, there are a couple other pesky issues, too. The passport he used to travel to Pakistan, and the manner by which his college tuition was paid, to name just two.

All in all, the self described ‘transparent’ administration is anything but...

It’s time to take back the country.


3 posted on 08/07/2009 12:02:04 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
(“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).

A Native Born of the land but not necessarily a Natural Born citizen as intended by the Constitution. Tada!

4 posted on 08/07/2009 12:25:49 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

So, the courts are going to continue to throw out every case because the court hasn’t defined “natural born” even though the Constitution and, quoting Sen. Leahy and everyone on that SR 511 committee (including Hussein himself) said it was defined by the Constitution and by “common sense.” In other words, the courts are going to defer all future cases to BJ’s “is” dictionary.

How about a judge, any judge, anywhere, find his cajones and declare it defined and let the chips fall where they may.


5 posted on 08/07/2009 12:28:24 PM PDT by bgill (The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Correct: The Court is saying that a naturalized citizen is not distinguishable from a native born citizen, which is a citizen of the United States, but not a natural born citizen per provided by the U.S. Constitution. .

Tada again!

6 posted on 08/07/2009 12:31:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bgill
How about a judge, any judge, anywhere, find his cajones and declare it defined and let the chips fall where they may.

"This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,"

Yeah, as I understand the statement above, it's a non decision. but he did give an opinion. Halfway, half@$%* ...better than nothing though.

7 posted on 08/07/2009 12:39:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wastoute
WE decide who meets the requirement of natural born. We decide what to do about a usurper. There is no authority other than us. No SCOTUS can tell us that someone who clearly is not eligible is actually eligible due to some "technicality". If WE say he is a usurper and fraud, then he is a usurper and fraud. I don't give a damn how many congresscritters pass whatever kind of resolution, there is no requirement that we pay them any attention. If WE say, "Enough" he goes. Period. End of story. Full stop. We are the authority. We are the punishment.

The "we" decided that in November.

8 posted on 08/07/2009 1:03:02 PM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

This court did make the naturalized and native citizens are the same in rights and privileges as any US citizens BUT where it says “except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.” And that distinction is — being a Natural Born Citizen.


9 posted on 08/07/2009 1:14:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

obumpa


10 posted on 08/07/2009 1:24:43 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

This issue is not over....

Excerpt-
Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.


11 posted on 08/07/2009 1:28:34 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; BP2; MHGinTN; pissant

In case you haven’t seen this.


12 posted on 08/07/2009 2:51:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

Not really. Are you telling us that so long as a criminal is not caught, they didn’t break the law? That, so long as no one forces the Obama to follow the constitution, it can be ignored as ‘obsolete’? ... That is a very democrat party attitude indeed!


13 posted on 08/07/2009 3:20:08 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

“WE decide who meets the requirement of natural born. We decide what to do about a usurper. There is no authority other than us. No SCOTUS can tell us that someone who clearly is not eligible is actually eligible due to some “technicality”. If WE say he is a usurper and fraud, then he is a usurper and fraud. I don’t give a damn how many congresscritters pass whatever kind of resolution, there is no requirement that we pay them any attention. If WE say, “Enough” he goes. Period. End of story. Full stop.
We are the authority. We are the punishment.”

Is this something “fishy” that I should pass on to the WH?


14 posted on 08/07/2009 6:45:06 PM PDT by Bluebeard16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bluebeard16
LOL. I think perhaps the framers were vague in this area with a purpose.

Μολὼν λάβε


15 posted on 08/08/2009 3:37:10 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" or "come get some")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob
Looks to me like significant numbers of "WE" are changing our minds.

Μολὼν λάβε


16 posted on 08/08/2009 3:39:10 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" or "come get some")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


17 posted on 08/08/2009 5:25:16 AM PDT by Dryman (Now, Back to Lurking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Info.

Although there’s is no judgment in this case, the court did weigh in with an opinion making a distinction between Natural Born Citizen vs. Native born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen.

Native Born is not the same as Natural Born. And the trolls, probably are paid Axelrod posters, who conflagrate the two terms into meaning the same are wrong.


18 posted on 08/08/2009 1:06:11 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You’ll notice that the trolls stayed away from this thread and the one who stumbled in here didn’t answer you.

Gee, I wonder why? /sarc


19 posted on 08/08/2009 1:09:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yeah, trolls tend to do a lot of conflagrating. They’re pretty hot under the collar and sometimes it bursts into flames.


20 posted on 08/08/2009 2:16:45 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Did you see the material from Canada..The radio broadcast of the investigation by the Canadian Press ....THe American MSM has been threaten since before the election RE: the BC....Job, lives etc...Named names.

Will link ya to it in case some one else stumples along. Several posts in this area, including a brief synopsis and a link to the program.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=8146


21 posted on 08/08/2009 3:24:03 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE; BP2; David; penelopesire; Fred Nerks

Over here ...Quick!

Which case is this anyway....I’m lost again? Who’s the lawyers? Plaintiff? defendent? What’s the premise?


22 posted on 08/08/2009 3:26:44 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

This is good...right? I would hate to see the dem rat Congress try to pass some law concerning this whole constitutional issue.


23 posted on 08/08/2009 3:40:02 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Just found the link and read it. Dad’s watching a ball game.

..Seems to me he defined the three fairly well. Naturalized and native have the same priveleges except for the Natural born which is set apart in the Constitution. Is that how you interpreted it?

If that’s the case the plaintiff achieved his objective.


24 posted on 08/08/2009 3:47:50 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Read it here and ignore half the chatter.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf


25 posted on 08/08/2009 3:50:22 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; LucyT; STARWISE; BP2; David; penelopesire; Fred Nerks
Craig v US appeal denied by District Court

By the way, the title is wrong--the decision is a Circuit Court of Appeals decision which affirms dismissal by the Western District in Oklahoma.

Just another garden variety con law decision--plaintiff doesn't have and can't manufacture standing or a case or controversy. Nothing to do with the merits; otherwise just a bunch of dictum.

26 posted on 08/08/2009 4:17:30 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

2 In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and arecoextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the“natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen,
and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.

The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S.,22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-
28 (

“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).


27 posted on 08/08/2009 4:51:20 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Yes HS, I saw the link and plan on listening to it later.

I hope they have the proof. It needs to be made public if so.

Thanks.


28 posted on 08/08/2009 4:59:23 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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