Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
If considering the 14th A, citizen at birth would not mean natural born citizen. The emancipation was aimed at making legal citizens of all those previously ‘held as slaves’ born on American soil or brought to American soil. Such a ‘statutized / naturalized’ citizen would not have citizen parents at their birth point but their children born here would absolutely be natural born citizens.
No kidding...
And in 1961, the requirement was for five years after age 14.
SCOTUS isn’t going to do anything until a real case involving a presidential candidate is brought.
I find it sickening and revolting that this country cannot get a straight answer on who can be president because NOBODY wants to face the fact that there’s a dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen” and there is NO AUTHORITY that the Supreme Court can point to and say, “This is what it means.”
I find this immoral and disgusting. It’s a dirty trick of unbelievable proportions. I am sick with anger.
How could we be so stupid?
So it appears Dr. Taitz' Kenyan BC remains valid?
Kerry was wounded three times in Vietnam — once in the left arm above the elbow (not the forearm), once in the left thigh (where he still has shrapnel), and the third time was indeed in the buttocks.
Somewhere in the preceding 6,000 posts are a few that would make clear how this thread about Obama’s eligibility veered off into Kerry’s war record. I’m sure there’s some logical connection. :)
There is an extensive brief on this issue posted in July last year which engages in a detailed description of how the statutory pattern and effective date clauses work.
++++++++++++
Do you have the link? :) Also if this statute doesn’t apply, what does the phrase “This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;” even mean in this case?
Thanks in advance. Or if this is redundant for folks you can Private Reply instead.
There WAS an Eric Lavender who was a Registrar in Australia, you can find it on an actual Australian document. The “Sir Edwad F Lavender of Kenya” is sourced only anonymous posts on yahoo, etc...
Ahh, shucks. You woke me up from my nighty night just to tell me to knock it off? See my earlier post.
Star Trav is known for her difficulty with facts.
This will be no different.
America needs to do something about how the Internet is filtered by these left loons.
***America is a free country for now, and we have the same freedoms as these lefties. There’s nothing stopping the right from setting up their own search engine or whatever.
“SCOTUS isn’t going to do anything until a real case involving a presidential candidate is brought.”
++++++++++++++++
One of Taitz’ plaintiffs, Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008. How many states was he on the ballot Eternal?
Not necessarily. Otherwise they would have adopted Hamilton's version.
Which as Leo points out, came first...preceding Jay's letter to Washington.
FreeAlaska32 is a noob troll that is here to inject false controversy.
Its a constant flow of lies and nonsense.
Some time ago a poster, EngineerChief, posted information on this. From her research she found that there was a Salvation Army home in Vancouver at the time of 0’s birth but unfortunately it has long gone. You cannot contact her at this time because she has no internet right now. You could do a search on her user name and you will find tons of research. I don’t know anything about ferries but I used to live very close to the American border in Ontario. We would often go across with our children and never had to show more than a driver’s licence for my husband. If the birth had been in Vancouver or perhaps White Rock, the friend of her mother that she told her high school friend she was staying with, could have driven up to pick her up. She would have told the American agent she was going to Canada for the day—no documents necessary. Then on the way back they would have told the Canadian agent they were going home to Seattle—again no documents and away they would go. Easy as pie. We did this many, many times even when our children were very young babies.
“In the 1960’s you could go to Canada from the U.S.A. for a “sightseeing visit” with little or no hassle. You would be questioned about why you were entering, eyed for any suspicious behavior, then waved through. I was there in the back seat of my Dad’s Chevy.”
Actually you could do that up until September 10, 2001.
Cuil (Search 124,426,951,803 web pages)
I went up to canada for the first time in 1972...
You got waved through both ways in those days..
I was in Canada just before June 1st this year...
I was scrutinized going into Canada but the lines were not long...
Coming back after June 1st the lines both ways were long..
They really checked each person coming back into the US..
Until the US increased their ID requirements in 2001, it was a breeze to go to/from Victoria and Port Angeles. Unless you had packages, all you had to do was show a legal ID card with photo.
Well, I’m actually asking about US Code and how that may relate to the Section 1, Article 2 - the POTUS requirement of NBC:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > §1401.
I realize that at the time BO was born, the requirement was for Ann Dunham to have been “physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.
However, this clause changed to Five and Two (I think sometime in the 1980s?) and the clause was retroactive: “This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date” —> Wouldn’t this have applied to BO?? My take is that wherever he was born, he was probably a US citizen (and perhaps a dual citizen of Great Britain) but that he was not necessarily a NBC.
In any case, if BO was born in Kenya, it is a major deception of massive proportions - even if he is a US citizen at birth - or are people suggesting that BO’s is ‘statutory citizenship’. I guess, that is what the SCOTUS should be deciding!!
I’d like to see David’s discussed link about this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=6321#6321
+++++++++++++
All that said, others are pointing out that ‘citizen at birth’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘natural born citizen’ - especially as the Founders intended that clause.
This is why I think this must rest in the judgment of the SCOTUS - which has heretofore PUNTED.
All it takes is one. He was on the ballot as the nominee of the AIP in California, which is where Dr. Keyes’ cases were filed.
I would remind everyone of a couple of other things:
One, Alan was also Obama’s opponent five years ago in the Senate race in IL. If Obama is not a citizen, Keyes should have been the Senator from IL during that time period.
Two, California has thrown a presidential candidate, Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver, off the ballot before because he did not meet the constitutional test.
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.