News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...

[mlo]

If he was born out of the country.

[BP2]

If he was born out of the country.

Out of WHICH country? Oh, Obama SR's country of the United Kingdom, using Blackstone's "natural born subject" definition at the time the Constitution was written ... whereupon "natural born subject" status was granted by way of the FATHER's status with the King under Common Law.

Obama Jr reportedly WAS born “out of the country” — the country of his FATHER, Barack Sr — who was a British subject up until Dec. 12, 1963, when Barack Sr then became a Kenyan citizen.

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

[El Gato]

The law stated that the U.S. citizen must have lived in the U.S. for ten [10] years [obama’s Mom did]

but five [5] of those years had to be after the age of fourteen [14].

Correct, if the child is born out of the country. Certainly if he was born out of the country, and is thus not a citizen at all, he can hardly be a natural born one.

See 8 USC 1401, paragraph g and the "notes", which indicate that the law was changed in 1986 to make it 5 years with 2 in residence, and also indicate the prior 10/5 values.

[STARWISE]

Thank you .. there’s so much vital minutiae in this maze.

[rolling_stone]

Ok etraveler sorry I had an emergency and disruptive day and I went back and checked your link, somehow I missed it earlier. Anyway that is an opinion of one person if you go to the FAQ at that site. His opinion differs from many of us here (but not all).

Vendome, I guess I was thinking about the Polanski case when I made that slip up..lol..

[etraveler13]

I am not trying to decieve anyone. The 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, Title 3, Chapter 1 lists Specific Catagories, rather than my listing them here, I specified only (7) found on page 2 of the Scribes Document.
So, just so you don’t think that I am somehow trying to steer this one way or another, read it for yourself.

---

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1

[rxsid]

Exactly!

[etraveler13]

As I have repeated all day, Phillip Berg has a case in court right now. His contention is that Obama’s mother and father do not qualify for Obama to be a Natural born citizen.

---

However, when a baby is born abroad and only one parent is a U.S. citizen, then you look at the law in effect as of the date of birth of the baby. We contend Mr. Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. In the case of Barack Obama, that was August 4, 1961. The law stated that the U.S. citizen must have lived in the U.S. for ten [10] years [obama’s Mom did] but five [5] of those years had to be after the age of fourteen [14]. Fourteen [14] and five [5] = nineteen [19] – Obama’s Mom was “only” eighteen [18] when she delivered Obama – therefore, she was “not” old enough to convey U.S. “natural born” staus to Obama.
http://obamacrimes.com/

---

He Backs that up with US Code:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1

This is before the courts now...

Its up to you to make up your mind....E

[El Gato]

This information is from the US Code, which clarifies, and adds or subtracts information cogent to the US Constitution.

The US Code can't add or subtract from the meaning of anything in the Constitution, unless the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to define whatever is being added to or subtracted from. Otherwise it takes a Constitutional amendment to change the meaning of the Constitution.

However Congress was given the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, so any statute which by itself makes someone a citizen at birth, must be considered to have done so, for Constitutional purposes, under that power. Thus, for Constitutional purposes, they would have to be considered "naturalized at birth".

After all, we don't want Congress changing the definition, for Constitutional purposes, of "arms", "speech" or even "religion". Do we?

Well I guess some do, since they think the Constitution is such a deficient document as it stands... one of those being Constitutional Law professor and community activist, Barack H. Obama Jr.

[etraveler13]

The US code is a clarifier, and is different today than what it was in 1952, but Obama was held to the rules in place in 1961

[mlo]

If he was born out of the country.

"Out of WHICH country?"

Well, what point are you trying to make? That he's not a natural born subject of Britain or he's not a natural born citizen of the US?

The rule you are citing applies to children born outside the country. According to it, if he was born inside the US then it doesn't say anything about whether he's a natural born citizen of the US.

[STARWISE]

Thanks so much. Is this the sealed case ?
I’m confused .. so many cases and paths,
so little time ... ;)

[mlo]

Exactly! what?

There's no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship.

[raygun]

Er, the contention in question to which I was replying pertained specifically to the NBC issue. That is the predominant eligibility requirement, not ignoring concurrent age and length of residency requirements.

IF the assertion that Obama is NOT even a citizen, Q.E.D., then the eligibility issue concerning the NBC requirement is totally moot; the only question would be how long do we have to wait for forthcoming indictments with the lead charge of "18 USC 911 - False personification - Citizen of the US"? Furthermore, additional charges of misconduct (Obama is a lawyer, is he not?), and malfeasance would be wholly appropriate.

Now its possible that Obama neither uttered, nor published, false personage. Ever. In either case, additional indictments of nonfeasance, misfeasance, consipiracy and any and all acts codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. This most especially if the former IS true, the outcome could in NO way come to fruition without the overwhelming efforts of myriad and legion acting in concert. However, if Obama can be shown to be indictable for false personage persuant to 18 USC 911, that in no way minimizes the latter charges either.

If we set all that aside, not dismissing it whatsoever, and assume for agrument's sake that Obama IS indeed a citizen, then the issue of the Constitutional NBC requirement for eligibility to the office of the chief of the executive branch becomes not only germane, but absolutely central to contention. It is in that case explicitely that SCOTUS, and ONLY SCOTUS, interpret what the Constitution says. For all we know, they may opine that the Founders intended that NO person conveived by artificial insemination, nor delivered via cesearian section, may be eligible to hold office who are we to argue?

Of course, it does get a little vague when The One gets himself cloned; SCOTUS will have to dance around the 25th Ammendment for a little while, but I'm certain that as long as the clone is natural born it'll be alright (thereby guaranteeing an Obama presidency in perpetuity).

Hey, it could happen.

[etraveler13]

I agree as well, Obama Sr, was born in Kenya, a British Protectorate, and as such was a british subject. The mother was disqualified because she was 18, not 19 when she gave birth to Obama, so, if he was born in Kenya, he is not a citizen, regardless of his mothers Citizenship.

However, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. The US and Indonesia did not have dual citizenship agreements then and in fact are just now looking at it.
http://www.baliblog.com/travel-tips/bali-daily/govt-to-allow-dual-citizenship-indonesia.html

[El Gato]

Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . .

Yea, and they took out the words "natural born" in 1795 (footnote 3 is incorrect it was not 1802, but rather 1795 see section 3.)., and have never put them back into into any naturalization or immigration law.

But the very fact that they put them there in 1790 says that the original understanding of "natural born citizen" did not include those born "beyond the sea". The fact that they took them out means that law is no longer in effect. Although from both Blackstone and Vattel it would seem include those born to parents serving the country, as diplomats or in "the armies") but outside of it. The fact that they subsequently left them out may also indicate that someone told them that they did not have the power to redefine a Constitutional term.

[etraveler13]

There are several theories dancing around.
The preponderance of evidence is daunting. The case law is very well documented, and it seems that each day, more is discovered.
Honestly, I do not know how it will all work out, but I am learning alot about the NBC issue.
There are some brilliant minds on it right now.
I am fearful that Eric Holder got to Judge Carter, and may change the outcome of the Orly Taitz case, but only time will tell.

[Kevmo]

Star Traveler acted the same way as you, and she was told to stay off these threads — she was trolling, and so are you. It’s interesting that you consider calling you a troll to be a distraction, because then your definition extends to dozens of other FReepers which makes your definition untenable. That makes you the troll, here.

[El Gato]

The US code is a clarifier, and is different today than what it was in 1952,

Yes it is, but it only refers to citizenship, albeit at birth, not to natural born citizenship, as required under in Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 of the Constitution.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

But you're still wrong, the USC code, nor any law passed by Congress and signed by the President, (the USC is merely the collection of those laws, as amended over the years) cannot change, clarify or negate anyhing in the Constition. Those terms must be understood to mean what they meant when passed, in this instance in 1787.

[etraveler13]

The U.S. law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of “natural-born” citizenship - one which confers “natural-born” status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama’s American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of “natural-born.”