Skip to comments.Kan. GOP Sec. of State Moving on Obama Birther Nov. Ballot Challenge
Posted on 09/14/2012 6:03:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Less than two months before Election Day, a group of Kansas Republicans, led by a voter ID law advocate, is moving on a withdrawn challenge which may result in President Obama being removed from the ballot.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has embraced forcing voters to produce ID at the polls, said Sept. 13 that he will preside over a Kansas Board of Objections Sept. 17 meeting where a Manhattan, Kans. veterinary professor Joe Montgomery, questioned Obamas birthplace and the citizenship of his father.
Kobach said that the board is obligated to do a thorough review of the questions raised by Montgomery about Obamas birth certificate and not make a snap decision."
However, Montgomery on Sept 14 withdrew his objections, stating that the Kansas roots of Obamas mother and grandparents, apparently in his opinion, satisfies the U.S. Constitutions natural-born citizen requirement for the presidency,.
The president's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, were Kansas natives.
The complaint withdrawal came after Kobach made requests to officials in Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi for copies of the presidents birth records. The birth certificate controversy has been settled in those states and Obama is on those states ballots.
In spite of the withdrawal, Kobach said he nevertheless doesnt believe the matter is dead. "I don't think it's a frivolous objection, according to Kobach, an unofficial advisor to GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romneys campaign. "I do think the factual record could be supplemented."
The objections board includes Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, both Republicans. Current polls indicate that in Kansas, Romney is the current favored candidate at this point in the presidential race.
Nope, wrong again.
You do not know what you are talking about.
He knows more than you.
No way the Founders meant for the offspring of illegals to be “natural born”. Nor the offspring of America hating foreigners.
I'll side with Vattel, the Founders and the author of the 14th amendment.
Blackstone had FAR more influence on the founders than the Frenchman, Vattel.
There are COUNTLESS cases that support my side of the argument.
Those that your side presents are NOT controlling, and you do not understand legal opinions if you think otherwise.
Yes, a person born of two US Parents on American Soil IS a NBC, however, that is NOT the only way to become an NBC!
NONE of your legal sources show otherwise.
This is why NO LIVING LEGAL AUTHORITY IS ON YOUR SIDE!
You have lost this argument.
It has been lost for all time.
This fight is OVER!
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing else.
Okay. I was not aware of the “soil” argument. Is that explicitly metioned in the Constitution, or settled through later jurisprudence?
Hypothetical: If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Cristina Fernandez happened to be a couple visitng the USA, and she gave birth to a child while visiting, would that child be eligible for the Office of POTUS?
If the couple were considered EXEMPT from prosecution under American law, then they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
And the answer would be “no”.
Diplomatic immunity would prevent citizenship.
1.) Do we know for certain that Zero's Dad was not exempt from prosecution under American law?
2.) What is the reason, in your opinion, for so much time and expense to obfuscate when it comes to Zero's birth records?
3.) Given Zero's proclivities in regard to international affairs, along with the questions surrounding his birth documents, what amount of confidence do you have that he was actually born on American soil?
LoL The truth is never OVER!!
From the 1874 Foreign Relations Committee from above.
"A child born within the United States, of parents who are not citizens, and who do not reside within the United States...shall NOT be regarded as citizens thereof."
The operative phrases from above are in bold.
Wow, they mean that the US government didn't believe that someone could be born within the United States could not be a US citizen?
Heck, then there is no way that person could ever be a natural born citizen LoL.
Was it passed in to law?
And all legal authorities would tell you that the 14th Amendment would vanquish any weird theory of Vattel’s anyway. (Even though NBC did not mean what you think it did, even before the 14th was ratified in 1868)
If my husband and I (both US citizens) conceive a child...when that child is born, (no matter where), he is born a citizen of the US. His citizenship is derived “naturally” by his birth from citizens. I know of no law needed to make him a US citizen.
All other forms of citizenship require some sort of statute to determine validity and therefore these are not natural born citizenship. If ANY question must be raised and answered regarding citizenship, then it is not a natural born citizenship. NBC requires nothing further than citizen parents.
I was taught this in elementary school more than 50 years ago in regard to the difference in the requirements for electing the President, Vice President, or other officers. It doesn’t seem complex to me at all.
So, your quote from the past would not apply.
Also, I think the “anchor baby” issue we are dealing with can be addressed much like Senator Moran of Kansas suggests, by saying that the parents of anchor babies could not file for divorce and custody, in the United States, so that the children are not, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Were you one of the people who intimidated him and his family into withdrawing?
That is not the law.
Also, I would suggest you look at the law concerning citizenship of children born on foreign soil. You can find a pretty good legal history on the US Department of State web page, especially in the passport application sections.
The age of the parents, and the time spent in the US, prior to birth, do matter, if the birth is on foreign soil
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth.
Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the law.
We have two forms of Citizenship:
Natural Born Citizen
If you are not a citizen, at the moment of birth, you can not be President of the United States.
This is what the law means. This and nothing else.
And all legal authorities would tell you that the 14th Amendment would vanquish any weird theory of Vattels anyway. (Even though NBC did not mean what you think it did, even before the 14th was ratified in 1868)
It means exactly what I think it means after 4 years of studying this issue. OBozo and his surrogate's argument is that the 14th Amendment made Obama a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution.
I'll sum it up for you about the truth of the contemporary US body politic: they are cowards of the truth because they are afraid of the perceived consequences or the truth doesn't give them what they want. Not much more than that.
Not only has it not been proven - it’s been proven that it CAN’T be proven. HI registrar Alvin Onaka has confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Obama’s HI BC is not legally valid. Every state SOS and AG has been informed of that fact in a certified-mail letter from Attorney Larry Klayman, which you can see at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
An explanation of how that works, as well as some additional information that factors into the discussion, is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf
Right now it has to be legally presumed that Onaka did not verify Obama’s birth facts because he CAN’T - and the only lawful reason for him not to be able to is if he can’t certify that the claims are true because they are not claimed on a legally valid birth certificate.
That means that there are no legally-established birth facts. We can’t even know if he is old enough to be President, much less where he was born or to whom. There is nobody in this country who can LEGALLY certify that Obama is eligible. Any Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) is immediately known to be perjurious.
And DNC Counsel Bob Bauer was warned about that in a letter from Klayman delivered by courier at 2:27pm EDT on Aug 31 - 4 days before the Convention began. Bauer suborned perjury and Alice Travers Germond and Antonio Villagairosa perjured themselves on the OCON they signed. Anybody who presents that OCON to a state SOS for placement on a ballot commits election fraud, and any SOS who accepts a known-fraudulent OCON as the basis for placement on the ballot is party to the election fraud as well.
I didn’t go into a lengthy discussion in my post. I know that if my husband and I left the US to reside somewhere else, questions could be raised about our citizenship status and that of our child.
My intent was to suggest we were “visiting” outside the US for a short time as lots of folks do. This was made clear in 1790.
So, your quote from the past would not apply.
Doesn't change the fact that Obama Jr. is NOT natural born citizen.
You have hitched your wagon to a bogus, silly, stupid, false interpretation of law and history!
And, you have lost, and wasted precious time and resources better spent in other battles!
Isn’t the primary question posed before the Kansas board related to where Obama was born? In other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the candidate and/or their political party to prove beyond doubt that the candidate is born on US soil? It seems to be merely a question of proper credentials...
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.