Skip to comments.Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare for the fall
Posted on 05/30/2011 7:40:28 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The United States is in a Constitutional and political crisis without precedent.
What can ordinary Americans do when a large number of politicians are corrupt and an even larger portion of the national political leadership is complicit in a cover-up of that corruption?
Do we petition those leaders to investigate and punish themselves?
The evident bewilderment displayed by Will is prima facie evidence of the depth of denial now prevalent in Washington, D.C.
It is an equivalent to writing an article after the Pearl Harbor attack entitled The Japanese might not like us.
Having been born in Panama and not eligible to run for the Presidency, McCain obviously doesnt recognize the Constitution either.
For me, the uncertainty about McCains ineligibility was resolved by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a natural born citizen and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The fact that Congress has no authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body. Maybe Im a cynic, but it sounds to me like just another crooked, backroom deal.
If McCain and Obama both didnt need the cover, why go through that elaborate Senate charade?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
“It would be a supreme dishonor to the children of every military veteran.” With bullshit hyperbole like that your agenda slip is showing. ‘Every’? ... do you folks ever stop to think before posting your pea brain notions?
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
>>...If we disqualify citizens from serving as president because their parents were serving in foreign billets while in the service of the country, then something is wrong...<<
While I agree your sentiment is reasonable, the de Vattel definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is clear and succinct. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any wiggle room, presuming we aren’t going through tortured arguments over “what de Vattel really meant was...”
Perhaps the term, “Natural Born Citizen” will be redefined (or definition ultimately confirmed) by the SCOTUS should Obama’s eligibility *ever* receive the proper review it deserves. Perhaps it will then directly address foreign-born children of deployed service members.
Feelings don't enter into it; the question is intent. "Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, but it's pretty clear the "intent" was to prevent people with divided allegiances from becoming President. McCain didn't have the slightest shred of allegiance to Panama. None. Zip. Nada.
The closest you can come to a contemporary understanding of who was considered a natural born citizen would be the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 which stated quite specifically that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" McCain's parents were undoubtedly U.S. citizens (and so were his grandparents).
18th century law commentaries were pretty clear about "natural born" when they stated "The children of ambassadors in a foreign Country, are natural born Subjects, and not Aliens." McCain's father was not working out of an embassy, but he was most certainly in Panama at his government's behest.
Your position seems to be that the thousands and thousands of children born overseas to U.S. citizens serving their country aren't natural born because they weren't born on U.S. soil, but by that same "logic" every anchor-baby born to an illegal alien must be. If that's the case, then the Law truly is an ass.
>>...Vattel had nothing to do with US law on citizenship...<<
True, but either way, de Vattel’s definition (swiss, french or otherwise) was wholly consistent with the commonly accepted definition of the term, “natural-born-citizen” at the time of the Constitution’s writing, was it not? That deVattel’s writing were considered a reference work provides us with a codifed definition. And to be sure, I have yet to hear of any other inconsistent definition from the period. Have you?
I agree that Obama’s policies are treasonous, and opposition leaders should bring that out and convince the majority of Americans such is so.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The history of the current President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
1. He has violated his oath to defend the US Constitution by exercising powers forbidden by the Constitution.
2. He has used public money to purchase private companies.
3. He has illegally tried to use public money to create publicly owned companies.
4. He has embezzled public money allocated by Congress for rescuing distressed private financial institutions, and used it to purchase automobile manufacturing companies.
5. He has given our public money to finance foreign automobile companies.
6. He has given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.
7. He has violated the principle of balance of powers by usurping Congress role of law maker.
8. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
9. He has ignored the laws protecting us from the insolvency of financial institutions.
10. He has demanded and implemented Tax-and-Spend laws that inevitably lead to economic collapse.
11. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by appointing a judge to the Supreme Court based not on ability to interpret the Constitution, but on radical ideology and color of skin.
12. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Czars to harass our people and eat out their substance.
13. He has violated the balance of powers by appointing Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.
14. He has as a matter of patronage stolen private industries from shareholders and given them to workers unions.
15. He has substantially benefitted his political financial supporters by giving public money to foreign industries.
16. He has arranged very large unscrupulous deals with private companies to exchange public money for his political advertising.
17. He has attempted to create a public industry, a health insurance company, that would compete with existing and similar private industries in open defiance of the consent of the people, and the letter and intent of the Constitution.
18. He has attempted to annul free of speech by setting up an illegal reporting system for recording the names of dissenters and by publicly attacking private citizens who oppose him.
19. He has counted illegal aliens as citizens to skew his standing with Congress.
20. He has illegally fired Inspectors General who found wrong-doing with his political crones.
21. He has attempted to insert himself into even the most personal life experience, our end of life care.
22. He has attempted to refuse to pay for medical treatment for wounded soldiers.
23. He has refused his assent to Laws of Congress, exercising false powers of veto that are contrary and insubordinate to the Constitution.
24. He has contradicted and violated the rule of law regarding bankruptcy after forcing the failure of one of our largest automakers.
25. He has appointed a Secretary of State who is ineligible for office.
26. He has attempted to force all citizens into mandatory servitude to the government.
27. He has wasted our precious time and resources on his pet projects, while neglecting to attend to critical issues of the general welfare.
28. He has violated the First Amendment by trying to stifle free speech by using the NEA to support political partisanship.
29. He has refused reasonable demonstrations of fidelity to the United States.
30. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our lands, the merciless Islamo-fascist terrorists whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
31. He has misapplied Americas military for his own political puposes.
32. He has aided and abetted Americas enemies.
33. He has accepted a bribe from a foreign government for fulfilling their political purposes.
34. He has created a federal bank in direct violation of the Constitution.
35. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
36. He has combined with Communist, Socialists and Fascists to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our American character, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
37. He has, in collusion with an insolent and irresponsible Congress, imposed Taxes against our consent not only on us, but also on our beloved children and our grandchildren denying them any representation.
38. He has nullified parts of our Constitution, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our Form of Government.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated insults and injuries. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant is unfit to be the Chief Executive of a free people.
>>...no one in any position of power cares...<<
Therein lies the rub. Regardless of the evidence against Obama’s eligibility, it will ultimately be a fruitless pursuit. There exists not a single local, state or federal prosecutor/justice/representative who (apparently) can do and/or cares to do anything about it.
Frantzie was an obnoxious one-trick pony that could never come off that one thing. I don't miss it.
The Republican's give us nothing! we, the people are the ones who chose.
It's high time to take back what the Republicans have stole!
I didn't say that eligibility is not an important issue, but a practical process needs to be established to enforce it. An idea being considered by some states.
There has been no interest in pursuing this by any official who might be able to do something about it. "No controlling legal authority," being the modern state of this country. Only an overwhelming popular uprising can correct the situation - and that would have scant chance of being successful. In this time, we do not have the rare confluence of staunch, honorable, God fearing, patriotic statesmen who established this unique country. We live in a decadent time.
“True, but either way, de Vattels definition (swiss, french or otherwise) was wholly consistent with the commonly accepted definition of the term, natural-born-citizen at the time of the Constitutions writing, was it not?”
No, it was not. The phrase ‘natural born subject’ had a well established meaning and was found in most of the colonial laws involving citizenship. With Independence, the new states modified their laws to replace subject with citizen, making the phrase NBC a known legal term PRIOR to the Constitution.
That known legal meaning including everyone born in the jurisdiction a NBC, except the children of ambassadors and invading armies.
My position is whatever was the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. And the voluminous reserach threads on FR have proved what that was without a shred of doubt.
Maybe one of the gentlemen so involved can kindly provide a link or two to one of the threads.
You said that my position is that babies born on US soil to foreign parents are NBC? Come on! It’s “born on the soil to parentS who are themselves citizens! I learned because I read up on it.
Placemark for (partial?) list of Zero’s crimes. It should be added to as necessary and posted all over the place.
Interesting that you post the 1790 version and not the 1795 version which changed the wording in the specific area you appear to seek dissemble.
Appreciate your posting that. I’m going to make it the body of my next letter to my feckless Republican’t representative, Dr. Roe. Of course, it will meet with the same fate as previous appeals ... but I must keep trying to get through to the slug.
I notice your little team has chosen that mischaracterization as the current approach to obam apologetics. allmendream made that same deceitful assertion just yesterday. Is that the main talking point now, that Vattel based NBC solely on jus soli? You people are disgusting, but then people seeking to subvert truth usually are disgusting.
You are truly a paranoid conspiracy freak. At least, that is what we Army psyops specialists paid by Obama think...
And of course, Vattel never, ever addressed what a NBC is. He died years before anyone mistranslated his works.
I have mentioned this, only partly tongue-in-cheek, also. It seems ridiculous that Obama could ignore the 20th Amendment if re-elected. But how ridiculous would it have sounded five years ago that someone born a British subject (and entitled by birth to automatic Kenyan citizenship until age 18) would be elected President of the United States?
I’d take Netanyaho over Obama any day.
Netanyaho = Netanyahu
A lot of Americans would.
bite me ass hole
You've got it backwards. It is a fruitless pursuit because there is no evidence against his eligibility, and decisive evidence in favor of it.
“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They decided that Wong Kim was a US citizen.
Smith V Alabama is about regulations imposed on Railway engineers.
None of these cases was about the unique issue of Article II Presidential eligibility, i.e. is Obama a Natural born citizen.
Article II does not require only “US Citizen” status, it requires Natural born citizen status. Cutting text from cases that do not address the key issue does not help. English common law does not define "Natural born citizen," and saying "Natural born subject" is the same does not help, because Natural born subject status is the same as citizen. The framers didn't use only the word Citizen in article II.
To your level of communication no further response is needed.
>>...It is a fruitless pursuit because there is no evidence against his eligibility...<<
Then you would have no problem with Bobby Jindal’s eligibility, correct?
Correct. Jindal is eligible, just as Spiro Agnew, Chester Arthur, and the several other presidential candidates we've had throughout history who were born on US soil to foreign parents.
WKA discusses at length the meaning of natural born citizen. While not binding, it is the only formal discussion by the Supreme Court on the meaning. It was also completely in line with other court decisions that preceded it.
The idea that the US Supreme Court would overturn that discussion, rejecting it completely so as to remove a sitting President, elected by a majority of the people with the full consent of Congress, is absurd.
“So you don’t believe de Vattel was commonly held as a subject-matter-expert...”
Not on citizenship. You will note that your citizenship, unlike Vattel’s writings, does NOT depend on your parents being citizens. You are asked for a birth certificate, not a genealogy.
The Wong Kim Ark decision AFFIRMED an earlier ruling and defintion of natural born citizen: Minor v. Happersett: all hcildren born in the country to parents who were it citizens. These were the natural born citizens. It distinguished this type of citizenship as NOT being defined in the Constitution which is different than 14th amendment citizenship.
The decision is irrelevant to Article II POTUS eligibility. The discussion is shaped by the question before the court, I just don't understand why WKA is supposed to help Obama.
WKA was declared a US Citizen, that's it.
Dicta - the discussion of WHY a court makes its decision, has varying value. In the WKA case, the court heard debate on what NBC means, and used it as a critical part in its decision, which is the strongest from of ‘dicta’.
That dicta has been frequently cited, and never rejected for over 100 years. Again, that makes the discussion weigh heavier in a future decision.
The first half of the decision argues that since WKA met the requirements for a NBC, he was thus a citizen per the US Constitution. The dissent recognized the argument of the court, complaining:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
But that was the LOSING side.
Before Obama took office, the SCOTUS had a chance to rule him ineligible. It is inconceivable that they would allow him to take office and hold it if they believed he was constitutionally ineligible. They have since refused every case, which indicates very strongly they believe the birthers have no valid legal case.
Further, no a single member of Congress raised an objection to the votes of the Electoral College. Not one out of 535 believed Obama ineligible based on his father - a known fact prior to the vote.
So you are left with a conspiracy so vast that it encompasses every state, every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, OR you have the case where birthers simply are wrong.
Given that NBC was a known legal phrase PRIOR to the Constitution, and that several of the ratifying states already had used it in their laws as the equivalent of natural born subject, I think it is extremely obvious that no rational person believes the Founders were following a translation of Vattel made 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
Birthers continue to scream “Vattel! Vattel!” - but they cannot find a case involving US citizenship under the Constitution that has argued Vattel controls the meaning of NBC.
RE> Do Freepers, conservatives and republicans have the will to divest TOTALLY from the MSM and their corporate sponsors?
12 years before I was a Freeper, I was already divested from MSM. I invite as many as are able to do so to join the team and hasten the demise of their foul media enterprise. The only reason they get paid is because of the the number of eyes on the screen in-between their lying ‘news’ and unreal ‘reality’ shows. It is unbelievable how much the liars get paid to lie to us.
Please see my tag.
The question is whether McCain is a "natural born citizen," or not. Since the phrase is not defined in the Constitution, I sought contemporary usage of that very same phrase. As luck would have it, the exact phrase appeared in the 1790 law- and it was written by some of the exact same men who wrote the Constitution just a few years before. Knowing this, the 1790 law is relevant and the 1795 law is not. No dissembly required.
I have no particular fondness for McCain (I consider him a natural born A-hole), but your position necessarily means that the thousands of Americans, born overseas to U.S. military personnel, possess fewer citizenship rights than those who never served. That makes no sense logically; it doesn't square with citizenship interpretations under English Common Law at that time; and it has nothing to do with the Framers' intent to bar people with divided loyalties from becoming President.
Those who wrote the Constitution also wrote "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" and they wrote that just two years after writing the Constitution.
"And the voluminous reserach threads on FR have proved what that was without a shred of doubt."
There's plenty of doubt. I'll see your research threads and raise you Ted Olson - Assistant Attorney General under Reagan and Solicitor General under George W. Bush.
Netanyahu would use this country as a tool for Israel. Nothing else. And who would expect anything different? That does not make Netanyahu a bad man. But that would make him a terrible American president. So I’m not so sure about your point.
And Obama, who is our president, uses this country as a tool for muslims. Not sure about your point.
Netanyahu would protect America’s interests more than Obama does.
Past wrongs do not invalidate the US Constitution. There are citizens. There are native-born-citizens and there are natural-born-citizens. The answer to this debate is how the SCOTUS would define those differing terms. They haven’t in the context of Presidential eligibility, despite your opinion or mine. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
I wasn’t referring merely to “citizenship”. Past wrongs do not invalidate the US Constitution. There are citizens. There are native-born-citizens and there are natural-born-citizens. The answer to this debate is how the SCOTUS would define those differing terms. They haven’t yet in the context of Presidential eligibility, despite your opinion or mine. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
Explain WHY then they needed the non-biding Senate Resolution as a cover up for the crime scene in the Whit-Hut???
The very same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" and they wrote that just two years after writing the Constitution.
"I don't think mcpain's father was a four star admiral at that time, and those stars are totally irrelevant."
I don't care if McCain's father was an E-1, but the fact that his father and grand father were both Admirals demonstrates that they were American citizens and had dedicated large chunks of their lives to the service of this country. They were only in Panama because they had been ordered there by our government.
Your position means that thousands of sons and daughters of American military personnel (born overseas) possess a lesser-form of U.S. citizenship. IOW, these citizens should be penalized because their citizen-parents were naive enough to serve the United States.
ONLY a Honduras event can save us from this!!!
Well, you may ask yourself as what or who do we follow, the CONSTITUTION or the opinions of thousands of sons and daughters, hmmm???
IOW you are saying that I'm lesser-form of a U.S. citizen than YOU!!!
Please quote the definition of "natural born citizen" from the Constitution. That's the whole point of this debate. My position is the children of loyal U.S. citizens are "natural born citizens" - particularly if they were born overseas because their family was posted there by the U.S. Gov't.
Still am I???
My position doesn't deny you any rights; so I don't see why you think it does.
Netanyahu would protect Israeli interests. Nothing else. If he appeared to protect American interests it would only be because those interests aligned with Israel. Now get real. Why are you even contemplating a foreign national as POTUS? That’s insane.
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.