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

Skip to comments.

Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya (vanity)
vanity | March 11, 2012 | Seizethecarp

Posted on 03/11/2012 9:23:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp

In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” On March 1, Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse re-opened the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya by announcing that it had found probable cause to believe that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, newspaper birth announcements were unreliable, and that there was now no proof that Obama was born in the USA. A week earlier, with full knowledge of what the Arpaio Posse’s findings would be, “constitutional scholar” Obama’s legal team suddenly started citing the Marguet-Pillado case in multiple PA and GA ballot eligibility state appeals. The following language is included by Obama’s lawyers in the PA and GA MTD filings: “President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth inHawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have beenmet. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see,United States v. Marguet-Pillado , 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9thCir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.” www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/.../10-50041.pdf


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: arpaio; certifigate; corruptbastard; iwon; maybealittleblow; mymuslimfaith; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last
The Marguet-Pillado case, quoted above, affirms in dicta that Obama would be eligible to be president even if he was born outside the USA!

IMO, the timing of this citation by Obama and his legal team shows “consciousness of guilt” that he is actively hiding his actual foreign birth, which most likely would be in Kenya. The defendant in the Marguet-Pillado case was born in Mexico to a Mexican citizen mother and had stipulated in an earlier trial (reversed and remanded) that the US citizen named Marguet that appeared on his Mexican birth certificate was not his natural father. Why would Obama cite to a case which adds nothing at all towards establishing his eligibility if he were, in fact, born in the US? Here is the Opinion from the case, which does not appear to apply to Obama at all:

OPINION

GWIN, District Judge:

"Defendant-Appellant Carlos Marguet-Pillado ('Marguet- Pillado') appeals his conviction for being a previously removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. With his appeal, Marguet-Pillado argues that the district court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction. The instruction would have permitted Marguet-Pillado to argue that the government had failed to establish that Marguet-Pillado was an alien who had not obtained derivative citizenship from his step-father, a United States citizen listed on Marguet-Pillado’s birth certificate as his father. The district court rejected the instruction after finding that an earlier appeal in this case relieved the government of the burden of establishing alienage in the second trial. Because we find that in the second trial, Marguet-Pillado could require the government to come forward with proof that Marguet-Pillado was an alien and did not have derivative citizenship, we REVERSE Marguet- Pillado’s conviction and remand this case for a new trial."

If born in Kenya, whether Obama would even be a US citizen at birth (natural born or not) would depend on whether his parents were legally married. INS records show that BHO Sr. was deported based substantially on suspicion that he had entered into a bigamous marriage with Stanley Ann Dunham. Below are the State Department rules for married vs unmarried foreign births with a US citizen mom:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:

“A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

“Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

“A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

Ironically, if Obama was born in Kenya it would be to his advantage for him to have been born out-of-wedlock because, as can be seen above, his mother meets the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she was single while she does NOT meet the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she were legally married to BHO Sr.

Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a "natural born citizen" according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents:

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/.../USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.”

Note that the Congressional Research Service has also jumped to endorse the Marguet-Pillado case as affirming that a foreign born child biologically-related to a US citizen is a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

quote

Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), itmay be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and “naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”

Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to “involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23). The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,” and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could not be considered to be “naturalized.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:

No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.

end quote

1 posted on 03/11/2012 9:23:14 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; WhizCodger; Red Steel; rxsid; Danae; Spaulding; butterdezillion

ping...


2 posted on 03/11/2012 9:26:32 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

It shouldn’t matter if he’s NBC for the next election because nobody should vote for a POTUS who is serving out a conviction for fraud and treason.

Basically Obama’s re-election chances hinge on whether or not we have the rule of law in this country. If we don’t, then ANYBODY could get elected OR usurp the office of the Presidency in any other way. We are in a lawless state right now.

Interesting, though, that they’re starting to switch their strategy to accommodate the possibility that it will be found out that he was foreign-born. Inconceivable, though, that they would think that he would have any chance of being re-elected if it was found that he was born elsewhere and that everything he has presented, and that the whole system claims to have validated, is actually a filthy lie. Clearly they believe that not only the rule of law is gone but also any concern by the PUBLIC for truth. If they think they are this invincible, it suggests to me that they have a way of MAKING SURE that the truth and the rule of law cannot matter.


3 posted on 03/11/2012 9:31:33 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

This sounds like a tacit admission that The Stain KNOWS full and well that he is NOT eligible at all to occupy OUR White House.

That being the case, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY!!


4 posted on 03/11/2012 9:32:24 AM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I thought the born out of wedlock status of his Mom, the laws changed in around 1967 and the previous definition, she didn’t meet those requirements. Been awhile since I read them, so maybe I’m not remembering it accurately.


5 posted on 03/11/2012 9:39:49 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Gingrich/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Excitedly bookmarked!!!


6 posted on 03/11/2012 9:40:05 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Helps to define MURDER of aborted infant citizens BORN alive and done in by neglect or actual premeditated actions.


7 posted on 03/11/2012 9:40:38 AM PDT by Surrounded_too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Obama can cite Kenyan law for all I care......We now have positive evidence of felony fraud in the case of the LFBC and his selective service forgeries.

He learned well from his mentor Bill Ayers. I'm sure his SS# is fraudulent too.

This is a clear cut case of High crimes and Misdemeanors....throw in Treason for good measure. The eligibility matter really doesn't matter anymore.

As someone once said----forgeries are forever.

8 posted on 03/11/2012 9:41:30 AM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

Just trying to head ‘em off at the pass.

Let’s see: This doesn’t apply to POTUS, but if it did...


9 posted on 03/11/2012 9:42:22 AM PDT by ibytoohi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

>>Ironically, if Obama was born in Kenya it would be to his advantage for him to have been born out-of-wedlock because, as can be seen above, his mother meets the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she was single while she does NOT meet the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she were legally married to BHO Sr.<<

Now, there’s a winning slogan: “Vote for the b*st*rd.”.


10 posted on 03/11/2012 9:44:41 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Carpe Kyprinos,

This citizenship requirement is just a remnant of quaint ideas held by the writers of the Constitution, which is a living, breathing document that needs to be changed whenever a program or person advances the power and influence of the federal government.

We need more unconstitutional police, too. They watch over us and protect us, so help me, Creator.

11 posted on 03/11/2012 9:46:25 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

A little girl like stanley Ann wasn’t going all the way to Kenya with the married guy who knocked her up. She most likely went to Canada, where all the Seattle girls in trouble disappeared to.


12 posted on 03/11/2012 9:49:10 AM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012 - we need a STEADY conservative President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Is there any way to spread that the president is using this case as his defense??


13 posted on 03/11/2012 9:52:06 AM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012 - we need a STEADY conservative President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

So is Rommey qualifgied to be POTUS? From what I understand he and his father were born in mexico.


14 posted on 03/11/2012 9:55:27 AM PDT by Americanexpat (Everytime I see that guy's face ot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo
“I thought the born out of wedlock status of his Mom, the laws changed in around 1967 and the previous definition, she didn’t meet those requirements.”

Nope. As can be seen from the State Dept quotes I provided it was the residency requirement for the woman that was married to an alien and gave birth outside the US that changed (was lowered). The change would have made Obama eligible to be a citizen if his parents were legally married and he was born after the change (he wasn't). Stanley Ann did not meet the five year residency after age 14 that was the law in 1961 if she was married to BHO Sr. She would have had to be 19 when she gave birth, but she was only 18. Since I believe she wasn't legally married in either Hawaii or Kenya due to BHO Sr's legal tribal, non-Muslim marriage to Kezia.

15 posted on 03/11/2012 10:00:58 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
That's not the issue.

The issue is that his alleged "father," Barack Obama, Sr. was not a US citizen, which means that Ann Dunham's son Steve is not a natural born citizen, which means he is ineligible.

16 posted on 03/11/2012 10:02:24 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopaths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Ok, thanks . . . I had forgotten the 5 years 18 vs. 19 and IF her marriage was illegal then that does change it to the illegitimate version . . . but doesn’t born of two parents still apply whether they were married legally or not?


17 posted on 03/11/2012 10:03:16 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Gingrich/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
All this is nice, but a person who commits fraud loses his right to be President until he has served his time in prison.

ML/NJ

18 posted on 03/11/2012 10:04:30 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
“Is there any way to spread that the president is using this case as his defense??”

I just did! FR is widely read and easily searched. I suspect that the Obot Fogbowers might even stop pretending that Obama was born in the US and stop pretending that his parents weren't bigamously married and now start defending his POTUS eligibility even if Kenyan born and even if born out-of-wedlock.

19 posted on 03/11/2012 10:10:00 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a “natural born citizen” according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents:”

I see it is according to the 9th Circuit. Hmmmm. That lessens the probability of the Supremes or other circuit courts agreeing with them. In my opinion.


20 posted on 03/11/2012 10:10:15 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Gingrich/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Bawahahahahaha

Oh yea, thats gonna work.... LMAO


21 posted on 03/11/2012 10:35:19 AM PDT by Danae (Anail nathrach, ortha bhais is beatha, do cheal deanaimh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

At best,

AT BEST, Barack Obama is a presumed citizen. PRESUMED citizen. Remember Arpaio’s findings in part stated that if Obama were applying for a position in the Sheriff’s office, he would not even begin to pass the first part of the background check, and the documents offer, having found to be “highly suspect” of Fraud would not have gotten him an interview.

No court case is going to save his butt. He hasn’t even proven he is a citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.


22 posted on 03/11/2012 10:38:36 AM PDT by Danae (Anail nathrach, ortha bhais is beatha, do cheal deanaimh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
\ “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth..“

This is untrue because it was not the INS practice at all:

My female friend was born in Mexico in 1946 of a US citizen [who was in USA at time of her birth many years except for short sojourn to Mexico to get married there] and a Mexican national mother. Her other siblings were born in USA, thus citizens thru the father and place of birth.

But she had to file every year with INS as resident alien. In order to acquire US citizenship she had to renounce her Mexican citizenship.

This is true because every year since 1965 as paralegal I reviewed her INS alien residency documents before she filed them with INS. She never renounced her Mexican citizenship and still is an alien resident.

There probably thousands of these INS cases from the 40`s and 50`s and 1960`s that prove this practice of the INS.

The proof is in the INS archives, not some ignoramus judge who doesn`t even do any research into the actual practices of the INS going back scores of years.

23 posted on 03/11/2012 10:42:59 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (Aliens are not Americans``?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
She most likely went to Canada

Correct. And if he was born in Canada to Stanley Ann, she was too young at the time of his birth to convey U.S. Citizenship to her son under the Immigration Act of 1952 which was applicable. Even if she were unwed.

24 posted on 03/11/2012 10:48:10 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
What the dicta says may be interesting, but the dicta is not a ruling. It has discussion and debate value; not legal value.

And that includes the dicta of Wong Kim Ark, also. It is the ruling of Minor vs Happerstat (sp) that matters; not the dicta of Wong Kim Ark or any other such court case.

25 posted on 03/11/2012 10:54:12 AM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

I would say if that is the case then that would be an act of reason for him and the ones who signed off on his eligibility.


26 posted on 03/11/2012 10:58:31 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

I would say if that is the case then that would be an act of treason for him and the ones who signed off on his eligibility.


27 posted on 03/11/2012 10:58:44 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Seizethecarp,
Factoring into this is, if there’s a divorce decree, does that imply that at least in the u.s. ‘s eyes Stanley Ann and Obama SR were married, and then the ‘born outside of u.s. to too-young u.s. citizen mom married to alien guy’ would apply?
Corollary: are tribal marriages from Africa recognised as valid in the u.s.?

What a tangled mess to sort out!


28 posted on 03/11/2012 11:06:27 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

What you are implying is a coup. If so, then let the chips fall where they may.


29 posted on 03/11/2012 11:11:13 AM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
“So is Rommey qualifgied to be POTUS? From what I understand he and his father were born in mexico.”

The 9th Circuit panel pulled this utterance out of their collective posteriors, so NO this dicta does not make any foreign-born baby an NBC, including George Romney who was born in Mexico. If the Marguet-Pillado dicta were to be upheld by SCOTUS after being cited in the ballot challenges heading up to SCOTUS, then that would make both Obama and George Romney eligible...and McCain and Rubio as well.

BTW, Mitt Romney was born in the US to two US citizen parents. By returning to the US in 1907 when George was under age 18 he did not have to be naturalized to re-affirm his US citizenship gained from his own two allegedly US citizen parents.

30 posted on 03/11/2012 11:12:51 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

It has become very clear that, with few exceptions, those in positions of authority to do something about this or those with significant influence (e.g. “conservative” talk show hosts) are more willing to ignore (perhaps even change) the U.S. Constitution rather than investigate (much less remove) the first Marxist, muslim sympathizer president from office (although I suspect their reluctance to act responsibly has more to do with his perceived race — that is, his skin color — than anything else).


31 posted on 03/11/2012 11:13:53 AM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

Absolutely.

Then again, the current Senate and House of “Reps” are guilty of, at the very least, dereliction of duty for failing to uphold the Constitution and the law of the land. They all need to be removed from office.

Before we can further celebrate the Spirit of ‘76, we need to revisit the actions of 1775.


32 posted on 03/11/2012 11:14:11 AM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

One of ann’s classmates made the comment that she and some other classmates met baby BO, i think in Seattle, before Ann’s parents did. A reporter tried to follow up with the woman and she refused to answer any questions, saying that the president had told her not to. I read this maybe a year ago but can’t remember where.


33 posted on 03/11/2012 11:16:23 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

One of ann’s classmates made the comment that she and some other classmates met baby BO, i think in Seattle, before Ann’s parents did. A reporter tried to follow up with the woman and she refused to answer any questions, saying that the president had told her not to. I read this maybe a year ago but can’t remember where.


34 posted on 03/11/2012 11:17:39 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
“The issue is that his alleged “father,” Barack Obama, Sr. was not a US citizen, which means that Ann Dunham’s son Steve is not a natural born citizen, which means he is ineligible.”

If you re-read the dicta, the 9th Circus says that a foreign-born baby needs only to be biologically-related to a US citizen (only one US citizen needed as is clear in the case) to be a natural born citizen at birth.

The Obama legal team takes the additional step of claiming that statutory citizenship at birth of any kind, as defined in the State Dept. regs. equates to NBC POTUS eligibility...a leap that the State Dept. said had not been ruled on by SCOTUS as recently as last year.

35 posted on 03/11/2012 11:18:17 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Sounds desperate to me. If they want to argue that case in the court of public opinion, after being lied to for over four years, plus having an army Lt. Colonel go to jail over his NBC status, they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell.

Obama is the Prince of Lies.


36 posted on 03/11/2012 11:22:43 AM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo
“. . but doesn’t born of two parents still apply whether they were married legally or not?”

Not anymore, if the 9th Circus dicta holds (I don't think it will). 9th Circus says a baby only needs to be biologically-related to only one US citizen parent to be a statutory citizen at birth anywhere on the planet, which they label to be a natural born citizen (on purpose to give cover to Barry, IMO).

See the Congressional Research Service cover given Barry by using the same interpretation of Marguet-Pillado.

37 posted on 03/11/2012 11:26:13 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Ah yes, more conflating citizen with natural born citizen. With Artapio’s presser now a reality exposing obama fraud it is to be expected.


38 posted on 03/11/2012 11:29:01 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Ah yes, more conflating citizen with natural born citizen. With Arpaio’s presser now a reality exposing obama fraud it is to be expected.


39 posted on 03/11/2012 11:29:17 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; Danae
“All this is nice, but a person who commits fraud loses his right to be President until he has served his time in prison.”

Thanks in part to FReeper Danae, Obama was forced to “produce” a LFBC by Trump and Corsi. Obama thought he could run out the clock before the forgery could be proved and prosecuted. That remains to be seen.

Arpaio seems to want to get the highest national prosecutor he can get to go after Barry. I believe that Arpaio has a Plan B or C fallback to prosecute Barry in AZ at the state or county level for fraud if Congress or the FBI chicken out.

40 posted on 03/11/2012 11:30:07 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

If he admits he was born elsewhere, or if he admits the info on the BC he presented is not legit, 60% of this country will want him immediately removed from office. Many will want him in jail for fraud and some for treason.

It would destroy the Democrat Party.


41 posted on 03/11/2012 11:34:02 AM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
If the Kenyan Clown was born overseas and his mother did not register that overseas birth (such as with a Consular Report of Birth Abroad), I suspect that Obama's actual status is an illegal alien.

Just ask all of those kids from the Vietnam War era about being the child of an American citizen born abroad but not registered with a CRBA; even the Amerasian Acts passed in the 1980s only gave legal residency here in the U.S., not citizenship --- and that was only to the lucky few allowed that much. Indeed, even now only about 50% of the 30,000 people who came to the U.S. under the 1987 act have acquired American citizenship.

Vietnamese Amerasians in America.

Children of the Dust.

Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1987.

2009 H.R. 4007.

42 posted on 03/11/2012 11:50:52 AM PDT by snowsislander (Gingrich 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo
“I see it is according to the 9th Circuit. Hmmmm. That lessens the probability of the Supremes or other circuit courts agreeing with them. In my opinion.”

The 9th Circus is the most reversed circuit in the land. The NBC language appears to have been placed in a jury instruction but a Dems party contributor and Obama backing illegal immigrant defending law firm for the express purpose of giving a federal appeals court the opportunity to declare Barry to be an NBC, IMO. IIRC the NBC language was inserted in the jury instruction at the same time that Kreep and Taitz were arguing their NBC appeal of Judge Carter's ruling before another 9th Circuit panel.

Federal Defenders of San Diego
http://www.fdsdi.com/

“FDSDI has been serving San Diego and Imperial counties since 1966 as a private, non-profit corporation representing indigent persons accused of federal criminal offenses.

“Our staff currently consists of over 45 trial attorneys and 50 support personnel. We have an aggressive and distinguished appellate department.”

43 posted on 03/11/2012 11:52:19 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Danae; WhizCodger
“He hasn’t even proven he is a citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.”

True, but according to the 9th Circus and the CRS, Barry only has to declare “Gee, it has just come to my attention that that Lucas Smith BC IS my actual BC and because it proves that I am biologically-related at birth to at least one US citizen no matter where on the planet I was born, I am POTUS eligible. I will immediately begin an investigation into who it was that forged my HI LFBC!”

Of course, the matter would have to get past SCOTUS review coming up frmo the GA ballot challenges.

44 posted on 03/11/2012 12:01:30 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

By the’studying’ same token, I’m sure there’s a legal scholar somewhere that would find a ham sandwich eligible to run for POTUS.


45 posted on 03/11/2012 12:37:35 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Well well well, obozo is in a dilemma!
Insist that he was born in Hawaii therefore he is a nbc, but his Hawaii bc is proven to be forged;
Change his story to claim he was born outside USA to 1 USA citizen mother therefore he is a nbc? Why the h*** did he show a Hawaii bc?

No matter what he is guilty! Perhaps his thugs/obots don’t care, but enough people will care to throw him out! We need to get more people to know of his fraud and lies regarding his birth place and birth certificates!

We don’t need to go after him on his constitutional ineligibility any more! Just get him on the fraud and forgery!
But then as long as he is the ‘president’, no court/judge/congress will rule against him for his fraud.

We still need to educate the voters to vote out the usurper!

Spread the truth and vote him out!


46 posted on 03/11/2012 12:49:59 PM PDT by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

It depends on which “United States” he is a NBC of???

This video explains the differences some what, but the info below give the details according to USSC cases:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE

By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:

The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:

United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.

[Which One Are You?]

Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:

2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).

[Which One Are You?]

Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.

[Which One Are You?]

Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:

It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.


47 posted on 03/11/2012 1:03:26 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Your title is quite misleading.


48 posted on 03/11/2012 2:03:09 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Ping


49 posted on 03/11/2012 2:15:24 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I hate to say this, but I no longer believe that the courts will provide us ANY relief. Every court in the country has so far ducked and or avoided the issue.

It has not done wonders for my faith in the Judiciary.


50 posted on 03/11/2012 2:18:12 PM PDT by Danae (Anail nathrach, ortha bhais is beatha, do cheal deanaimh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next 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