Skip to comments.Florida judge hears 'birther' challenge to Obama re-election bid
Posted on 06/19/2012 12:04:11 PM PDT by STARWISE
A Florida judge is taking up a national complaint.
The so-called "birthers" are suing to get President Barack Obama's name off the November ballot in Florida. That group doesn't believe the Commander in Chief's birth certificate.
But in a hearing Monday, attorney Larry Klayman told a judge Obama's birth certificate isn't the only issue; the President's father, Barack Obama Sr., was never an American citizen.
Klayman argued that fact alone means the President isn't a 'natural born citizen' and, under the Constitution, can't run for re-election.
The framers wanted a situation where the President, in terms of his background, in terms of his links to the United States, wanted someone who was born in this territory to two citizen parents, said Klayman.
Obama administration lawyer Mark Herron calls that ridiculous. He says nowhere in the Constitution does it say a 'natural born citizen' has to have American-born parents.
Those statements conflict with the United States Supreme Court opinions, as well as other opinions of other courts who have considered this issue, Herron said.
Erin Sullivan traveled all the way from Manatee County to witness the hearing.
His father was not an American citizen, not at any time, she said. It's not even a question of whether it was after he was born. He was never an American citizen, and Mr. Obama's not qualified to be President of the United States.
The suit describes plaintiff Michael Voeltz, as being a registered Democrat.
A final decision on the case could come as early as this week.
I can only hope that those that were sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States will do so.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
His father was not an American citizen, not at any time,
He was if his father was Malcolm X, which is why I think they have kept all of Bozo’s information hidden including his BC!
Hmm, first time an msm reporter seems to have written an accurate account of court proceedings regarding this. Maybe just a decent reporter for once, or maybe they’re starting to sweat and take it seriously.
Gee, I hadn’t heard of Minor v. Happersett.
But HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka in an official communication just indirectly confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that they have NO legally-valid birth record for Obama whatsoever.
So whatever BC Obama used his whole life - regardless of who was listed as the papa - was from someplace besides Hawaii.
Deep, deep doo-doo.
That'd get him 98% of the black vote. Of course it'd lose him 98 % of the white vote.
Seems like a logical reason to withhold his REAL BC!
His real BC is not from Hawaii. The HI State Registrar indirectly confirmed that they have no legally-valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii.
And from the article:
Obama administration lawyer Mark Herron calls that ridiculous. He says nowhere in the Constitution does it say a 'natural born citizen' has to have American-born parents.
It also doesn't say abortion or ObamaCare is a right too. Herron lives up to his name as in Red Herr[on]ing. In his final statement to the judge, he said, you can ignore the old "treatise" and to similar effect.
Translation- judge ignore all the Supreme Court opinions.
The father of record is the Kenyan bigamist. THAT is the legal controling point, so it is really just an exercise in diversionary rabbit holes to argue over the sperm donor. Little barry bastard commie is not a natural born citizen according to the way the SCOTUS has used that term in the past. The current pirate Roberts court is avoiding the issue, as instructed, so the only way We The People have left to remove this treacherous commie is to vote him out with all his entourage of thugs. The democrat party should be driven from politics for their treachery, their treasonous work in placing a known non-eligible lying commie in office. Just remember when the collapse comes that it is directly appointable to the democrat party and their leadership, sustained by the foolish idiocy of democrap voters.
No it doesn't Red Herring.
When the discussion begins with “Because it was not defined in the Constitution...” the public is being played. The Constitution does not include definitions, with but one borderline refinement of the term “treason.” As Chief Justice Waite, among many justices and principal framer James Madison explained, "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar..." No coherent legal Supreme Court reinterpretation of Chief Justice Waite's Minor v. Happersett exists. To his credit, Klayman cites the postive law source, though one can clearly cite Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Jay, Chief Justice Hughes, 14th Amendment Bingham, and dozens of other cases. Jefferson made Vattel our first law book at our first law school, at William and Mary in 1779. Minor v. Happersett: "It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens..."
We at FR have probably seen the whole playbook from the Anita Dunn gang in the White House, from mis-citing Wong Kim Ark, to obscure state court decisions. Federal judges too have become a sad joke, showing the real result of the political patronage at the core of our judicial system. Law is what the mandarins make it. Black robes are not enough. Our legal system is a corrupt mess. Our party system, including the Republicans, who are pounding the big lie by promoting Rubio, are corrupt as well, but don't have the police, justice department or IRS to quiet free speech.
I don't know what legal problems Klayman has had in the past, but am betting we will soon learn.
Because his mother was a foreigner and he was born in another country and his name is not legally BHO.
I keep wondering that, with every SoS or other official challenger drops their challenge,
did the Hawaii SoS simply show them that BO’s father is not officially who BO says he was, and was an actual citizen, but one that would be politically detrimental to come clean about.
What I found hilarious (and telling), was that 0bama’s lawyers didn’t want to address the substance of the issue,
but were arguing that Klayman didn’t have any reason to be in court over this because ‘bammers wasn’t yet officially the democrat candidate in Florida.
The HI State Registrar confirmed to Ken Bennett that the claims on the posted long-form BC are the same claims as on their official record. But because he refused to verify any of the claims on Bennett’s verification request form, Onaka indirectly confirmed that the record they have for Obama is NOT LEGALLY VALID.
Presumably because it is late and altered. Obama’s people had to forge both the COLB and the long-form in order to remove the signs of the document’s legal non-validity, which are required to be on the official document.
Hawaii can’t say when, where, or to whom Obama was born because the record they have is too questionable for them to be able to vouch for its claims - as per Hawaii statute.
I know .. it’s beyond absurd ..
Like, we have to pass the bill to see
what is in it .... DUH
“Fighting to recapture the magic of his history-making 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama on Saturday laid out his fullest-yet case for reelection, pleading with struggling Americans to “keep believing in me” and hitting out at presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
“If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them ‘it’s still about hope.’ You tell them ‘it’s still about change,’” he told a cheering mass of supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, six months and one day before the election. “I still believe in you. And I’m asking you to keep believing in me.”
The arguement is not that he needed american born parents but that they had to be citizens, and his father definitely was not.
kjcanon | June 17, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
Gianni, jbjd is right (literally about everything), but specifically about my role in this effort. I was determined four long frustrating years aog that some how, some way, I was going to find a way to keep ANY ineligible candidate off our ballot here in Texas. Shes been right all along on several aspects of this issue. Namely: THE BALLOT. But she is also right about our laws in the Lone Star State. Follow her blog, as she has not only been guiding our every step, but also chronicling our journey at every pivotal turn. (and theres been quite a few) Thanks to jbjds incredible talent for sniffing out fraud, together weve been able to peel ALL of the layers of this onion. I cant believe we can finally say we have em! The Texas Democratic party thought they could get away with side-stepping our laws by conveniently OMITTING constitutional eligibility language in the ONE document they claim to have used as their basis for certifying their candidates for the Primary election. They must have thought we were all asleep at the wheel, and tried to sneak one past us. Read her article again. Let it soak in. Then read it again! This is going to blow the lid off their little sham sky-high! But really gets me is that they have (for YEARS) been insulting our collective intelligence. That angers me. Never anger a true Texan.
And then listen to the blogtalk show we did just yesterday:
Buckle your seat belts its gonna get bumpy!
PS: We need everyone who knows ANYONE in Texas to go to jbjds blog and get on board.
I wouldn’t get too excited over this. jbjd is the epitome of a blog pimp and the only thing that has been accomplished is an overgloried freedom of information type of release. jbjd drafted a letter for the Texas elections people and they couldn’t understand what she was asking for. jbjd’s biggest concern seems to be establishing herself as a self-declared expert and that she gets some donations on her blog.
Those statements conflict with the United States Supreme Court opinions, as well as other opinions of other courts who have considered this issue, Herron said."
Here are the legal centurions at work. The first clue is Herron’s resort to the fact that so few understand, and which was new to me until I read page 37 of Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, quoting James Madison. The Constitution does not include definitions for a very good but subtle reason. The framers were creating what they hoped and believed would remain as an eternal foundation of our republic, eternal because it was based upon a very popular body of legal philosophy after the enlightenment called “The Law of Nature”, or natural law. From the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, explaining the need to separate from the British monarchy: “...to assume among the Powers of the Earth and the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Naturea and of Nature's God entitle them....” The Constitution was written assuming the definitions familiar to its framers, common law based upon Natual Law. There were not definitions in the Constitution. Time changes the definitions of words. To leave those interpretations to Congress or the judiciary would certainly mean the corruption of the intentions and principles contained in the Constitution, just as politicians are now doing with "natural born citizen."
When Herron claims that “...statements conflict with Supreme Court Opinions, as well as other opinions of other Courts...” those, and STARWISE could probably quote a dozen from memory, Herron doesn't specify majority or minority opinions. No court has decided against the opinion, based upon the common-law, of our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, who cited Vattel in the 1814 citizenship case, The Venus, and differentiated “citizens” from “natives”: 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. “Natives” and “indigenes” were made equivalent by Marshall and “Natives” made legally equivalent to “natural born citizens” in Minor v. Happersett. Herron is simply following the script so that judges can cite the idiotic Indiana court Ankeny decision, which used Leo Donofrio’s 2008 discovery of Chester Arthur's father's lack of citizenship to claim that the public didn't disqualify Arthur in the 1880s so we should assume alien fathers were now common law. In truth, Arthur carefully concealed his father's naturalization papers, and burned his own personal papers just before he died to conceal his ineligibility.
The important decision, one used to confuse the naive, is Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim was born in San Francisco to parents who probably would have naturalized if China didn't forbid it. But Wong Kim was mad a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. That was the decision. The Justice deciding the case mucked up the decision, possible to conceal his patron's ineligibility. Justice Gray talked on and on about English common law but cited Minor v. Happersett and made Wong Kim a citizen, a very important decision because it resulted in the creation of anchor babies, but did nothing to change the definition of, or to affect the definition of natural born citizens in any way.
This complexity is what the legal guardians of the left depend upon. But the statement in Minor v. Happersett, as Klayman asserts, is unequivocal and has never been controverted. Every US Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 in which they all agree, in April of 2008, that a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. Congress is depending upon the misdirection being generated by the media will keep them from having to face their prior dishonesty. You can go down the list of Congressman who tried to pass amendments to Article II Section 1, such as Oren Hatch and John Conyers, between 2002 and 2007, to see that they all knew. Why were they silent? Because McCain was ineligible too, but for the reason of alien birthplace, not alien parents. For just the presidency our founders and framers required both birth on the soil and citizen parents.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who think it is enough enough just to be born in the USA to qualify as a natural born US Citizen, let alone the number of people who take no interest in the current President’s pedigree, credentials, and history.
Very astute anoldafvet. I missed your point the first time through. Herron is intentionally conflating jus soli citizns, those born on our soil and made citizens by the 14th Amendment with natural born citizen, those born on our soil to citizen parents. He counts upon few having actually read the 14th Amendment in which the clause "natural born citizen" never appears. Few will have read 14th Amendment author Judge and Congressman John Bingham's clear affirmation of the Marshall/Vattel/Jay/Washington/Monroe/.... definition in Bingham's two speeches to the House in 1866 where he was explaining the 14th Amendment to those who would need to ratify the amendment.
Obama was probably born on our soil but McCain wasn't, so Obama and McCaskill tried to pass Senate Bill 2678, to make McCain a natural born citizen because his parents were citizens. Why would Obama and his campaign chairperson Clare McCaskill sponsor a bill in February of 2008 to make McCain eligible to be his opposition for the presidency? It all seems so obvious now. It forced Republicans to share in the enormous cover-up of the meaning of Article II Section 1. With the Democrats and Republicans, along with Obama’s media and the justice department, they calculated, correctly, that they could manage the big lie.
S 2678, Obama/McCaskill’s Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, did not pass, and would have violated the Supreme Court's sole authority to interpret the Constitution, so McCaskill and Obama tried again in April 2008, with a resolution, SR 511, which has no force of law, but provided talking points to the press. Can any rational person assume they didn't fully understand Chief Justices John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or Charles Evans Hughes, or Congressman John Bingham? This is about The Emperor’s New Cloths. Everyone knows the truth, and all but a few have lied.
Herron is right...natural born citizen doesn’t mean your parents have to be born here. Look how he twisted it to mean more...the parents have to be Citizens...doesn’t matter where they were born...
These are people who are trying to destroy the understanding of natural born citizenship by first destroying the understanding of citizenship.
If you are absolutely certain of who a citizen is, you will have no problem recognizing who a natural born citizen is.
I also noticed that the OBot lawyers did not cite any legal case authority to back up that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen since they were previously told to do so by the presiding judge.
Ignorance is bliss to ...OBots and their lawyers. But this "misstep" may come back to haunt them. ;-)
The MSM is trying to pound it into people’s heads that “born on American soil” is the ONLY WAY someone can become an American citizen.
No naturalized citizenship.
No statutory citizenship.
No conscious choice of citizenship by anyone or anyone’s parents or grandparents.
Just passive, being “dropped” here on U.S. soil 14th Amendment (and it has been said the 14th has been misinterpreted to create anchor babies) citizenship.
Citizenship with no conscious choice, therefore no value.
Anchor babies hate this country because their parents hated it and didn’t become citizens first.
If you are insinuating that Herron is lying, then explain to me where exactly in the Constitution DOES it say that?
Klayman misspoke when he said the parents must be NBC’s as well. Let’s hope he corrects it.