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 ...
By using a candidate for president they have standing to challenge a candidate for president...
Bump for later
BHO - NBC Supreme court case.
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.
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.
Not true. This case has 0% chance of going anywhere beyond the wastebin.
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.
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.
Let me make a stipulation on my last comment. We SHOULD determine if his BC is authentic.
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.
Two potential issues:
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.
this may help bring that to light
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.
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.
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.
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-)
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?
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.