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)
Can you remember the source, what publication interviewed her or someone who knew about this fact?
It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time.
The fact that Bernard Barker, Vergilio Gonzales, Eugenio Martínez, Frank Sturgis, and James McCord were apprehended at the Watergate is not what caused the potential impeachment and resignation of Nixon. Nixon was not involved in the burglary, and likely knew nothing about it when it happened. What the main issue was, was the coverup.
If Obama’s handlers put false documents up on the “Fight The Smears” site, and Obama went along with it and contrived to keep details of his eligibility covered up, then there is a problem.
Don’t look for the Democrat House to bring impeachment articles, since they are themselves in it up to their ears. And they have strong biases concerning the matter.
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein
SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his NBC status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are - in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.
Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.
In 1968, Eldridge Cleaver was asked for his BC by the California Secretary of State to determine his eligibility. He was not yet 35. Apparently, other states were not so thorough as his Peace and Freedom Party got 35,000+ (.05%)votes in that election.
Regarding pence and cents, you know what I am thinking? Suppose I wanted to make a forgery of the birth certificate. What would I do? I would certainly do research regarding the form itself, the coat of arms, the stamp, the paper, the typewriter, etc... But it would never occur to me to print the price on the form. Why? Because I’ve never seen a price printed directly on a document, so I would think of putting it here.
By the way, yesterday someone made a very good comment about the pence (I wish I remembered what post or which thread). It was historically common in England to charge 7 and a half shillings for all the documents. It was a standard price. This amount used to be called an “angel” at some point. This person even quoted what might have been a literary text. So it’s quite possible that Kenya borrowed this quaint tradition.
Alan Keyes was on the 2008 Presidential ballot in 3 States (CA,CO, FL) and had write in status in four others. I don’t think he would have standing in IL Senate race because the Constitution doesn’t require Senators to be citizens only residents of the states they represent. So, theoretically a Green Card holder could be a Rep. or Sen.
As “King of the World,” Obama will turn our economy into a worldwide welfare system.
I had to get a duplicate copy of my son’s FL birth certificate for him to get a passport. The certified copy looks like the original BC, and has the date the certified copy was made with the signature of the registrar, and the raised seal affixed. I read on the blogs on resistnet that Orly had had this one authenticated prior to filing the papers with the court on Saturday, and still needs to get it certified as authentic. Was Hillary’s trip to Africa already planned, or was this a “spur of the moment trip on Monday”?
It appears to coincide with the divorce between Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. She supposedly accused him of abuse and went for full custody of Jr. and some are saying the birth certificate would have been necessary for the custody proceedings in the divorce. I’m only passing on what others have blogged, as I don’t know, but it sounds plausible to me.
The copy I printed out says the certified copy was generated on February 17, 1964, which would coincide with the final decree of divorce dated March 20, 1964. Where did you get a generated date of August 1964? Is there more than one Kenyan BC floating around???
I found the author of this post and she emailed me back today. She confirmed that she indeed did as described in her post. She seemed on the up & up to me. Posts all over the internet definately conservative & anti obama. Not an obot. I believe her.
I believe that this is splitting hairs to a degree that the Constitution can't withstand. Lawyers have turned the clear meaning of that beautiful document to mud for a long time now, because of it's non-legalistic language.
Lawyerese is the gateway to tyranny, where our Constitution is concerned.
It's pretty clear to me, that the Framers clearly intended that if a President was ever found to be unqualified, then the Vice President would act as President until such time as a new President qualified for the office. Very simple.
I would argue that this phrase from Amendment XX applies even after the swearing in of the President.
"...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;..."
4,875 posted on Monday, August 03, 2009 4:11:03 AM by nikos1121 (praying for -13) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
You come late to this thread on Monday afternoon, and decide that it's a forgery after having read only 25 posts?
Interesting.
Would Obama give Hillary the proof that she was scammed out of her presidency? Not likely.
I wonder how long the Taitz document authentication will take.
I believe that the term President elect was a reference to the personality involved. What else would you call the person involved but what he was? It was a way of identifying certain who should serve. There was only one President elect.
Sorry meant Vice President elect.
I’m 3 days late and 2500 posts (and growing) to go.
I just don’t have the time to sit and read for hours at a time but when I do - it’s begun to seem that many are showing up to raise the same “Kenya wasn’t a Republic” and language problems that were refuted, oh, I don’t know- about 2000 posts ago?!!
But that’s just me.
Kenya called itself a Republic, long before it was proclaimed to be one by the British government.
I have always considered that the reason Clinton didn’t bring this up was because Obama’s Chicago thugs dug up enough dirt on her that she kept quiet.
Just imagine if the entire turth were to come out about the criminal Clintons.
John
"I would argue that this phrase from Amendment XX applies even after the swearing in of the President."
And I would argue it doesn't. It explicitly states "President elect"....what happens after that should be nothing less than the asshole being led out of the White House in handcuffs by the MP.
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.