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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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!
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.
Your title is quite misleading.
Ping
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.
If Obama provided a falsified birth certificate, is that sufficient grounds for impeachment?
Exactly Qwackertoo. We are learning the extent to which our judiciary, sworn to observe, defend and protect the Constitution are tools of a lawless cabal. When you see a discussion about Constitutional interpretation being argued with U.S. Code, federal law, you can dismiss the truth, though sadly, not the public impact of the misdirection. U.S. Code is made by Congress, which has no authority to interpret the Constitution.
As several have pointed out, that both Ankeny and Marguet-Pillado are such transparent nonesense suggests that the regime is getting concerned. They have used the ignorance of the public about citizenship and natural born citizenship to sustain a fog around eligibility. Obama’s crew can now take credit for inspiring a renascence in of learning about our Constitution.
No kudos to Hillsdale College, whose hypocrisy shines brightly when it avoids this remarkable example of our founder's and framer's wisdom. Such a story that connects the Greeks and Romans to the enlightenment and most of the legal philosophers who inspired our founders, including Locke, Montesque, Pufendorf, Grotian, Leibniz, and others, most usefully compiled in our nation's first law book Vattel's Law of Nations, at our first law school, at William and Mary, chartered by Thomas Jefferson, who guided the curriculum, and whose required text, Vattel was cited more than three times as often as its runner up, Pufendorf, in U.S. jurisprudence between 1789 and 1821 (Nussbaum, Concise History of Law of Nations, and Grotian Society Papers, 1972, citing Dickenson). But then, who are Chief Justice Marsall, Chief Justice Waite, Chief Justice Hughes, and 14th Amendment Bingham to disagree with the brilliant jurists of the 9th Circus or Indiana?
While no one can read Sheriff Arpaio’s intent, his exposure of the remarkably thorough coverup of Obama’s background, while it probably won't turn up documents, whether or not any exist, focuses on the law, Minor, Perkins v. Elg, and all the dicta for the eighty five years before Minor written by Marshall, Story, Tucker, and explanation by 14th Amendment Author Bingham and his Senate co-sponsor. When they resort to ridiculous and politically motivated decisions in the 9th Circus and the jokers who cite Leo Donofrio to support their position that the nation allowed Chester Arthur to be president, knowing he was born to a British subject father (there is no hint that they knew then, misled by Arthur's hiding of his birth documents, and burning them at his death), we know they are worried. They are throwing dung on the bonfire.
SCOTUS has affirmed that is not impermissible gender discrimination for US statutes to make the foreign-born children of US citizen mothers statutory citizens at birth while making the foreign-born children of US citizen fathers, such as the children of US servicemen conceived while abroad, jump through hoops following the birth, such as requiring proof of blood relationship or acknowledgment of paternity.
MILLER v. ALBRIGHT, SCOTUS 1998
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZS.html
Per Justice Stevens writing for the majority:
(b) The §1409(a)(4) rule applicable to each class of out-of-wedlock children born abroad is eminently reasonable and justified by important Government interests: ensuring reliable proof that a person born out of wedlock who claims citizenship by birth actually shares a blood relationship with an American citizen; encouraging the development of a healthy relationship between the citizen parent and the child while the child is a minor; and fostering ties between the child and the United States. Male and female parents of foreign-born, out-of-wedlock children are differently situated in several pertinent respects. The child’s blood relationship to its birth mother is immediately obvious and is typically established by hospital records and birth certificates, but the relationship to the unmarried father may often be undisclosed and unrecorded in any contemporary public record. Similarly, the child’s birth mother certainly knows of the child’s existence and typically will have immediate custody, whereas, due to the normal interval of nine months between conception and birth, an unmarried father may not even know that his child exists, and the child may not know the father’s identity. Section 1409(a)(4)’s requirement–that children born out of wedlock to citizen fathers obtain formal proof of paternity by age 18, either through legitimation, written acknowledgment by the father under oath, or adjudication by a competent court–is well tailored to address these concerns. The conclusion that Congress may require an affirmative act by unmarried fathers and their children, but not mothers and their children, is directly supported by Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248. Pp. 11—20.
(c) The argument that §1409(a)(4) is unconstitutional because it is a stereotypical “gender-based classification” must be rejected. None of the governmental interests underlying §1409(a)(4) can be fairly characterized as an accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about the members of either sex. The biological differences between single men and single women provide a relevant basis for differing rules governing their ability to confer citizenship on children born out of wedlock in foreign lands, and an impartial analysis of those differences rebuts the strong presumption that gender-based legal distinctions are suspect. Pp. 20—24.
This woman is still today required to file as an alien resident. Your premise does not appear to jive with the facts nor does it appear to hold water. Otherwise ICE/INS would be following ex post facto from SCOTUS but in this woman`s case, their MANDATORY documented registration of an resident alien born of an American father and a Mexican mother in Mexico hasn`t changed position in 50 years. She married an American citizen, has 2 children and still has to register every year as a resident alien. I kid you not.
“What the dicta says may be interesting, but the dicta is not a ruling. It has discussion and debate value; not legal value.”
...unless the dicta in question can be spun to make the circumstances of Barry’s birth sound qualifying for him to be POTUS...at least past Nov. 2012!
Should the GA ballot appeals make it to SCOTUS, the INS docs are in the AJL hearing record showing both the INS belief in BHO Sr's Kenya marriage and INS belief that the HI marriage was bigamous. BHO Sr's personal letters to Tom Mboya in the Stanford library affirm the continuing Kezia marriage and Kezia is alive to testify that she considered her husband to be a bigamist, as she appears to have told a Daily Mail reporter. The US INS deported BHO Sr. largely on suspicion that his Kenya marriage, which they regarded as valid, made his US marriage to SADO bigamous and thus a legal nullity (void).
Maybe not, but sarcasm is a little hard to put into print.
Exactly. Obama and his legal team couldn't find a single on-point federal appeals case opinion or holding that would make him eligible. They resorted to obvious legally unsourced dicta in a case involving a mexican-born baby whose father by his own admission was unknown and NOT Marguet, the US citizen who somehow got onto his Mexican BC.
I know she was not old enough to convey citizenship. That explains neatly all obama’s document troubles. he was never a citizen.
“Ah yes, more conflating citizen with natural born citizen.”
...and conflating statutory “citizen at birth” when born overseas with constitutional “natural born citizen” born in the country to parents who are citizens.
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.