Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Certification Without Verification (LLF and John Dummett file suits against DNC for NBC proof)
Liberty Legal Foundation ^ | 10/25/2011 | Unknown

Posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:46 AM PDT by GregNH

On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint)

Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

(Excerpt) Read more at libertylegalfoundation.net ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; birthers; certifigate; dnc; eligibility; eligible; ineligibility; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
[snip]By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant we not only target the entity responsible for vetting their candidate, we also avoid taking on any state or federal government.[/snip]

By using a candidate for president they have standing to challenge a candidate for president...

1 posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:51 AM PDT by GregNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Bump for later


2 posted on 10/27/2011 8:26:44 AM PDT by Hang'emAll (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
With King Obama, a devout communists, and his powerful system of judges, Administrators, and the support organizations nothing will stop him from running in every State. You can bet on that! Lets quit fooling ourselves.
3 posted on 10/27/2011 8:27:29 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

BHO - NBC Supreme court case.


4 posted on 10/27/2011 8:30:38 AM PDT by TNoldman (AN AMERICAN FOR A MUSLIM/BHO FREE AMERICA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

I beg to differ. It only takes one win. We have 50 tries with this approach, I am personally working on my SOS in NH to keep him off our ballot.


5 posted on 10/27/2011 8:35:41 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

The lawsuit has merit , and precedent of “ natural-born citizen “ has already been established.

My understanding is that the precedent decision listed online has been electronicly tampered with ,and hacked, and changed.


6 posted on 10/27/2011 8:36:18 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt ( (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11) by GlockThe Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth

Not true. This case has 0% chance of going anywhere beyond the wastebin.

7 posted on 10/27/2011 8:39:30 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

It is time to give this up. If Obummer was born in HI he is qualified to be president. Case closed.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Only diplomats don’t fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. law - Obama Sr was not a diplomat.


8 posted on 10/27/2011 8:42:50 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
With King Obama, a devout communists, and his powerful system of judges, Administrators, and the support organizations nothing will stop him from running in every State. You can bet on that! Lets quit fooling ourselves.

Yeah, lets quit trying to stop the continued destruction of the U.S. by this usurper!

He was never properly vetted in the first place, so lets try to get it done before the 2012 election. Every record for this Bozo has been sealed and you don't even want to know why?

If you want to quit defending our Constitution - fine. But get out of the way so others may attempt correct this ongoing disaster.

9 posted on 10/27/2011 8:44:46 AM PDT by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Let me make a stipulation on my last comment. We SHOULD determine if his BC is authentic.


10 posted on 10/27/2011 8:45:18 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Re your post 8 on the US Code:

Aren’t you equating “citizens of the United States at Birth” as defined in the statute with “natural citizen?”

By the way, I think that in the modern age, with travel so easy, there is a problem with the oft-argued about definition of natural citizen. To me, the idea is that no one should be President “who isn’t from around here.” In the old days, when travel was more difficult, being the child of citizens, and born on native soil pretty much ensured an early upbringing in the culture of the country. That isn’t true now.

I don’t know how to define “from around here” in a way that we could agree on and that would stand up legally, but Obama sure doesn’t act like he’s from around here. He isn’t rooting for the home team—he’s trying to remold it according to some amalgam of leftist, globalist, racist, and Muslim ideals.


11 posted on 10/27/2011 8:49:49 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
The layering/kerning birthers will be deeply disappointed in this guy.
12 posted on 10/27/2011 8:55:08 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Two potential issues:

  1. Is there a precedent that equates "citizens of the United States at birth" with "natural born citizen"? The latter is a "term of art" at the time the Constitution was written, and has a specific meaning that was agreed at the time. As written, "natural born citizen" is a subset of "citizens of the United States at birth".

  2. The US Code doesn't supersede the US Constitution. If the Supreme Court reaffirms their precedent on this issue, it doesn't matter what the US Code says.

13 posted on 10/27/2011 8:56:35 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

This is what the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.?

That is all the Constitution has to say regarding this situation.


14 posted on 10/27/2011 9:04:08 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
There were threads after the election that showed the DNC certificate had different wording than the RNC candidates regarding eligibility. With the exception of HI,

this may help bring that to light

15 posted on 10/27/2011 9:04:23 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

The first word of your post makes the rest of it pointless. CURRENTLY. The laws in effect when he was born control, not whatever it has changed to since.


16 posted on 10/27/2011 9:04:59 AM PDT by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; New Jersey Realist

Why does the court have to “reaffirm” a decision? Minor v Happersett is the settled law of the land as to what is an NBC. Done.


17 posted on 10/27/2011 9:06:26 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

according to who?
A statute does not supercede the US Constitution and a statute in conflict with the Constitution is unlawful. Nowhere in 1401 does it use the words Natural Born Citizen
Get real.


18 posted on 10/27/2011 9:10:18 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

No matter how many times this comes up....

...it never fails in a “Natural Born Citizen” discussion for someone to hop and try a sleight of hand with a “Citizen” argument.

It’s deliberate...

=8-)


19 posted on 10/27/2011 9:10:41 AM PDT by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Minor v Happersett established that the lady in question was indeed a natural born citizen because she was born in the U.S. of American citizens. Let me ask you this. If slaves were imported into this country and never became naturalized citizens, how then can their offspring be citizens?


20 posted on 10/27/2011 9:15:31 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

21 posted on 10/27/2011 9:17:43 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

That’s it, Thanks


22 posted on 10/27/2011 9:20:25 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Glad you recognize the meaning of NBC as stated in Minor.

The 14 Article covers the slave babies.

23 posted on 10/27/2011 9:21:04 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

As I stated perviously, the Constitution does not define natural-born.


24 posted on 10/27/2011 9:21:45 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Not for nothing, but I had these pics because it was my contention and still is that the first doc is forged.


25 posted on 10/27/2011 9:23:12 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

“Only diplomats don’t fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. law - Obama Sr was not a diplomat”

Well, not only. Members of invading armies and Native Injins don’t. But certainly legal aliens do.


26 posted on 10/27/2011 9:24:36 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

“The latter is a ‘term of art’ at the time the Constitution was written, and has a specific meaning that was agreed at the time.”

Yes, and that meaning was citizen at birth, duh.


27 posted on 10/27/2011 9:26:33 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“The 14 Article covers the slave babies”

YEs, and everyone else born on U.S. soil (and “subject to the jurisdiction” of its laws).


28 posted on 10/27/2011 9:30:46 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; DiogenesLamp

Diogenes obot ping back.

NJ, read this and do also read the whole thread. It is quit edifying.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=376#376


29 posted on 10/27/2011 9:30:59 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Ok, you are correct about the slave issue but if Section. 1. of the 14th Amendment which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” my original point is made. To wit, no mention is made of born of citizen parents.


30 posted on 10/27/2011 9:32:05 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Why does the court have to “reaffirm” a decision? Minor v Happersett is the settled law of the land as to what is an NBC. Done.

First, this suit would have to be decided in a lower court. For the federal case, it would be a district court.

The question is whether the lower court would consider Minor v. Happersett to be the "settled law". If the lower court doesn't, the only recourse is to appeal to the US Circuit Court, and then the Supreme Court.

Misinterpretations of US v. Miller persisted as "settled law" for decades, and the Supreme Court avoided the contested issue for all that time. They could do the same now, and there is nothing anyone could do.

31 posted on 10/27/2011 9:32:47 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Thank you your post!

Obama ranks as one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on this republic. Unfortunately, he has a legion of supporters who will exercise any level of mendacity to hide the truth - even some on this forum.


32 posted on 10/27/2011 9:34:10 AM PDT by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere, and Their Supremely Intelligent Designer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Adendum to the above post #29

As I stated perviously, the Constitution does not define natural-born.

Because it was common knowledge as that above link will point out.

33 posted on 10/27/2011 9:34:38 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
As the constitution points out there is a "natural born Citizen", and a "Citizen". If you are a 14th amendment "Citizen" you are a just that. Natural law determines if you are a "natural born Citizen"

So for your argument to hold water we went for almost 100 years using the Constitution as ratified in 1788 electing presidents without a definition of NBC?

34 posted on 10/27/2011 9:41:03 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I’ll read your link but I think we’re going around in circles - although I enjoy a healthy discussion - and lets face it, SCOTUS will not look at this issue because it is very confusing. I would argue that if descendants of imported slaves can claim to be natural born citizens even though no one ever took a naturalization exam, then the matter is settled.


35 posted on 10/27/2011 9:41:24 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/


36 posted on 10/27/2011 9:42:02 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

My understanding is that the precedent decision listed online has been electronicly tampered with ,and hacked, and changed.

Yes, and that really tells you all you need to know.


37 posted on 10/27/2011 9:42:30 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Yes, and that meaning was citizen at birth, duh.

Not necessarily.

There are a number of sources that the Supreme Court considers the authorities on the meaning of legal terms at the time the Constitution was written. One of them is Vattel's Law of Nations, and it's pretty clear on the issue:

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

38 posted on 10/27/2011 9:42:53 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Minor v Happersett is the settled law of the land as to what is an NBC. Done.

Curiously, that is the case that was scrubbed from the Justica site. Anything that referenced the precedent setting case for NBC was scrubbed. Odd, isn’t it?


39 posted on 10/27/2011 9:48:29 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
... a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...

So a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is not the same as a "natural born Citizen".

And to be elected to Congress one must be a "citizen" as opposed to a "natural born Citizen" to be elected President.

Why do you suppose the different terms were used. Were the founders merely sloppy?

40 posted on 10/27/2011 9:49:14 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mortrey

COINCIDENCE! /sarc


41 posted on 10/27/2011 9:49:40 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

It’s not healthy discussion. You are telling me that you read the 387+ comments in 11 minutes? And SCOTUS HAS RULED! As I and others herein have pointed out.


42 posted on 10/27/2011 9:54:32 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

SCOTUS will not look at the issue because it is too confusing? Hardly.

The court is avoiding this because they don’t want to be the ones that make the call. It’s like an umpire calling someone safe at the plate, for fear of the actions of half the fans in attendance.

Unfortunately, what these umpires don’t realize is this: without someone to make the call and keep everyone playing by the same rules, ultimately the baseball game will disintegrate into anarchy, beatings and death.

Ok, i’ll quit with the baseball metaphor ;)


43 posted on 10/27/2011 9:56:58 AM PDT by mills044 (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

“a ‘Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’ is not the same as a ‘natural born Citizen’”

No.

“to be elected to Congress one must be a ‘citizen’ as opposed to a ‘natural born Citizen’ to be elected President.”

Yes.

“Why do you suppose the different terms were used. Were the founders merely sloppy?”

They weren’t, but apparently you are. Different terms were used to control for different conditions. NBC status is one thing, grandfathered presidential eligibility another, and congressional eligibility for naturalized citizens yet another.


44 posted on 10/27/2011 9:59:18 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

No- the framers had to grandfather in those people who “created” America under article II eligibility, as nobody as of yet could possibly have two citizen parents.

Does that help clarify?


45 posted on 10/27/2011 10:00:44 AM PDT by mills044 (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mills044

The soccer metaphor actually makes your point...


46 posted on 10/27/2011 10:01:35 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“As the constitution points out there is a ‘natural born Citizen’, and a ‘Citizen’. If you are a 14th amendment ‘Citizen’ you are a just that.”

You fail law. 14th amendment citizens are not “just” citizens. Even if not equivalent to NBCs, they are discernable from naturalized citizens. For instance, they don’t have to jump through hoops to attain their status. Rather, it is their birthright. Now you’re stuck with three categories, at least.

“Natural law determines if you are a ‘natural born Citizen’”

No it doesn’t. There is no U.S. by nature, and as such no U.S. citizenship thereby.


47 posted on 10/27/2011 10:05:29 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“So for your argument to hold water we went for almost 100 years using the Constitution as ratified in 1788 electing presidents without a definition of NBC?”

This is not so.


48 posted on 10/27/2011 10:06:59 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
They weren’t, but apparently you are.

Hey genius, I get that. My post was to someone who apparently doesn't see the distinction.

49 posted on 10/27/2011 10:07:13 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

That doesn’t contradict what I said.


50 posted on 10/27/2011 10:09:24 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson