Skip to comments.Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Posted on 01/18/2012 7:02:23 AM PST by New Jersey Realist
This Primer, by Stephen Tonchen, is different from, should not be confused with, the WorldNetDaily Obama Eligibility Primer. The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009, more than a year prior to the WND Primer.
UPDATE (4/27/2011): Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, questions 31 through 34 in this Primer have become moot . They are retained here for posterity purposes only. The other 33 questions and corresponding answers remain entirely unaffected. Those questions have acquired even greater importance and relevance, now that Obama's newly-released long-form birth certificate has further substantiated his dual nationality at birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at people.mags.net ...
“Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which viewpoint is correct?
Only the Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of American legal opinion) has the Constitutional authority to answer this question. President Obama has a duty to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his “natural born citizen” status.”
.but I can’t let this go.
Amos 3 and 3.
Until there are enough people willing to die for their country, there will be no way to force this Socialist out.
Can two walk together unless they be agreed? No!!!..not in America, not any more.
Rev....Woe to he that taketh that name, 666. Now with situation being as it is in reference to our present situation with no moral authority, how many today would take that name?
The SOS would be completely within state constitutional authority to order that person removed from the ballot because of "in the opinion of the office, failure to meet the requirements of Article II of the COTUS." Simple enough.
It would then become the removed person's responsibility to bring suit against the SOS for reinstatement. That simple act would make Team Obama the PLAINTIFF, thus removing all impediments of "standing" to have the case heard. After litigation in the state courts, the appeals, brought by either side would move up the federal ladder and to the SCOTUS ... maneuvering those evasive and cowardly black-robed bum-kissers into finally earning their pay on this issue.
There is also the question of Obama possibly having Indonesian citizenship, an Indonesian passport and attending college on a foreign student scholarship as “Barry Sotero”
What we need are a few SOS’s with the willingness to do the right thing. With Christy behind Romney, NJ just might do it but I’m not going to hold my breath. I do feel the hand of satan upon this country.
UPDATE (4/27/2011): Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, questions 31 through 34 in this Primer have become moot.is USELESS. It essentially confers validity upon the document image(s) Obama released or didn't release on April 27. But the images are not what they purport to be. This is so obvious that it is a wonder the Obama has been able to steer clear of prison and/or the hangman's noose.
I dispute this assertion!
The Obama legal team has inserted layer upon layer of defensible legal distance between the White House (forged) LFBC pdf and Hawaii DOH on the one hand and also distance between the LFBC pdf and Obama himself.
The White House pdf image has NEVER been “legally released” as submitted evidence in any legal proceeding. Only one MSM reporter has claimed to have held a copy of the "original" of the HI certified LFBC and "felt the seal" and taken a low quality picture with her cell phone. br
Even on April 27, 2011 (a date that will live in infamy!) Obama’s lawyer went out of his way to state that Obama would not personally be holding in his hand at the press conference the “actual” alleged certified copy of the alleged photocopy of the alleged bound page from the alleged 1961 HI record book!!!
What does that tell you when Obama’s own lawyer won't let him hold the document that he is supposed to be affirming to be genuine???
Your strategy sounds wonderful...the concern I have with it is, didn’t Soros’ organizations co-opt a bunch of SOSs by funding radical democrats to those offices?
On the other hand, isnt it true that it would only take one such case to break the log jam? That SOS would indeed have to have a titanium spine. Does such exist?
Team Obama has spent, by the latest reckonings, $2.5 Million on the legal fight to keep the issue from reaching a court to be heard on the merits. Along the way, they have succeeded in establishing three concepts in the public mind:
(1)Obama was Born in Hawaii as proven by documents issued by the WH, which they have established are all anyone could possible ask for.
(2)In regard to citizenship, "Native," is the same as "Natural."
(3)Those who question #1 and/or #2 are insane, racists, or ignorant; possibly all of the above. They have accomplished these impressive results without a definitive ruling on the issues by any court.
None of the three concepts is proven. But that hardly matters in 21st C America. Or does it? At any rate, Team Obama has certainly gotten its money's worth out of their lawyers, while the citizens of this great land have most emphatically NOT gotten our money's worth out of our public servants.
What we have gotten is a genuine Constitutional Crisis. I repeat my theory: That is, the only way to get this into an American Court is to maneuver Team Obama into the role of PLAINTIFF. Needed? One patriot in one state to merely TAKE HIM OFF THE BALLOT.
This is why Soros mounted a program, backed by his money, to get control of all the SoS slots he could. He knows the Bozo is in trouble there.
President Obama has a duty to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his natural born citizen status.
That will happen when pigs fly.
I do feel the hand of satan upon this country.
That is why prayer is our most potent weapon. Without the Hand of God we will suffer the ravages of satan.
Does anyone know in which states Soros was successful?
Living in a republic under Obama:
Like being in a prisoner-of-war camp-—with unarmed guards.
Living in a republic under Obama:
Like being in a prisoner-of-war camp-—with unarmed guards.
Question No. 1 is extremely stupid. If this is a primer about presidential eligibility, then the “birther” label is irrelevant.
“President Obama has a duty to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his natural born citizen status.”
With all due respect Starwise, the Supreme Court decided this in 1875. Minor V. Happersett is very clear, concise, and impossible to misconstrue. It has also never been overturned.
For SCOTUS to rule in Obama’s favor, they would have to overturn the holding in Minor, which might well affect dozens of other SCOTUS cases spanning 136 years.
Minor v. Happersett literally states an NBC is a person with 2 parents who are CITIZENS and born in country. Obama does NOT fit into this. He should be removed from office immediately and be prosecuted for Crimes against this nation BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE IS AN ILLEGAL POTUS; AND DID IT DELIBERATELY ANYWAY, DEFRAUDING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM, AND GAVE HIS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.
The Supreme Court DECIDED THIS 136 YEARS AGO.
The SCOTUS is an appeals court. No one can "ask it for a Declaratory Judgement" outside of the context of a case brought before it on appeal ... AND ... accepted by the court to be heard. What a President does, is ask his AG to seek opinions from other sources. Guess where that one would go!
Traditionally, 4 Justices must vote to hear a case. Of course, before that vote, the case has to make it through the bureaucracy of the court ... which is a thoroughly Left Wing operation and has been so since Roosevelt. So far, we have had 2 or 3 Justices willing to hear the case for constitutional eligibility, but never 4.
In fact, much of the bureaucratic engine of government that runs our lives, is firmly in the hands of, in many cases, the actual descendants of those Leftists brought to power in DC in the days of FDR.
Run a check on the employees of your Republican representatives in Congress. Their offices are staffed by many Democrats ... sometimes overwhelmingly so.
"Minor V. Happersett is very clear, concise, and impossible to misconstrue."
And yet it has for many years.
Here is what Charles Gordon wrote about the "natural born Citizen" clause in 1968,
"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents...there has never been a definitive judicial decision."
and here is what he said about the Minor decision,
The only question in the latter [Minor v. Happersett] case was whether a state could validly restrict voting to male citizens of the United States... In his generalized discussion, Chief Justice Waite observed that new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it. Charles Gordon, "Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma 1968, Maryland Law Review
This is what J. Michael Medina wrote in 1988,
"Who is a Natural Born Citizen?
The answer to the above question is, quite simply, we do not know. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.[Minor v. Happersett] Because no case squarely on point has arisen, resort must be had to the basic federal scheme of citizenship. It is only clear that naturalized citizens are not natural born. J. Michael Medina, 1987, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement 1986, Oklahoma City University Law Review
And this is what Jill Pryor wrote in 1988,
"Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.2"
And in footnote 2, she writes, "Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth." Jill Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty", 1988, The Yale Law Review
She does not mention the Minor decision at all.
And this recent statement,
"To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase natural born citizen is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Courts 1874 decision in that case." J. Gordon Hylton, posted in comment on Marquette University Law School Faculity Blog, October, 2011. Professor Hylton teaches Constitutional Law at Marquette University.
And than there are the court decisions.
"But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question. Judge Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.
And more recently,
"Thus, the Court [in the Minor opinion] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny vs. Governor Daniels
So while some believe that Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent, it is far from clear that the courts, if given the opportunity, would accept their beliefs over the persuasive opinions of these other guys. In fact, they may give the courts the out they want.
At the Missouri State Qualifications website, Missouri Dem SOS Robin Carnahan requires candidates to meet certain qualifications for the 2012 election. She includes U.S. Senators and Representatives all the way down to Township or Ward Committeemen.
However, I find it quite odd that Carnahan has neglected to list the Presidential candidate qualifications. Why is that? We all know there are Constitutional requirements to be President but Carnahan omitted them.
The lowly elected position of Township or Ward Committeemen and Committeewomen must meet certain qualifications - -
*Resident of county and committee district 1 year next preceding the election
*Registered voter in county and district for 1 year next preceding the election
But no qualifications are listed for the President of the United States. Odd, dont you think?
Oh, and by the way, qualifications for presidential candidates were also omitted from the website in the 2008 election.
Not in all cases.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Art. III Sec 2., Constitution for the United States.
So a state could bring a case directly to the Supreme Court. One, or actually several, should have done so, before January 20, 2009. But, they still could, based perhaps on an objection to some decree from the Won.
Of course, Danae, you are totally correct.
The inference I took (and I agree, Kenny, SCOTUS is the LAST place of resort), is that THIS cretin, this mirage and menace’s eligibility status needs to be decided once and for all ... HIS. However that could be done, and godonlyknows what that way is, I pray SOMETHING or SOMEone soon finds the secret key that opens the door to that ultimate process for HIM before this country is truly in decay and utter ruination.
He’s obviously not going to prompt it by any action (unless he’s banished, impeached .. by his own heavy handed unconstitutionality of presidential actions .. which IS definitely warranted now).
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.