Posted on 05/08/2010 12:29:30 PM PDT by Retired Intelligence Officer
“The judge, appointed by Obama in October.....
The matter of Natural Born citizenship has already been settled by the Supreme Court. CHILDREN WHOM PARENTS ARE U.S. CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN (noticed the S on parents, this means both). Since when does a lower appeals court override the U.S. Supreme. The reason obama is fighting to block any U.S. supreme court hearing on this matter is because if the court follows the Constitution he is history. I don’t think the Court wants to touch this matter because it would cause the removal of obama. No court (even the Supreme Court) has the authority to override Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is the duty of Congress to void the election of any politican that is ineligible to hold office. Congress knows that obama is ineligible and will not void his election. We the people of the United States do not have a President at this time. p.s. By law McCain is the legal President of the U.S.
The birth certificate is not the only method of proof. You’re wrong
Exactly. I would expect this to be appealed to SCOTUS because the states can’t define the Constitutional terms. And that’s actually why we need a SCOTUS ruling on this even if states pass laws requiring Constitutional eligibility to be verified by looking at the official legal birth documents, etc - because the US Constitution is not to be interpreted by any little SOS here or there. That is something the SCOTUS needs to rule on.
And without seeing a genuine birth certificate for Obama they legally can’t say that he was born in the US either. It would take a finding of facts for that to be done, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended and all the documentation has to be seen by a judicial or administrative person or body and measured against competing claims regarding the birth facts.
Now that the Kenyan BC’s have been submitted to a court of law, there are legally competing claims about Obama’s birth location. The Hawaii documents are not prima facie evidence. To prove his birthplace, Obama has the burden of proof to show that the Hawaii claim is true and the Kenyan claims are false. That would AT LEAST require a check on whether the Kenyan certificates are authentic.
Did the Indiana Court do any of that stuff? If they didn’t, then according to Hawaii law, they cannot make any legal conclusion about the claims made on the Hawaii BC.
Incorrect. Based upon the language, in WKA v United States which you guys in Indiana conveniently lied by omission, Justice Gray writing for the majority gave an example who was and who was not a natural born citizen.
As Binney is quoted in the WKA opinion:
"Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:
-snip-
...such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]... "
Binney here is explaining the difference between natives born of aliens, naturalized citizens to natural born citizens. In other words, Wong Kim Ark is the native born of alien parents being compared to natural born citizens. So where was this in your silly opinion Indiana?? Indiana lied their butts off.
I have not seen where this ruling by the Indiana Court has been appealed. It should have been appealed by now.
If he was declared a natural born citizen in 2009, what was he before that date? How then was he allowed to run for POTUS in 2008?
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parentsWOW! OK. Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5? LOL!
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.LMAO! It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling. Haha. Sure it's immaterial. LOL!
So, this brilliant "defining" decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents was NOT a NBC...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?
LMAO. No...seriously, LMAO!
It's worthless. It's OBCVIOUSLY flawed. Period. Forget the fact that it is a state of Indiana decision and not from a federal court nor SCOTUS.
“...but the NBC issue may prevent him from being re-elected.”
.
After all the damage to the country has been done and there is nothing left to destroy.
OBCVIOUSLY should be OBVIOUSLY, obviously.
Take a deep breath. There is nothing here to appeal. There is nothing here that constitutes any kind of 'finding'.
All the court did was Affirm the trial court's grant of the Governor's Motion To Dismiss.
. After all the damage to the country has been done and there is nothing left to destroy.
----------------------------------
Not to mention, precedent setting. Let's not allow someone born a citizen to TWO countries (assuming HI birth, yet to be proved) simply be "voted" out. He must be exposed as Constitutionally unqualified so nobody in the future with FOREIGN influence like that can challange any state law that may be implemented saying that Barry set the precedent and nobody did anything about it.
Lyin’ Linda election fraud 2008...
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/08/meet-the-place-of-obamas-birth-according-to-hawaii-governor/
The position of POTUS has already been marred permanently by Obama and our congresscritters.
So I take it that if you weren’t there to hear it when the tree fell in the forest, it made no sound?
See:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_4da2bd4c-62b3-556f-a97c-8c3009013129.html
Begin quote:
INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana Supreme Court will not hear the case of a Roselawn man who claimed President Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be president.
Bill Kruse, of Roselawn, along with Steve Ankeny, of New Castle, sued Gov. Mitch Daniels in December 2008 to stop the governor from certifying Indiana’s electoral votes for Obama. Their lawsuit was dismissed by a Marion County court, and that decision was upheld in November by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The state’s high court voted unanimously this month to not hear a further appeal.
Kruse and Ankeny claimed Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen, because Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom at the time of his son’s birth in Hawaii.
Unlike other claimants in the so-called birther movement who deny Obama was born in Hawaii, Kruse and Ankeny argued that any U.S. citizen born of a parent who is a citizen of another country can never be president.
The Indiana Court of Appeals said it didn’t find support for that argument in its reading of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that “persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens, for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Daniels certified Indiana’s 11 electoral votes for Obama on Dec. 8, 2008. Obama beat U.S. Sen John McCain, R-Ariz., in the electoral vote count 365-173.
End quote
I am born and raised in Indiana. Never heard of this and do not believe Obama to be a legit POTUS. He was not born in America and his parents are not determined.
This could all be solved, but it will not be.
Obozo needs to be removed before he finishes his destruction of the US. Amazes ne that no person has the stones to go after all the corruption he is behind. Watergate was childsplay, yet no decent person has the guts to go after far worse than Watergate. Tells me we are all as weak and pathetic as can be. Sad thing that self preservation comes before the future of the US for our kids.
“Indiana lied their butts off.
On a related point, courts resort to common law when there is no other source of legal authority, such as constitutional law or statutory law. Great emphasis is placed in the Indiana opinion on the English view of citizenship. But English statutes in force at the time Obama was born clearly made him a British subject at birth IN ADDITION TO being an American citizen. That is, the court did not have to rely on common law to infer how the Brits viewed the citizenship status of a baby born of a British citizen father. It’s laid out in black and white in the statute.
Thus, I don’t see how anyone can question that Obama had divided loyalties at birth. He did not owe “permanent allegiance” to the U.S. at birth since at the age of majority he could easily have elected to remain a British citizen without having to undergo the process used to naturalize immigrants into British citizenship.
The fact that Obama never exercised this option is irrelevant to a consideration of where his legal loyalties lay. That is, it makes no sense to claim that Baby A—born of a British father in the U.S. who did NOT exercise the option to remain a British citizen once he became an adult—IS a natural born citizen whereas Baby B—born under identical circumstances but who opted to remain a British rather than U.S. citizen as an adult—was not an NBC.
The only individuals who automatically owe PERMANENT allegiance to the U.S. at birth are those born in the country of citizen parents. Such individuals can only become citizens of another country by formally going through some sort of naturalization process that in most countries would entail explicitly disavowing U.S. citizenship and pledging undivided loyalty to their new country. But having done so, such individuals would no longer be U.S. citizens (even though they originally were natural born) and hence ineligible to become President.
It is a requirement that the president and vice president be natural born citizens of the united States. However, we have not been operating under the Constitution since FDR incorporated The United States of America, a Washington D.C. corporation, and I don’t think it matters what you are to be a corporate officer. IMHO, neither Barry Goldwater - born in the Territory of Arizona, or John McCain - born in a local hospital in Panama Canal Zone, are technically NBCs, although exceptions were made for both. Since it’s happened before - Chester Arthur - just move along, there’s nothing to see here. Odd that BO lost his license to practice law for not stating he had been known by another name, and attended Occidental College as a foreign exchange student with a Fulbright Scholarship, but there is something deeply wrong with you if you question his NBC status. Personally, to me NBC means born on American soil to American parents. I think Bobby Jindal is native born, as his parents weren’t born here but he was, and would therefore not be eligible to run for president. I think you would find children of military born on foreign soil, not a base, are also native born and not eligible to run for president. The devil is in the details. The only court that has jurisdiction over this question is the Federal Court in Washington D.C. so don’t sweat what Indiana decides.
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.