Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
TRSOL has new post up, with link to interview with David Jeffrey Bomford (named on the Australian birth certificate)
Bomford Interview: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm
TRSOL Article: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6938
I just read this - if you search bomford birth certificate on the internet, this is what is now coming up first.
With all due respect, Fuller is not “acquiescing” at all in his dissent. On the contrary, your misinterpretation of his remarks exactly reverses his meaning by not recognizing he was using an example how the majority opinion produces a nonsensical and irrational result known not to exist in actual practice and custom.
In fact, the majority opinion only said the plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and did not express a decision on whether or not he was a “natural born citizen” in either the statutory definition or the Constitutional definition. There is a difference between a statutory “natural born citizen” and the “natural born citizen” defined by Congress pursuant to the request of John Jay and George Washington regarding allegiance of the Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. Consequently, what you describe as the “law of the land” with regard to an interpretation of the “natural born citizen” to permit a person born with foreign allegiance to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief has no basis in the decision of this case which said:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, 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 domicile 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In addition, it must be noted Justice Gray was appointed by President Chester Arthur. Since it has recently been revealed that President Chester Arthur was also ineligible to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief due to his own allegiance at birth to the foreign sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, his appointment of Justice Gray to the Supreme court of the United States was illegal and a void act in accordance with the precedent case from the War of the Rebellion when the obligations of the Confederate government of the State of Texas were voided by the U.S. Supreme Court. This raises the question whether or not SCOTUS in a future decision must disregard the Kim Wong Ark decision due to the taint of participation of an unlawful Jusitce in addition to invalid assertions about English-Biritsh common-law. Far from being the law of the land, the taint of influence by persons having unlawful allegiances at birth to a foreign sovereign is more pertinent and vitally important than ever before.
You've just proved my point. Fuller, in his dissent, is criticizing the majority and he uses the example that I cited as a illustrative example of how wrong the majority's decision is. But, the fact of the matter is he's in the minority and writing the dissenting opinion, not the precedent setting majority opinion.
The precedent, at least as Fuller reads it, is that the majority's decision allows for children born on American soil to foreign citizens to be eligible for the Presidency, and at the same time, it denies that eligibility to children born overseas but to American citizens. Fuller has a problem with that, but he is recognizing that is the practical application of the majority's opinion. As I clearly pointed out in my first post to you, that is what Fuller acquiesces to.
Whether you or I or anyone else for that matter, believe that the majority opinion in Ark is flawed and in conflict with respect to the original intent of the founding fathers, it was and is the position of the Supreme Court. That will only change if the court decides to reverse itself, or at least set aside the relevant part of the prior decision. One could argue, that with the the denial of certiorari in the Donofrio v. Wells case, the court is signaling that they don't have the apatite to overturn Ark in any way.
You wrote:
Holding dual citizenship does not disqualify an American from running for president so long as he/she was born on “American soil” and is therefore “Native born”.
Dual citizenship disqualifies a person from eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. The singular purpose of the natural born citizen clause was to deny that office to any person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Any person born with dual citizenship is thereby born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign in direct violation of the purpose of the Constitution’s clause and intended purpose.
Yo WhiskeyX—Thanks for the info. That makes sense to me. As I’ve said, I’m no expert on the “native born” presidential candidate requirement. In any case, I guess it can be intuited from your comment that a dual-citizenship person (one of them being native born American) who renounces the non-US citizenship is qualified to run for president.
"Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.
...
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen. ..."
Continued here:
The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President
dont take it personally when the bird calls you a viral messenger. He does it to everyone with whom he does not agree. Then he screeches for the mods. Funny
LOL!!! viral messngers.
On the contrary, you are simply declaring a victory where none exists.
If you go back to my earlier post and read the majority decision, you will see how the decision says the only question being addressed by that decision is whether or not the person was born as a citizen of the United States and the State of California pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you read the entire majority decision you see there is not one mention of the meaning or definition of the term, “natural born citizen,” much less an effort by the Justices to define or interpret the term. Consequently, the majority decision does nothing whatsoever to define the term, “natural been citizen.”
It is interesting how you on the one hand claim the minority decision is of no legal consequence because it was in the minority, and then you turn around with the other hand and proclaim Justice Fuller's demonstration of the nonsensical construction having no existence in fact is somehow supposed to suddenly have the full effect and full consequence of a Supreme Court majority decision. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.
The case as it was presented, argued, and decided by the majority of the Court never addressed the legal question of whether or not the person was a “natural born citizen.” Although Justice Fuller did speculate on the secondary consequences relating to just such a question, he disposed of the possibility in his other comments in the dissenting opinion thereby rejecting the validity of the claim. Now you want to take his comments out of context, reverse their overall intent and meaning, and somehow transform this dissenting speculation into the force of law while ignoring the fact that the majority of Justices refused to include the “natural born citizen” argument knowing full well there was a possibility or in all likeliehood would have been rejected by the majority of the Justices had the attempt been made. Clearly the decision does not address the definition of “natural born citizen” because the majority of the Justices chose to avoid the question altogether.
Current information revealing Chester Arthur was similarly ineligible to serve as President of the United States, his apparent awareness of illegitimacy when he destroyed his papers to avoid discovery of the illegitimacy, and his unlawful appointment of Justice Gray appears to result in the absurdity of people using one illegal presidential administration vouching for the legitimacy of another illegal presidential administration.
It is long past the time when people need to wake up and understand We the People are the true sovereigns of this Nation. The Supreme Court is not our sovereign, but is the servant of the People. The Congress is not our Sovereign, they are the servants of the citizens of the United States, although they have recently expressed the opinion they can do as they like as if they were our Sovereign until we elect someone else just like them in their contempt for the will of the Citizens.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and George Washington asked the Constitutional Convention and the Congress to consider safeguarding our Republic in the future by allowing only those persons born with no allegiance to a foreign sovereign to serve as Commander-in-Chief and President or Senator of the United States. The Congress compromised by deleting Senators from the requirement and extending the term of required citizenship for Senators. In its final form, the Congress enacted the Constitution and the clause regarding being a natural born citizen with the will and the intent to deny eligibility to the office of Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States to any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
Today, we now are witnessing another attempt by a political party and its various supporters to subvert and overthrow the clearly stated intent of John Jay, George Washington, and the Congress who wrote the clause into the Constitution for the singular purpose of denying the Office of the President to any person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign. It is now up to the present day Citizens of the United States of America to make a decision to honor the intent and purpose clearly and unmistakably expressed by the Founding Fathers by taking the necessary lawful actions needed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or they can permit someone else to unlawfully subvert the Constitution and the clearly stated will of the Founding Fathers through pettifoggery, false propaganda, and an assortment of other methods of disinformation and sowing of discord.
No decision of the Supreme Court can amend the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Only amendments to the Constitution can lawfully alter its articles. Supreme Court decisions cannot by themselves alter the U.S. Constitution, and the Citizens of the United States have the right and the duty to cause the Supreme Court to comply with the Articles of the Constitution by appeals to the Supreme Court and by impeachment in the event of high crimes and misdemeanors by members of the Supreme Court.
The Founding Fathers were explicit in ending British common-law in the United States effective on the 4th day of July in the Year of 1776, notwithstanding any erroneous Supreme Court discussions to the contrary. The natural born citizen clause the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution is consistent with two thousand years of precedent jurisprudence, particularly with jus albinatus, the works of Vattel, and other European jurists upon whose works this Republic was founded in direct opposition to the regal British common-law the Republic had just overthrown.
As the true Sovereigns of the United States of America, Citizens also have the right and the civic duty to demand their legislative representatives comply with the Constitution. In the event the Citizens determine their legislative representatives have failed to comply with their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, the Citizens have an obligation to take all lawful measures to remove those representatives who have failed in their duties at the election polls, by impeachment, and by recall or other means as determkined by law. In the event the present laws are insufficient to protect and defend the Constitution and the democratic character of the Republic, the Sovereign Citizens have the right to meet in convention to amend the Constitution and repeal amendments as needed to bring the representatives of the Citizens of the United States into compliance with the Constitution.
Insults hurled at those who disagree with him are pretty much all he brings to the party. It really doesn't even matter what the topic is, that's his M.O..
I'm hoping that if we ignore him, he'll go away.
You wrote:
In any case, I guess it can be intuited from your comment that a dual-citizenship person (one of them being native born American) who renounces the non-US citizenship is qualified to run for president.
Sorry, the answer is no, absolutely not. At the time the Constitution was written, the international community generally did not recognize the existence of a dual citizenship or multiple nationality as sometimes exists in today’s international affairs. The belief and practice at the time was that a person could have one and only one sovereign at a time.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain went two steps further in the early 18th Century and firstly claimed sovereignty over and the allegiance of every person born withn the Dominions of its Sovereign, without any regard to the citizenship of the person’s birth parents. Secondly, the person born in the Dominions of the British Sovereign was then forbidden the right to renounce, revoke, or in any other respect expatriate from Britain throughout their lifetime, with the threat of punishment for Treason against the Crown. This British common-law was in conflict with the laws and customs of the other nations in the international community, and it often led to legal and armed conflicts. The War of 1812 was in major part due to the conflict over Britain’s extraordinary claims of sovereignty and citizenship.
Alexander Hamilton’s recommendation to use language making any U.S. Citizen eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States was rejected by the other Founding Fathers because of the dangers inherent in having a foreign sovereign invoke a person’s natural born allegiance to that sovereign, even though the person had genuinely or deceptively expatriated, naturalized, or otherwise been born in some circumstance with a natural born allegiance to a foreign sovereign. The intent, purpose, and objective of the clause was to deny the office to any person who could possibly have any allegiance to a foreign sovereign, whether voluntary or involuntary on the part of the person involved.
Dual citizenship and multiple citizenship as it has developed since the Constituton and clause were written has only increased the opportunities and dangers for a person to have their allegiance to the United States of America voluntarily or involuntarily compromised. In an era where David Rockefellar and others in the Democratic Party and Republican Party are advocating or in sympathy with subjecting the Sovereignty of the Citizens of the United States to the sovereign powers of a superior one world government, the issue and conflict over allegiance and sovereignty is no less and may be even more important than when the Founding Fathers incorporated the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution.
I have changed the long s’s (which look like f’s) into short s’s, so that the text is easier to read.
This is the URL to Chapter 10.
http://avalon.law.yale .edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives
page 354
...
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
...
pages 361-362
...
THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Need more info about E.F. Lavender being a detergent. Earth Friendly ECOS, Lavender scent, is a laundry detergent.
You can skip the name calling and insults, it undermines your point.
WhiskeyX—Thanks again for your thoughtful response. You seem to be in full charge of your subject. It’s refreshing to have a conversation with folks like yourself.
And why is his name typed in a space where it says "Signature of Registrar"? Shouldn't it be signed and then typed?
If it's real, it's relevant. It's dated the day after his birth. You couldn't have registered it in Hawaii on the 4th adn Kenya on the 5th, not in 1961.
Of course, there are reasons to believe that it isn't real, but then we have witnesses who say they saw his birth in Kenya, so it's a question of who and what you choose to believe.
But his mother was.
People often perceive others to be crazy or stupid because they lack the facility to understand that the person they perceive as crazy or stupid is actually far more intelligent than they themselves are. To be painfully honest, I have fallen into that trap myself before. I try not to fall into it now. Whatever Orly Taitz turns out to be I am nearly certain she won’t turn out to be crazy or stupid.
Nearly every day now I hear people call Obama stupid. I am sure he is not the genius he is made out to be but I am quick to say that he couldn’t possibly be stupid enought to think that what he is trying to do is right for America. He is deliberately trying to wreck this country.
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.