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)
Actually, it is retroactive.
The full section reads (note bottom):
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining
the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable
service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of
employment with the United States Government or with an
international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of
title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such
citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent
unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international
organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included
in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this
paragraph. 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
“Sir Edward F. Lavender Source(s): Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library
**”Does ‘citizen at birth’ mean ‘natural born citizen?’”
—Not necessarily. Otherwise they would have adopted Hamilton’s version.
++++++++++++
That said, could the SCOTUS change that or extend the meaning of it (not saying they should), but could they, if they disregarded the meaning of those underlying source documents. Could they say ‘citizen at birth’ = ‘natural born citizen’ and basically punt the ball here and eliminate this issue, other than the devastating (imho) deception/cover up aspects of it?
I’m trying to view the end game legalities here.
Or the SCOTUS could just refuse to bring this case forward, which seems also likely.
Frankly, I don’t really see this going our way.
Anyone else care to comment on the possible SCOTUS outcomes?
Two, California has thrown a presidential candidate, Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver, off the ballot before because he did not meet the constitutional test.
+++++++++++++++++
Can you remind us, or point us to, the specifics in that case?
This from the guy who said at post #6503
but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.
Off hand, I'd say you and facts are only casual acquaintances.
Unfortunately, Keyes was never on a presidential ballot against Obama. I’d think we’d have to face the circumstance of Obama’s not being a US citizen at all (for which there seems to be a small actual possibility) for standing back to their Senatorial faceoff.
I’d think we’d have to face the circumstance of Obama’s not being a US citizen at all (for which there seems to be a small actual possibility) for standing back to their Senatorial faceoff.
+++++++++++++++
Are you basing that on Ann Dunham not meeting the qualifications of the US Statute in 1961, if BO were born in Kenya, or the subsequent law, which she does seem to qualify under, and is retroactive to 1952 births. Perhaps David can clarify that.
Nevertheless, the SCOTUS needs to clarify if ‘citizen at birth’ = ‘natural born citizen.’ They may choose to PUNT.
Thank You...for all your hard work on this and keeping us informed!
Yes, that would be the scenario of birth outside the US with only a too-young Stanley Ann to pass on the citizenship.
Mrs. Prince of Space
machogirl 5548> null and void 6022> machogirl 6039> Bikkuri 6135> machogirl 6285> Bikkuri 6293, 6302> machogirl 6329, SeattleBruce 6912> Eagle Forgotten 6925>
Welcome to FR...
Of course, it's all speculation on what they might do in the future. I suppose just about anything is possible.
#1482 has an interesting comparison.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1482#1482
They did, when they stipulated the qualification that one must be a "natural born citizen".
And, I'm sorry your reversion to the English common law is PRECISELY the outcome the Framers intended to avoid with that particular choic of words.
But thaey never counted on the persistence of Cheburashka!
Sigh
Tom, it IS a copy of the original JPG file that I made. The only true and correct image has "E.F. Lavender" and an "O" not a "6". The "K" and "6" are artifacts created by the JPEG algorithms averaging the anti-aliasing information on the original image capture I did from Orly's FLASH script display. The "K" and "6" images are illusions and NEVER existed.
If accurate, an extremely important clue!
Ie: that there is a record of and E.F. Lavender who served as Registrar at that time in Kenya.
Swordmaker: You have WAY, WAY more patience than I do. I would have stopped explaining the E vs. K issue about 100 Swordmaker posts ago. If people aren't willing to have at least a glancing look at the thread(s) (yes, they are getting very long) then I'm not sure they have an explanation coming.
But, as long as you are willing to walk another mile ...
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.