Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed
AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by 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 ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; judgecarter; keyes; lawsuit; naturalborn; obama; orlytaitz; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,461-1,4801,481-1,5001,501-1,520 ... 1,641-1,648 next last
To: mlo

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

~~~~

Curious .. how do you reconcile that statement
with your understanding of our Founders’ immense
bloody struggle to separate themselves from the
British Crown in the fight for the creation,
complete independence and sovereignty for this
new nation, and

when deciding this form of government, their
understandable and explicit requirements in
their documented expressed fears, concerns and
statements that those in the highest office in the
land who came after them shall have no possible
taint or question of divided loyalty or allegiance
to America?


1,481 posted on 10/10/2009 12:30:58 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
How did we devolve this to an issue about John McCain, and not about Obama?

Because all legitimate discussion of eligibility under the Constitution drew to an abrupt halt, when it became clear that Barack Hussein Obama, II was himself questionable. Obama never was beneficiary of such Senatorial collegiality as was John McCain. Where is Obama's Senate Resolution? He has none.

Perhaps some of the information I posted which were from other locations that I supplied links to, got your panties in a knot, for that I am sorry, and wish to state that my interest is in Obama, not McCain.

Your quaint, derisive colloquialisms aside, the operation of our Constitutional Republic is what it is. You've made repeated misstatements, and I've corrected them. Whether your misstatements pertain to McCain, Obama or whomever, even Bobby Jindal, is irrelevant. But, you are the one who brought the topic into discussion, here.

I checked your note on the McCaskill bill, read it, and saw that it was stuck in committee and did not pass. To me that shows due diligence to your words.

I've shown far more understanding of the issue at hand than you've shown, etraveler13. That the Bill was not "passed" means what, exactly? It means that a Bill for Constitutional Amendment, allowing citizens born abroad to parents serving in the U.S. Armed Forces to be considered as natural-born citizens, is languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has not been "passed," let alone ratified. That you do not grasp the meaning of this, means that you don't understand this matter, at all.

Save your sarcasm for someone who cares BTW I've been far more polite than several other FReepers, with which you've exchanged replies, on this thread alone. You clearly do care, otherwise you wouldn't keep returning to your spurious claim that natural-born citizenship is determined via statute, as you have.

Repeated misstatements of fact do not make the misstatements factual, etraveler13, just as breaking the law does not revoke the law.

1,482 posted on 10/10/2009 12:33:59 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1477 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
“We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14).”

This is incorrect. Such a child is a citizen, not an NBC ( and you are quoting the law in effect in 1961, not the current law which requires fewer years after age 14).

The number of years after age 14 for the parent of a foreign-born child only applies to the citizenship of that child who can't possibly meet the NBC standard of both blood and soil for a birth on foreign soil.

1,483 posted on 10/10/2009 12:59:14 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

When a father adopts a child, the biological father is legally relinquished of custody. I know this from personal experience. A child cannot legally have two fathers. Biologically a child can only have one father as well.
So there is no possibility for two legal fathers. Period.

As for the other statement, your entitiled to your opinion, as I am mine.


1,484 posted on 10/10/2009 1:42:14 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1479 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Two distinct jurisdictions certainly can recognize paternity differently, etraveler13.

It’s time for some disclosure. Clearly this is a personal issue, for you.

Me, I’m natural-born under any interpretation, from the strictest to the most liberal. The only ancestors I have who would not be considered natural-born, going all the way back to the so-called “grandfather clause” were native American. Then, there’s the matter of the late unpleasantness, with two ancestors having to pledge the oath of allegiance after Appomattox. But, that still does not change their birth status.

And you?


1,485 posted on 10/10/2009 1:49:54 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1484 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Unfortunately, not true. She is in her position as a result of hte 2006 midterm Congressional elections. Democrats won the majority and thus the voting bloc power and ability to select the Speaker of the House.

Reid is in no position whatsoever. He is Senate Majority leader, not President of the Senate, Pro Tempore. That position belongs to Sen. Robert Byrd, ancient fossil of Virginia.

If there is ultimately validity to these legal arguments and proceedings to be carried out in their wake, it would be strategically best for the GOP (as the current minority party in both house and Senate), to wait until immediately after the 2010 midterms.

Given the current state of disgruntlement among “We, the People”, there should be an all-new cast of characters - which would hopefully mean Pelosi’s removal as Speaker and her relegation to a powerless nobody in the minority party, with no committee assignments...

A.A.C.


1,486 posted on 10/10/2009 1:53:48 PM PDT by AmericanArchConservative (Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Dominus tecum.

You, and truth, are appreciated.

1,487 posted on 10/10/2009 1:54:34 PM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1451 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Because all legitimate discussion of eligibility under the Constitution drew to an abrupt halt, when it became clear that Barack Hussein Obama, II was himself questionable. Obama never was beneficiary of such Senatorial collegiality as was John McCain. Where is Obama’s Senate Resolution? He has none.


I find it humorous that he was a co-sponsor on the McCaskill bill personally....

Your quaint, derisive colloquialisms aside, the operation of our Constitutional Republic is what it is. You’ve made repeated misstatements, and I’ve corrected them. Whether your misstatements pertain to McCain, Obama or whomever, even Bobby Jindal, is irrelevant. But, you are the one who brought the topic into discussion, here.


Actually the article posted brought the topic into question.

I’ve shown far more understanding of the issue at hand than you’ve shown, etraveler13. That the Bill was not “passed” means what, exactly? It means that a Bill for Constitutional Amendment, allowing citizens born abroad to parents serving in the U.S. Armed Forces to be considered as natural-born citizens, is languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has not been “passed,” let alone ratified. That you do not grasp the meaning of this, means that you don’t understand this matter, at all.


I know that it has not passed. Is that not correct?

I have conversed with you and provided my reasoning, you don’t agree, fine.

If your a lawyer, say so, if your not, quit pretending to be.
On this board, I am trying to learn, if you can’t convince me, your not a very good teacher.
IMO you throw your weight around like a legal bully, yet cannot seem to put a cohesive understandable sentance together to convey your point. I have gone out of my way to explain what I understand and why, and where I derive my information. You reply with pompous insults and innuendo.
You must be a joy to work with...

Do you need to have the last word? Be my guest.


1,488 posted on 10/10/2009 1:54:56 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1482 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The law in effect in 1961 is the law that applies, not the laws today.

What I quoted, was the law of the day.


1,489 posted on 10/10/2009 1:56:57 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I am a natural born citizen as well, under any interpretation.

In indonesia, only one legal parent is recognized. In America, the same adoption is recognized. Althought the birth father is known, legal custody, and rights are only recognized from the Legal Stepfather. The child can have a legal name change, but cannot denounce the legality of the step-father. He can ignore, or refrain from interaction, but can only lose that relationship by relinquishment from the step-father, to a new step-father, even if that is to the biological father. Interestingly the father would then legally be a step-father.


1,490 posted on 10/10/2009 2:03:25 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1485 | View Replies]

To: AmericanArchConservative

“... Sen. Robert Byrd, ancient fossil of Virginia.”

Please be careful here ... Virginia has it bad enough; Byrd is from WEST Virginia.


1,491 posted on 10/10/2009 2:04:23 PM PDT by EDINVA (Obama CAN'T see the Olympics from his back porch !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1486 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
You do seem to have all the old BBS tricks down pat. But, before then, your statements require answering, and I'll answer them.

I find it humorous that he was a co-sponsor on the McCaskill bill personally....

As far as Obama, I find it a conflict of interest. There were aspects of that McCaskill-sponsored Bill that were removed, which were far more favorable to Obama. He knew what he was doing, and the entire Senate knew. This pose of innocence is nonsense, on both sides of the aisle.

Actually the article posted brought the topic into question.

As have you. Why were you questioning how the discussion has turned out as it has, then?

I know that it has not passed. Is that not correct?

You've acknowledged that, and I've thanked you for that acknowledgement. You seem to want to present this as meaning that citizens born abroad of parents in service to the military are somehow natural-born citizens as a result, but the opposite is the case.

I have conversed with you and provided my reasoning, you don’t agree, fine.

Some things are a matter of subjective opinion, and some things are not.

If your a lawyer, say so, if your not, quit pretending to be.

I've never presented myself as an attorney. I've sued and been sued. I've studied this eligibility issue from a Constitutional standpoint, and have spent a great deal of time to understand it, for going on close to a year.

On this board, I am trying to learn, if you can’t convince me, your not a very good teacher.

The "teaching" doesn't appear to be the problem, so much as the student. I'm far from the only FReeper who has attempted to point out your errors.

IMO you throw your weight around like a legal bully, yet cannot seem to put a cohesive understandable sentance together to convey your point. I have gone out of my way to explain what I understand and why, and where I derive my information. You reply with pompous insults and innuendo.

What weight I have to throw here is due to having spent time to understand the matter, etraveler13. That is something you appear not to have done, in all honesty. Wishful thinking does not change that. You've received no insult from me, other than my stating that you clearly do not understand this. And, you clearly don't.

You must be a joy to work with...

I had my own, very successful business for over 13 years, and had to shut it down last year, due to the economy. I was hired by a customer, and am employed by that now former customer to this day. That should tell you that at least some find me competent at a minimum, if not a joy. You should try sales for your own business sometime. It'll disabuse you of the notion that what you want always matters.

Do you need to have the last word? Be my guest.

No, please do yourself. I insist, lol.

1,492 posted on 10/10/2009 2:17:37 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1488 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Being the daughter of ol’ Virginny as West Virginia is, the mistake is perhaps understandable, lol.

It goes to show just how upside down our nation has become, that the only person in the current line of succession, that I’d entrust the nation to in the least, would be Robert Byrd.

He’s about as old-school of a Democrat as you’re going to find above ground. He has all the old-school Democrat baggage, too. But he loves his country and his people, that is not at question.

He’d try to do the right thing as he understands it, of that I have no doubt. It’s just that his understanding as a Democrat is too often at odds with mine. He’s still superior to any of the other transnational progressive trash before and after him in that line of succession.


1,493 posted on 10/10/2009 2:25:20 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1491 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
"There’s no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship."

"Curious .. how do you reconcile that statement with your understanding of our Founders’ immense bloody struggle to separate themselves from the British Crown ... and statements that those in the highest office in the land who came after them shall have no possible taint or question of divided loyalty or allegiance to America?"

There's nothing to reconcile. They didn't try to make a rule assuring "no possible taint or question of divided loyalty". How could they? It's not possible. Loyalty isn't just about circumstances of birth, it's a state of mind. There can be no rule requiring someone feel "loyalty".

The fact of the matter is that they addressed the reasonable concern about divided loyalty with the reasonable rule, not the infallible rule, the reasonable rule, requring a natural born citizen. Which they understood to mean as someone a citizen at birth.

There's no conflict in that meaning. The only conflict is with birthers now who think the founders couldn't have meant that. But they did. The historical and common law meaning is clear. Courts have ruled on it. And it is NOT an unreasonable thing for the founders to have required, despite what birthers think now.

1,494 posted on 10/10/2009 2:59:30 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1481 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"I agree with citing Emerich de Vattel's The Law Of Nations regarding the origin of the term natural-born citizen under original intent."

As has been pointed out, Vattel didn't define the term "natural born citizen". He also wasn't talking about universal rules. He was a Swiss philosopher writing in French about general rules. He specifically noted that rules regarding citizenship at birth were different in England.

1,495 posted on 10/10/2009 3:03:15 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1480 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
"As usual, you appear to be trying to ensnare the new, unwary or inattentive FReepers with a blatantly false statement."

Oh get off it. People can disagree with you without being dishonest.

"There is such a dispute."

OK, fine. You tell me you dispute whether BO was a British citizen. Great. Someone disputes it.

But I don't, and the person I was talking to doesn't, and it detracts from the Birther position anyway, who cares?

"Are we to believe that BO II was British at birth just because he says to?"

I don't care. If he was a British citizen, it doesn't matter. If he wasn't, it still doesn't matter. It's the Birther's that think it matters.

1,496 posted on 10/10/2009 3:09:25 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1448 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"The SCOTUS regularly uses "founding-era sources" to define the intent of the Framers in SCOTUS Opinions, especially for Constitutional questions."

Yes, and the SCOTUS did not agree with you on this issue.

"SO, by applying Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen" definition, using natural law in requiring BOTH parents to be citizens ..."

Vattel didn't HAVE a "Natural Born Citizen" definition.

"By applying Blackstones's "Natural Born Subject" definition, using the common law to recognize the children born "out of the country" of the FATHER (only) as being a "Natural Born Subject" of his FATHER's country ..."

Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.

1,497 posted on 10/10/2009 3:14:15 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"I think you fully understand the corner to which BP2 has backed you and your Blackstone "angle", into: Here and Here. It will be interesting to here your answer to BP2's comments."

He didn't back anyone into a corner. He, and apparently you, are missing a basic point. He's trying to apply a rule about being born OUT of the country to the circumstance of someone born IN the country.

The whole discussion stems from whether BO can be a natural born citizen due to parentage, *even if he was born in Hawaii*. Citing rules about being born OUT of the country doesn't exactly address that question, does it?

1,498 posted on 10/10/2009 3:17:39 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1428 | View Replies]

To: mlo

There’s nothing to reconcile. They didn’t try to make a rule assuring “no possible taint or question of divided loyalty”. How could they? It’s not possible.

~~~

I don’t get that reasoning.

From its most basic and logical premise,
would you not agree it’s certainly possible
to most fundamentally determine allegiance to
country from the standpoint of country of
origin and citizenship of one’s parents?

Let me attempt to simplify your reasoning
for my understanding.

My grandparents came here from Poland, where
they were born, and became proud naturalized
citizens of the US.

So, my Mother was born to naturalized citizens
of the United States.

Let’s say hypothetically my grandparents were
merely been visiting here on a visitor’s or student
visas when my Mother decided to arrive into the
world, and they separated shortly after her birth,
with my Grandfather returning to Poland and my
Grandmother choosing to stay here on her visa
to build a life here.. perhaps illegally at first,
and then eventually becoming a legal naturalized
citizen of the US.

And let’s say that, even though her Father never
contributed any financial or other support for her,
my Mother initiated and kept up communications with
her Father and extended family in Poland, and visited
there regularly.

Would the Founder’s and the Constitution assert that
my Mother would be eligible, and completely without
any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another
country, if she eventually successfully ran for and
became VP of the US when she was 35?


1,499 posted on 10/10/2009 3:38:01 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1494 | View Replies]

To: mlo; All

> By applying Blackstones’s “Natural Born Subject” definition, using the common law to recognize the children born “out of the country” of the FATHER (only) as being a “Natural Born Subject” of his FATHER’s country

>> Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.

Perhaps applying CURRENT US statutes and State Dept policy ...

... but NOT in the eyes of the Framers, or the British Crown, both using common law for a British Subject — Barack Hussein Obama SR


1,500 posted on 10/10/2009 3:45:54 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,461-1,4801,481-1,5001,501-1,520 ... 1,641-1,648 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson