Posted on 11/14/2008 7:05:09 PM PST by solfour
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Hatched from an egg on another planet. Or universe.
If the argument is based on that the case against McCain will be thrown out on its face. Of course the Natural born aspect of children born aboard to US citizens has never been definitely ruled on because there has never been any situation like this. But it makes no sense whatsoever to take away citizens rights because their parents were following the federal government’s orders and serving abroad. It is a ludicrous argument.
Such citizens are not Naturalized and there are only two kinds therefore....
Yep, is that insane enough for you?
Same planet.
Different worlds...
The Founders were attempting to attain the “rights of Englishmen” and their legal code was based upon the laws of England which defined those rights. There was no massive overturning of traditional legal codes as with the French or Russian Revolutions.
They were defending rights being taken away in their view.
Actually he is defending the illegality of Zero by trying to make it appear as if he is no worse than McCain. His interpretation is valid only if you assume insane men wrote the Constituition.
Geographic location is irrelevant wrt this. Sovereignty is the issue and parents under the sovereignty or control of the US do not produce non-citizens when carrying out tasks for the sovereign nation. It is a ludicrous concept on its face and extremely damaging to the fight against Zero.
Here’s the post from November 3rd on Free Republic where I first learned about this Virginia case.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts
It came from the Phillip Berg web site: “Obama’s Crimes” and it was not an Associated Press article.
The "Rights" of Englishmen included having their American born kids press ganged into the Royal Navy.
That's what being a subject and the doctrine of jus sanguinus means. The Crown owns you and all your descendants.
Americans are not subjects. We are citizens.
He must be interpreting the Bizarro constitution not the US and will definitely be used by the forces of evil to defend Zero. His interpretation is insane and without a shred of legal thought behind it.
You can argue with those leading the Revolution. They were clear that they were defending their rights as Englishmen until things went so far that War overtook them. Their consent had not been obtained for taxes since they had no representation in Parliament as Englishmen had the right to have.
Not since the Magna Carta had the legal theory you claim been in effect. English Kings were not totalitarians and were limited in what they could do which was essentially nothing not allowed by Law.
We are subject to law just as if we were under a King.
OK. What about Bobby Jindal? We know that he was born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, so he qualifies for U.S. birth. His parents, however, had only arrived in the U.S. the year before, some time in 1970 to attend graduate school. Even if they had permanent resident visas and not student visas, they would not have been here long enough to have been naturalized. So is Bobby Jindal a natural born citizen?
It looks like we need a process to vet candidates at the beginning of the process.
Oh, no. Ain’t that a kick in the head.
He could have been entitled to see it as part of his job?
Maybe.
Our system of laws is rooted in English Common Law. And the Founding Fathers followed it, unless there was an explicit deviation. Their concept of “original intent” devolved from it. They took the BEST of English Common Law and threw out the crap.
“The definition of “natural born citizen” was NOT thrown out.
Per Blackstone in his Commentaries On English Common Law, a person born overseas to 2 natural born citizens who were in service to the Crown was a natural born citizen (Blackstone, Book 1. Chapter 10). You can look it up ...
BTW: SCOTUS commonly refers to Blackstone when deciding cases with historical roots.”
Thanks again for the information. I finally understand what you are saying and see that McCain may be found eligible by the SC. Thanks again for your research on this!
*snip* has never been definitely ruled on *snip*
*snip* there has never been any situation like this.
Thank you for arguing against yourself.
uh... Houston (USSC); we have a problem.
I believe that the USSC will determine that they are needed in defining for future generations the meaning of natural born citizen (abroad) and will take the case.
Why are you overlooking the extremely important birth to a foreign citizen aspect of Donofrio's case? Do you think the USSC is going to overlook that detail too.?
Also...
*snip*It is a ludicrous argument.
So tell me arrogantsob, how ludicrous is it? The USSC sees something of interest, or else they wouldn't have taken the case into conference, otherwise, they would have refused it just like they do to approximately 900+ other cases a year.
IMHO, You would make a more convincing argument if you used fewer absolutes...
The USSC sees something of interest, or else they wouldn't have taken the case into conference, otherwise, they would have refused it just like they do to approximately 900+ other cases a year.
The word "to" should have been the word "in".
I believe that the USSC will determine that they are needed in defining for future generations the meaning of natural born citizen (abroad) and will take the case.
Should have read:
I believe that the USSC will determine that they are needed in defining for future generations the meaning of natural born citizen (abroad) with specificity to eligibility for the Presidency and will take the case.
I believe that the USSC will determine that they are needed in defining for future generations the meaning of natural born citizen (abroad) with specificity to eligibility for the Presidency and will take the case.
I think so too. This has to be resolved and seems each Sec of State in all the states did not make sure that ALL the Presidential candidates qualified before allowing their names to be placed on the ballot.
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.