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 ...
” Obama doesn’t meet that constitutional requirement. And the consequences of this are MASSIVE.”
Understatement of the year.
We are in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis that has had and will continue to have, far reaching consequences.
That’s not even remotely true. If the mother is a US citizen and has met residence requirements, it doesn’t matter who the daddy is.
------------------------------------
Huh? You've not read the history. "natural born Citizen" was defined in the 1700's. The citizenship status of the father was the key.
Barry inherited his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright. Barry was born owing allegiance to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England even IF he was born in the U.S. At best, Barry was born with divided citizenship. A dual national. Natural born Citizen's and dual national's are mutually exclusive.
“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. "
That's correct, and has been stated a number of times that IF the truth comes out and there is a court determination that SR. isn't (couldn't) be his legal father at birth, then the question becomes...why has he taken his oaths of office (Senate/"POTUS") under the name "Obama?" Furthermore, then, why is there a fraudulent government document proudly posted on his campaign web site?
He may wiggle out of the dual national issue, but would then be a clearly documented fraud and criminal. Either way, he's perhaps the largest political hoax to have been played upon the country.
“Huh? You’ve not read the history. “natural born Citizen” was defined in the 1700’s. The citizenship status of the father was the key.”
Go ahead and post that history lesson. While you’re at it, post the law from 1961.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
How can a natural born Citizen's status be "governed" by Great Britain?
It can't. However, a dual national's citizenship status CAN be. Natural born Citizen's and dual nationals, with their divided allegiance, are contradictory in nature.
Having a Commander in Chief of the armed forces who was born owing allegiance to a foreign country was a bad idea (post grandfather clause) back then...and it's a bad idea today. Perhaps even more so with the move towards "globalization."
Ya think?
Was posting the information for reference.
Yes, and the blatant corruption of the constitution by allowing a man whose agents have claimed up front to be a UK subject at birth and who refuses to “release” (authorize HI to release) his 1961 vital records with all amendments must not stand!
Of course, only the Supremes can finally declare what NBC means, should they stop “evading” the issue, but that doesn't excuse flagrantly ramming through a fait accompli to set a precedent for a candidate too precious to vet.
This was constitutional amendment by “jury nullification” committed by the colluding political elites of both parties and the electoral majority assembled by the Democrats in the last election.
Please cite legislation or court ruling which defines natural born citizen in the manner which you claim.
------------------------------------
As you know, there has never been a court ruling (one way or another) on the issue of "natural born Citizen" as it pertains to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That, of course, is the very reason there is an issue today.
There is, however, mention of the definition in the dicta of SCOTUS rulings on OTHER issues.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
Furthermore, "natural born Citizen" was defined in the people's House during the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment concerning "citizenship."
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!
The natural law definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War. "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The natural law definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War. “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No Congressman, during the debates on Citizenship, offered up a counter argument as to who a "natural born Citizen" is. Even though the 14th Amendment was not about who may be considered a "natural born Citizen"... they, the authors of the 14th, al knew what it meant - born in the sovereign territory to (two) citizen parentS.
Then, of course, the Congress in 1790 *tried* to extend the meaning with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Non binding Senate resolution 511 referenced this Act in it's "declaration" that McCain was a NBC because of his two citizen parents.
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did not attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to extend the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS.
One thing you will note on these threads is that nobody can explain why, among the millions of people who knew that Obama's father was a Kenyan, not a single one of them registered a single complaint about his status prior to the election.
It's a puzzle, for sure...
Go ahead and post that history lesson. While you’re at it, post the law from 1961
-------------------------------------
Read my profile.
Indeed.
One thing you will note on these threads is that nobody can explain why, among the millions of people who knew that Obama's father was a Kenyan, not a single one of them registered a single complaint about his status prior to the election.
It's a puzzle, for sure...
---------------------------------------
Not a *single* one eh? Sure about that?
Furthermore, I doubt (though it's admited just a guess much like your "estimate" is), that "millions" were aware of his being born a dual national. The b.c. issue perhaps (kinda like the Chester Arthur days), but I doubt the divided citizen via the 1948 B.N.A. issue was known by "millions" in the summer/fall of 2008. Many people have since learned much about our history that the progressives try to rewrite or otherwise erase.
Was there one person who was paying attention to politics in 2006-08 who did not know that Obama's father was a Kenyan? Obama admitted it in his book, fer cryin' out loud.
Indeed, you can count on everybody who was a professional politician knowing that fact -- which would include most every lawyer, judge and every elected official in the country. Most of whom would doubtless have some passing familiarity with the law.
Yet nobody expressed any concern about Obama's "natural born" status. Why?
Obama's purported dual nationality -- which would not have been recognized under U.S. law at the time of his birth -- is irrelevant to his eligibility for the Presidency. Whether or not he was actually born in the USA is highly relevant to his eligibility.
And, yes, I'm familiar with the Chester A. Arthur case.
I agree. We just don’t know, so we have to go with what we DO know. We cannot right now force the release of the documents.
Stuck at ‘check’..... Grrrrrrr.
Really? Why don't you post a couple of United States Supreme Court cases -- I understand they won't involve the Presidency -- holding that citizens don't have the right to run for elective office. That holding elective office is just a "privilege" that may, or may not, be extended to a citizen.
Try to find just one such case.
Or you could just go back to the Birther playbook, and see what it has to offer:
1. State false proposition as fact.
2. Cite inapplicable trivia as dispositive.
3. Use speculation to bootstrap supposition into a conclusion.
4. Denounce anyone who points out flaws in plays 1-3 as an Obot.
Actually, I haven't seen you guys use play 4 for a while. Did you finally catch on that it is counter productive, or have I just missed it?
“.....holding that citizens don’t have the right to run for elective office.”
Again for those that cannot read.
The presidency is a privilege, not a right because there are restrictions as stated in the Constitution, Article II. Neither naturalized citizens, nor mere “born” citizens are eligible to hold the Office of the President. Read the Constitution.
Supreme Court cases, or any other Federal Court cases testing the above request are non existent because, until Obama, all Presidents met the requirements of Article II, that is, they were Natural Born Citizens.... again birth to two citizen parents in country. (The Constitution makes exceptions for those that were citizens at the time of the passage of the Constitution, and could not have possibly been born to citizen parents.)
The issue here boils down to vetting prospective candidates. Something that Obama was never subjected to by many people that should have known better. Properly vetted, Obama would never have made it on the ballot. Properly vetted the Electorial College would have thrown out the election results. Properly vetted, Congress would have objected to Obama’s election. Properly vetted, Chief Justice would have refused to swear Obama in.
Except for a few people like you, who have a vested interest in seeing that our first communist President doesn’t get thrown out on his ear, or others, who are at present either disinterested or apathetic to the issue, nearly all agree that Obama fails to meet the eligibilty requirements for the Office he was elected to, and currently holds.
The question for today is what are we going to do to rectify this monumental mistake, and Constitutional Crisis. )Yes I know that there are people like you that prefer to stick their heads in the sand in hopes that it’ll just go away.)
....Court cases “....holding that citizens don’t have the right to run for elective office.”
Don’t be so obtuse......Citizens of all flavors, born citizens, Natural Born Citizens and, naturalized citizens, hold and have held every elective office in the nation without restriction.......Except in the case of the Presidency....Read Article II. This office is restricted to Natural Born Citizens only. Other citizens need not apply. It’s the Law.
Birther?????? Sorry sonny-boy, if you are gonna throw around labels try one that fits.....I’m am a Constitutionalist of the Original Intent variety......but then your reasoning and position is so lacking that you feel the need to toss around labels in a juvenile attempt to denigrate anyone that insists that the letter and spirit of the law be observed.....
But hey, have another beer.....it’s done wonders for your cognitive abilities......heck... go ahead and drink the whole six pack, no one will be able to tell the difference in you.....
“The citizenship status of the father was the key.”
That is because in 1700’s the wife did not hold citizenship separate from the husband...the wife always was deemed to have the same citizenship as the husband......All that changed in 1920 when women were granted full citizenship rights including the vote......since then women have held their citizenship separate from that of their spouse.
What I have learned, thanks to 20th and 21st century progressives, is that the Constitution doesn’t mean what the Founders intended it to mean, as discerned from their writings, the meaning of language of their day or from the material they referenced while crafting our Republic, if a progressive politician says otherwise.
In many foreign countries the women still hold property rights and title to inheritance. Why? Because you might not know who your daddy is but you always know the momma.
Forgot to add that women in those countries also determine citizenship status for the same reasons.
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.