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 ... 1,581-1,6001,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,648 next last
To: STARWISE
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)


1,601 posted on 10/12/2009 9:27:47 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1597 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Kezia’s testimony in HI that BHO Sr was a bigamist and that she, Kezia, was his only legal wife from 1957 to his death under Kenya law

Really? What about Obama Sr's other wife Ruth? Oh and what abot Jael?

1,602 posted on 10/12/2009 9:34:43 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1598 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
All wives subsequent to Kezia that were not married under specific Muslim provision in Kenyan law were bigamous (no evidence that any were and the white wives almost certainly weren't) and would exclude the children of those marriages from being legitimated under the 1948 BNA.
1,603 posted on 10/12/2009 10:06:26 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1602 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Let’s just say that any sane court, anywhere in the world, isn’t going to go down that road, to de-legitimize a child by annulment of a marriage between two now-deceased people that ended 45 years ago by divorce, for purely political reasons.

And, let’s just say that the Founders would not have considered the child of a recorded marriage that was legal in the United States at the time of his birth, to be illegitimate.

Who would be the the injured party, here? Obama? Because he doesn’t like the legal ramifications of his birth father being married to his mother?

Like I’ve said before, it’s just nonsensical.


1,604 posted on 10/12/2009 10:41:38 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1598 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Just because that history exists doesn't mean that the words "natural born citizen" mean any more than what they appear to mean, someone that is born a citizen.

"Natural born citizen?"

There's something missing in your definition, mlo. It's clearly intended to have a more restrictive meaning than your favored interpretation.

1,605 posted on 10/12/2009 10:44:53 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1599 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

There’s no evidence other than hearsay, that this Kezia was ever married to Obama, Sr.


1,606 posted on 10/12/2009 11:03:34 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1603 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

There’s no evidence other than hearsay, that this Kezia was ever married to Obama, Sr.


1,607 posted on 10/12/2009 11:03:34 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1603 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"There's something missing in your definition, mlo. It's clearly intended to have a more restrictive meaning than your favored interpretation."

No, it's "natural" because the person has the status by right of birth. It's not something requiring a special provision. You certainly cannot get "two citizen parents" from the word "natural".

1,608 posted on 10/12/2009 11:07:18 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1605 | View Replies]

To: mlo
You certainly cannot get "two citizen parents" from the word "natural".

Oh, so you're one of them there anti-McCain birthers, then.

1,609 posted on 10/12/2009 11:17:56 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1608 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Kezia’s testimony is not hearsay. You do not appear to understand hearsay.
1,610 posted on 10/12/2009 12:06:09 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1607 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Where has this woman testified, before whom, and what sort of legal record exists of this testimony, under the jurisdiction of Great Britain or the United States?

There are numerous, other Kenyan women who claimed to have been the wife of Obama, Sr., yet there is no way of proving such claims, legally.


1,611 posted on 10/12/2009 12:40:30 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1610 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Oh, so you're one of them there anti-McCain birthers, then.

People born overseas to US citizen parents are called "natural born" not becasue of the identity of their parents, but because they are still citizens at birth.

1,612 posted on 10/12/2009 1:12:28 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1609 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I found this posted on another board and it made sense. What do you think?

If every case is getting tossed due to “lack of standing” why don’t the lawyers speak with the families of the soldiers who have died as a result of Obama’s mismanagement of the Afghan war? Certainly, they have been directly harmed by the Usurper in Chief!

The Supreme Court has refined this inquiry to three requirements, each of which is essential to confer standing on a plaintiff. Id. First, a plaintiff must show they have suffered in injury-in-fact. Id. This means that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. Id. Second, the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant. And finally, it must be likely that a decision in the plaintiff’s favor will redress the injury. Id.

I would say that the families of these fine young men and women that have served and died since Obama took over would have standing.


1,613 posted on 10/12/2009 1:21:38 PM PDT by jcsjcm (American Patriot - follow the Constitution and in God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1612 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I was referring to the hypothetical testimony of Kezia, a 20-year personal friend of Obama and Michelle, who has given details of BHO Sr’s bigamy to the Daily Mail on which she could easily be deposed should it be necessary to save Obama’s presidency.

As I posited, Obama has always known that he has the ability if necessary to show that he was never legitimated under the 1948 BNA under which his birth was “governed”.

1,614 posted on 10/12/2009 1:35:03 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1611 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

You’re reading my mind. That was
my very thought last night. Why
don’t you ask Donofrio ?


1,615 posted on 10/12/2009 1:37:13 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1613 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.’

By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been ‘seven years a citizen of the United States,’ and every senator to have been ‘nine years a citizen of the United States’; and ‘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.’ Article 2, 1.

The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ also declares that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.

1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said:

‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

Wong Kim Ark was legally allowed to vote in the US.

Was Wong Kim Ark Constitutionally eligible to run for
and attain the office of presidency/vice presidency of
the United States ?


1,616 posted on 10/12/2009 2:16:51 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1601 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
"Was Wong Kim Ark Constitutionally eligible to run for and attain the office of presidency/vice presidency of the United States?"

Yes, he would have been eligible. That was not the question before the court, but the court addressed it as part of the legal reasoning leading to their decision. I quoted from the decision earlier. It leaves no doubt whatsoever that he was a natural born citizen.

1,617 posted on 10/12/2009 2:54:53 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1616 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
People born overseas to US citizen parents are called "natural born" not becasue of the identity of their parents, but because they are still citizens at birth.

But we don't require citizen at birth under the Constitution. We require natural-born citizen.

To me, it's rather peculiar, how the term natural-born citizen supposedly applies to births under jus sanguinis through the parents on the one hand, and also under jus soli through the soil, on the other.

You've insisted that "natural" is language that does not apply to parents, upthread. But then, it does?

Such an odd, inelegant way of parsing the language. It's rather obvious to me, given that there is no distinction made regarding natural-born citizens, that the term does not mean one thing here, and another thing there. The evident meaning of other, Constitutional terms of art is consistent, and consistently applied.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus soli, and some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis. Given that Presidential elections actually were and are decided by electoral votes, from each State, and that the Office of President, being the only Office voted upon by all of the several States, had to qualify across varying jurisdictions, how do you suppose a given canidate met the natural-born citizen eligibility requirement in those of the several States that determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis, if the candidate himself did not meet that standard?

There you have the practical reasoning behind the acceptance of the definition of the term, as found in The Law Of Nations. A Constitutional Republic is not a monarchy. A Constitutional Republic often consists of various States in confederacy, with varying means of determining citizenship.

And, a Constitutional Republic such as the nascent United States of America, certainly was not going to acknowledge legal concepts of citizenship under the law in England, that would place them into perpetual allegiance to the very monarchy that they had just fought a war to separate themselves from.

You and I have discussed England's competing claims of citizenship upon the original U.S. citizens, and that the War Of 1812 was fought largely due to England sitting off our shores, seizing and conscripting U.S. citizens, claiming them under perpetual allegiance as natural-born subjects of England.

It is just incredible to me, that you or anyone else would attempt to misconstrue our Founders' intent, to allow a British citizen into the Office of President.

1,618 posted on 10/12/2009 3:11:08 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1612 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I was referring to the hypothetical testimony

You were referring to hearsay.

1,619 posted on 10/12/2009 3:12:47 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Yes, he would have been eligible.

You've gone completely 'round the bend, mlo. There is no way at all, that Wong Kim Ark was eligible for election to the Office of President.

1,620 posted on 10/12/2009 3:14:06 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1617 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,581-1,6001,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,648 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