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 ...
That’s it, Thanks
The 14 Article covers the slave babies.
As I stated perviously, the Constitution does not define natural-born.
Not for nothing, but I had these pics because it was my contention and still is that the first doc is forged.
“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.
“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.
“The 14 Article covers the slave babies”
YEs, and everyone else born on U.S. soil (and “subject to the jurisdiction” of its laws).
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
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.
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.
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.
As I stated perviously, the Constitution does not define natural-born.
Because it was common knowledge as that above link will point out.
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?
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.
“JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.”
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.
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.”
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?
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?
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.