Posted on 03/30/2011 9:01:16 PM PDT by circumbendibus
Arguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama's eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.
Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2.
"I can't believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case," wrote Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So what part of this do you not get.
This is NOT about subservience to the laws of another Nation.
It is a RECOGNITION of the inherent SOVERGINITY of other Nations.
No other Nation decides who can be our president, and the founders intended it to be that way. THUS... pay attention here... they decided to make CERTAIN that no other nation could have such an influence.
Hello, you getting it yet?
Natural Born Citizen means a citizen born SOLELY under the Jurisdiction of the United States of America. Where is the law of Britain in that? Show me please.
The founders DELIBERATELY excluded those citizens who were born under MORE THAN ONE jurisdiction so that no other nation could HAVE influence. Hello. You have been getting it backwards.
The founders deliberately excluded those who were born under MORE THAN the Jurisdiction of the United States. This includes Barack Obama, who was born under British Jurisdiction not by MY accusation, but by HIS admission!
So, if Barack WAS born in Hawaii, he was born under TWO jurisdictions, that of the United States, and that of Great Britain.
he is ineligible for the same reason your wife is, they were born under more than one jurisdiction. They were born under two. Does that make them LESS of an American? No. I means they were not born solely under the Jurisdiction of the United States, which was the Founders LITMUS TEST for POTUS.
No other Nation could lay a hand on a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Anyone born overseas, not on American Territory, will be able to claim the citizenship of the Nation they were born in. Mexicans do this every damned day with the anchor babies. Anyone born to a parent who is a foreign National will be able to claim that parent's citizenship. At any time, because they are legally the child of that Nation.
Look up the Olympic skier from Southern California who changed his citizenship to Jamaican so that he could go to the Olympics. His Dad was Jamaican, and he couldn't qualify to get on the US team. So he took up his long absent father's citizenship, and went to the Olympics.
Your wife being the child of a Norwegian and having been born in the nation, can claim that citizenship any time she chooses to. Try it. Contact the Norwegian embassy, find out what she would have to do. Mostly likely show ID, and proof of parentage and that parent's citizenship, and bingo. Try it and see.
The founders chose DELIBERATELY to exclude everyone who was not born under the singular and sole jurisdiction of the United States. This is what a Natural Born Citizen IS.
Furthermore, this is not the law of the united states alone, ALL nations recognize this status. They HAVE to for diplomatic reasons. They MUST respect the sovereignty of other nations. It has nothing to do with the laws of those nations, it has to do with recognizing the sons and daughters of those nations, and their right to claim those nations as their own.
Sorry to be the bearer of what you consider to be bad news, but this isn't new. Its been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Nations respect the sovereignty of other Nations. You have just been unaware of it till now. That doesn't mean it didn't exist until you found out about it.
I got no clue. Nor apparently, did the Bar of the State of Illinois. All they know is they accepted a "voluntary resignation" from some guy who lied on their Bar Application.
BTW, the Bar of the State of Illinois seems a pretty flexible outfit. After all, Abraham Lincoln was a member, and so was Al Capone's kid. You probably have to go somewhere really weird to piss them off.
Seriously, WTF is this guy? Hello?
The 9th Circus has a well-earned reputation.
"
They are alleged (and probably rightly so) to be the most overturned circuit court in the country.
Meaning, the Wiley Drake v. Obama case will probably wind up at SCOTUS? Will they continued to "evade the issue?"
She may be, but Gary Kreep isn't.
“The State Department Has ‘Always’ Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.”
Yes, but...
...the State Dept. (and constitutionalist birthers) can't pick and chose which parts of the 1948 BNA to accept and which to reject. That is up to the UK.
I am assuming that the UK will enforce the entire 1948 BNA including the part where it says that illegitimate children of UK subjects are explicitly NOT automatically UK subjects.
If BHO Sr. was a bigamist under UK colonial Kenyan law (Marriage Act of 1902, IIRC) which recognizes tribal marriages and forbids bigamy even for Muslims, then BHO Sr.'s Hawaii marriage is bigamous, BHO II is illegitimate and BHO II has only the unitary US nationality of his legally single US citizen mother and is not a dual citizen.
IOW, BHO II cannot be a dual citizen if the BNA of 1948 explicitly excludes him from being a UK subject due to being illegitimate.
While Bingham says "soil" and "parents" (plural) the express purpose of that requirement was to preclude dual citizenship and dual loyalty. But under US law at the time of the founders and going forward, IIRC, an illegitimate child has only the nationality of the single mother so there is no possibility of dual national claims to such a child. So if the State Dept. is to respect UK law it must look to the UK to ultimately decide whether or not Obama was a UK subject at birth.
Having to rely, ultimately, on a ruling from the UK (recognizing and abiding by foreign law) to determine whether Obama is an ineligible dual citizen is what makes this avenue of disqualifying Obama problematic for me.
Exposing 1961 vital records that point to a foreign soil birth is much cleaner and doesn't rely on UK courts/UK Government determination, IMO.
Listen up. When BO/BS reached his majority, he had the legal choice of choosing British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or perhaps American citizenship. Don't you feel in the least bit special that he chose our country? You know, like blessed, or something?
Since we didn't do anything to deserve this, it must, ergo, ipso facto, QED, be like you know, Divine Intervention. In the modern thought course, as taught at the local JC, it is never too late to have a happy childhood.
In like fashion, it must then be true that it is never too late to become a "Natural Born Citizen," especially through Divine Intervention.* It is like racist of you not to accept this self-evident truth brought to us by modern, hip, politically correct thought.
I'll get back to you on this when you're thinking straight. Right now I am busy figuring out what BO/BS' real name is. Like it's really kewl having a mixed race guy as President. It would even be kewler if his real name turned out to be like Indonesian!
*Say, I don't want you to get the impression that I am a religious fanatic. Of course, I am an atheist, as is every one else on the Liberal Arts faculty here at the VoTech. By "Divine Intervention" I mean like the Spirit of Mother Gaia, various Native American Peyote Driven Thoughts, and stuff Timothy Leary said.
So, if British Law had provided that BO was not a British Citizen, by being born abroad to a male British Citizen, as he would not have been had his mother, not his father, been a Brit, then no dual nationality, and no problem?
Of course, that means that British law defines who can be President of the United States. Babble all you want about sovereignty. Even evoke the mighty power of ALL CAPS, but it comes down to the fact that you want to outsource the definition of American citizenship, all because you think it helps you politically, once.
Oh, and if you want to see a real demonstration of "sovereignty" in WWII, Franco, the Spanish dictator, declared that Spanish law recognized the Spanish citizenship of a number of Greek born Greek Jews, whose families had immigrated from Spain. When Ferdinand and Isabella expelled them. In 1492. That gave the Jews Spanish passports, and allowed them to escape extermination by the Nazis, who, by and large, recognized Spanish "sovereignty" and honored the Spanish passports.
So, in your Bizzaro Birther World, no I had it right the first time, Birther World Bizzaro World, some nation can, 4.5 centuries after a person immigrates, declare their progeny to still be citizens, and we have to recognize that nations sovereignty, and declare everyone in the United States who has an ancestor from there to be a dual national, and thus not a natural born citizen.
I am not trying to invalidate what you are saying, because there are legitimate questions regarding the marriages of Barry Sr.
However, because there is a Legal Divorce Decree in Hawaii, Barry Jr. has coorborating evidence that his parents marriage was legally recognized in Hawaii and in the United States.
ALSO, because Barry Sr. is on Barry Jr’s publically displayed (but note that Obama did NOT post that COLB himself, through his offical campaign, OR the White House. It was posted by FactCheck.org an unrelated organization and one with no formal ties to him officially!!! His fightthesmears website REPOSTED what Factcheck posted, therefore Obama only posted what someone else had!!! Obama has NEVER released ANYTHNG officially!! WTF!!!!!)
birth certificate - the COLB this makes him Barry’s official father, and Great Britain DOES recognize this.
Now, back to the biggest and most relevant point.
Barry was born (most likely) in Hawaii to an American Mother and a British Father. he was born American and British. He was born under the jurisdictions of TWO different soveriegn nations.
A Natural Born Citizen is born with ONLY ONE, is born under the single jurisdiction of only one specific nation. Natural Born simply means born under one jurisdiction. Obama does NOT fall into that category.
From the instant he was born, Obama was not, and never could be a Natural Born Citizen.
No, SCOTUS doesn’t have to hear it.
"Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa. Tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha." US State Department Travel Advisory for Pakistan in 1981, No. 81-33A http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
So, I thank you(!) for providing that much needed moment of clarity!
Honestly, why didn't they just say this in the first place and save us from this all this contentious confusion? Better late than never, I guess.
Why speak in hypothetical?
Britain doesn't work that way and never has. Shoot, no other nation does either. Name one nation that states if you are born to its citizens off its soil that you aren't a citizen of it. Its insanity to say that. Of course a child inherits the citizenship of its parents.
Just think for a moment, what would happen if what you suggest were the case and you were born on say, a cruise ship crossing the Atlantic. Because you were born in the middle of the Atlantic you aren't a citizen of your parents nation? That would literally have created thousands and thousands of stateless people. That is a situation all nations want to avoid, stateless people are a real headache for a lot of reasons.
Now with regard to how citizenship passes from mother to child, this is something that has changed a lot over time. There was a period in American history for example, where, a British (or german, or french what ever) Woman marrying an American man would take up the citizenship of her Husband. So in marrying an American Man, she relinquished her own native citizenship and became an American. That was actually the case at the time Chester Arthur was born. Doing things that way did simplify things quite a bit. It took some uncertainty off the table with regard to the citizenship of the children produced from such a marriage.
This was not the law at the time Obama was born. However, it was still the case, the father's citizenship carried more weight than the mothers. Sexist yes, but there it is, and there it was.
Regardless of all that, Obama was still quite likely born in Hawaii to an American Mother, with a British Father. he was born American, and he was equally born British, which is why Obama admits in his books and on Fightthesmears that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Natural Born Citizenship is a description of birth and states that the child was born under only one jurisdiction, or the child was not. Obama was NOT born a Natural Born Citizen - born under the sole jurisdiction of only the United States.
The Founders decided they wanted to exclude everyone who was born under more than one jurisdiction, so they deliberately included the requirement that the person have sole allegiance to the Untied States from birth, the mechanism used to denote this status is Natural Born Citizen.
Obama fails this test.
There is a great difference between a “Travel Advisory” and a “Travel Ban.”
There is evidence corroborating BHO Sr.’s recognition of Barry as his son, but I have seen NO evidence that UK has “officially” deemed Barry to have automatically become a LEGAL UK subject under the 1948 BNA. There has been no release of information of any UK government inquiry into the matter and no transparency for UK Kenya colonial records on BHO Sr citizenship or Barry's possible birth there.
The evidence of an Hawaii marriage, if bigamously fraudulent and entered into dishonestly, has no effect on the application of the 1948 BNA to Barry.
Being excluded explicitly by the 1948 BNA from being a dual citizen does not make Barry “subject to” UK law, it would EXCLUDE Barry from UK law.
Leo's excellent analysis of dual citizenship ineligibility is based on the premise that Obama and his team were telling the truth when they said that Barry was governed by the 1948 BNA. But Barry lies all day every day, so I think it is best to temper claims of any certainty as to his dual citizenship pending further “transparency” in the UK, Kenya and HI.
“The official definition for Natural born citizen is:”
“CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN”
Could you please cite the court ruling or Congressional legislation which defines natural born citizen.
“You are NOT a natural born citizen if your mom isn’t and/or your daddy isn’t a citizen of the US of A.”
Please cite legislation or court ruling which defines natural born citizen in the manner which you claim.
You live in the bizzaro world of MSPMSNBC.
Arbitrary foreign laws that make descendants of people who emigrated from other countries to the US as their citizens doesn't mean squat because their ancestors renounced their foreign citizenships or being a subjects, royal titles, et al before the US government before they were naturalized as US citizens, and Jus Sanguinis foreign citizenship was terminated at that point for their descendant US citizens as far as the United States was concerned.
Mostly duel citizenship of today is the cause of parents marriages who are of different citizenships and who passed on duel nationality onto their offspring, which was not the case before 1932. (circa 1922 through 1932 an American women lost her US citizenship when she married a foreign national) Traditionally and naturally, citizenship of the family was passed on through the father and husband where their children and wife became the same. However, since women's suffrage became part of the US Constitution, women's citizenship was soon decoupled from their father or husband soon after in 1922. A foreign women did not automatically take their US citizenship from their US citizen husband. Foreign women had to naturalize as US citizens just like the men.
You first. Please end this confusion by citing legislation or court ruling which states that dual citizenship meets/doesn’t violate the Presidential eligibility requirements required by the Constitution.
it just occured to me that I didn’t address the rest of your post.
“Of course, that means that British law defines who can be President of the United States. Babble all you want about sovereignty. Even evoke the mighty power of ALL CAPS, but it comes down to the fact that you want to outsource the definition of American citizenship, all because you think it helps you politically, once.”
Are you daft? How is recognizing the sovrignity of another nation somehow outsourcing American Citizenship? What are you denying the existance of other nations? Oooookay.... No. Natural Born Citizenship means born under ONE national Jurisdiction. By having that requirement in the Constitution, the constitution RESTRICTS the office of POTUS to someone who ONLY has American Citizenship, and has only ever had American Citizenship!
Hello? are you really that dense? By having the specific requirement that one be a Natural Born Citizen, the constitution OUTLAWS anyone who has citizenship of any other nation from becoming POTUS. I would say that this rather clearly PREVENTS any other Nation from having any control whatsoever over who can be POTUS.
So by having the Natural Born requirement, the constitution PREVENTS any other Nation from having any influence whatsoever. Hello... why can’t you get that. It isn’t that tough to understand!
“Oh, and if you want to see a real demonstration of “sovereignty” in WWII, Franco, the Spanish dictator, declared that Spanish law recognized the Spanish citizenship of a number of Greek born Greek Jews, whose families had immigrated from Spain. When Ferdinand and Isabella expelled them. In 1492. That gave the Jews Spanish passports, and allowed them to escape extermination by the Nazis, who, by and large, recognized Spanish “sovereignty” and honored the Spanish passports.”
Spain can do anything it likes, and offer paths to citizenships at it’s whim. It doesn’t matter what Spain chooses to do or not to do.
Israel does much the same thing today. If you have and can prove a certain standard of Jewish heritage, you can become a Jewish Citizen. In NO WAY is that a statement about the condition of your birth. Born to an American Mom and an American Dad in the United States, and you were BORN UNDER ONE NATIONAL JURISDICTION. That is what it means.
Born to an American Mother in America, and to a British Father - are you saing that the fathers citizenship is irrelevant and just disappears? Gets erased as if it never existed??
Well you can tilt at that windmill all you like, but it just isn’t the case. The US State Department has always recognized the sovreginity of other nations, and respects that it’s citizens come here, and doing so do NOT lose their citizenship. Or are you saying that every illegal Mexican automatically becomes an American once they cross the border? Of course not, no one is THAT stupid.
“So, in your Bizzaro Birther World, no I had it right the first time, Birther World Bizzaro World, some nation can, 4.5 centuries after a person immigrates, declare their progeny to still be citizens, and we have to recognize that nations sovereignty, and declare everyone in the United States who has an ancestor from there to be a dual national, and thus not a natural born citizen.”
I was going to try and politely reply to this inane insanity, but I changed my mind. I have never even implied such an idiotic ...concept (if you can even call it that). I can’t even figure out WTH you just said. ALL I said is that Natural Born Citizen describes the Birth of a child.
Natural Born Citizen means born under a sole National Jurisdiction. One. If you were born to an American Mom in America, and a British Father, then you were born under two Jurisdictions. Don’t believe me, them take a look at fightthesmears and Obama’s statement regarding his birth. He says he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and he HAD to admit that because it was KNOWN his father was British.
Or are you actually trying to say that a child never inherits the citizenship of his father?
Maybe you are just trying to say that if a man of any citizenship upon having a child in another nation immediately loses his RIGHT to pass his citizenship onto his child?
If so you are absolutely barking mad.
A child born to an American Mother and an American Father on American soil has no other possible citizenship. That is what the Founders wanted - that is what Natural Born Citizen means, born under one sole jurisdiction with only one possible citizenship. A child born to an American mother in America to a British father is a child born under two jurisdictions, just as Obama ADMITTED.
This is what I have been saying for quite some time now. Not any of the BS you just spouted off in your willful denial of the truth. You are deliberately refusing to see the simple truth. Why I have no idea, but the concept really isn’t hard, it isn’t theoretical particle physics for heaven’s sake.
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.