Posted on 01/19/2012 7:23:55 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Honestly I think the whole damn thing is a total fabrication, the whole issue is. Hawaii confirms he has legitimate documents there. What is NOT known is what those documents ARE or what they really say.
It is irrelevant anyway, no matter where Obama was born he was never an NBC. However, it could be fodder for future criminal charges. be that as it may, that cannot be proven unless the documents can be gotten into a court. That Obama’s lawyers are trying to state that the states have no right to vet candidates put on it’s ballot is farcical at best. There have been MANY instances of Secretaries of State removing unqualified candidates off of ballots when they do not meet the requirements of qualifying for that ballot.
There have been MANY instances of this, which means that yes, SoS’s DO have the power to remove candidates from the ballot, something further proven by the SCOTUS case McCarthy v. Briscoe which states that SoS’s could INSERT a name on the ballot. Of course this means the reverse is true as well (Justia has erased the In Chambers opinions from the year and volume lists on it’s site. You cant even find this case on Justia any more!!! Here it is from the Right Side of Life: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/11/25/donofrio-v-wells-mccarthy-v-briscoe-the-case-providing-donofrios-standing-at-scotus/ ) McCarthy v. Briscoe is impossible to find online. 429 U.S. 1317 exists and is an In Chambers Opinion. Considering that it provides LEGAL backing for adding or removing a name from a ballot this case should be one that the Georgia Lawyers should be using!!!
Yeppers, there is a SCOTUS case which allows for Secretaries of States to insert or remove names from the ballot.
Also from Leo’s site commentary on the difference between natives and Naturals. Well worth the read!!!
“FREDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The source in question is Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.
Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”. (See Van Dyne’s treatise at pgs. 6-7.)
Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.
In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.
He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents...”
GOD BLESS LEO DONOFRIO!
A fourth set could be someone born in America with no US citizen parents, yet with current US citizenship.
A fifth set could be someone adopted, at birth, to two US citizens in a foreign country.
A sixth set could be someone born in America with no US citizen parents, yet being naturalized at a later time after losing citizenship.
We effectively have no standard qualification once Obama became president.
So this Judge must declare that foreign citizens are eligible if he allows Obama to be on the ballot.
Some Obot or somebody had mentioned how they thought this could get tied up in the court for a few years, which would be fine. If Obama wants to appeal after he's left off the ballot, he's young enough that he could easily run again for office in 2016, 2020, 2024, etc.
Just to clarify. The ALJ will collect information and make a recommendation to the SOS. The SOS then is the one who does the formal declaration supposedly using the input from the ALJ. Then if the decision is challenged it goes to the court and a judge to determine if the SOS made an obvious bad call.
So the first actual decision is with the SOS - not a judge. He could theoretically do what ever he wants, regardless of the input from ALJ. But when an administrator knows that their decision will get challenged or appealed regardless of the decision they usually rely on the presented material for good CYA purposes.
It is a reasonable theory but I think it is likely contradicted by the Hawaiian state “stamp” on it. The stamp says “abstract.” If Obama’s team of idiots were forging it, they would likely have omitted that word and used the same language which was on the known documents from the 1960s. (I no longer recall exactly what it was, but I think it was a “true and correct copy of the record on file” or some such.)
No, I think the word “abstract” is legal weedeling on the part of Hawaii. It allows them to produce something which is misleading, but protects them from any consequences if it should be discovered to not be true.
It is that stamp and access to similar birth documents which convinces me it was created by DOH Hawaii.
:)
If you need a document that states your a lawyer, I can make one up for ya....hehe
The Minor court relied explicitly on their own NBC definition to declare Minor to be a specific sub-set of citizen...that being an NBC.
Only a subsequent ruling by SCOTUS will affirm or deny stare decisis of “in the country of parents who are citizens” and how this applies in particular to Obama based on facts in evidence.
Lots of facts missing so far and not in evidence, IMO:
1. Certified BC (HI or Kenya?)
2. All prior marriage(s) of parents (HI and Kenya)
3. Determination of whether Barry was a UK subject at birth
No Ann did not get UK citizenship by marriage even if the marriage was not bigamous. Nor would she lose her US citizenship automatically in a non-bigamous marriage because that was changed by law in the 1920’s, IIRC. Previously, a woman automatically did lose her US citizenship when she married an alien.
In a bald-faced evasion Obama’s attorney signals to the court that Obama has no intention of presenting a certified HI BC of any kind and that the online April 27 pdf should satisfy the plaintiffs (and the court)!
From the WND story:
begin quote:
In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.
He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.
“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.
end quote
“The NBC conversation in Minor is dicta. Minor v Happersett is only about the Privilege and Immunities Clause and state’s rights to set rules for registering voters.”
WRONG Sven. Please see In Re Lockwood:
LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894)
154 U.S. 116
Ex parte LOCKWOOD.
May 26, 1894
““In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…” “
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116
SCOTUS knew in 1894 that the citizenship issues discussed in Minor were HOLDINGS. What’s taking you so long to get it? You don’t even get what Minor v Happersett was all about. You have to READ these cases dude.
Thanks, I did not remember the 1920 law. :) Got to be clear on facts, right!?
In Wong Kim Ark, the court made a point out of the parents having permanent residence and domicil. The only thing is, Ark’s parents did NOT live in the United States permanently. They later moved back to China, so this court used some other standard to decide that the Arks were “permanent” residents. This was probably because when they came to the United States, they declared an intention to stay here indefinitely, as “permanent” immigrants. Gray used this residence and domicl criteria as a way to ensure the parents satisfied the subject clause of the 14th amendment.
Pardon the long way of getting to the point, but because of this criteria, I don’t see that it would matter whether Stanley Ann became a British citizen OR an Indonesian citizen. In an interview with her friend Susan Blake, SAD expressed the intention to go to Kenya with her new husband after he finished college. IOW, she expressed the intention to go to Kenya ... indefinitely. Because of this, she does NOT have the permanent residence and domicil in the United States needed for her allegedly Hawaiian-born child to become a citizen through the 14th amendment. And if this is not quite compelling enough, I’m pretty sure that on her passport renewal form, after marrying Lolo Soetoro, she put down in writing that she was moving to Indonesia “indefinitely.”
So far as the Supreme Court interpreted NBC and the 14th amendment, one required a citizen father, and the other, without no regard to the citizenship of the parents, still required the parents to have permanent residence and domicil ... based on their intention to live in the United States indefinitely. Therefore it doesn’t matter that SAD was a citizen, only that her intention was to live indefinitely in another country, making her permanent residence and domicil foreign. Because of this Obama has no claim to natural-born citizenship OR 14th amendment citizenship.
At best, he is a statutory citizen through collective naturalization in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, either for the part on territorial Hawaii, or upon Hawaii becoming a state and thus officially part of the United States. His mother’s citizenship technically has no effect on his citizenship UNLESS he was born abroad, and then only if she wasn’t married.
you are 100% correct, but still- Why would he release a fraudulent BC (manufactured)
I believe he was born in Kenya, and dont even let the date fool you- people say she could not have been in Kenya and then gave birth and flew home... or something
I think his entire birth is faked - including the date (had to fit it into an existing date)
I think Obama has done everything possible to keep the birth certificate front and center instead of the SCOTUS case which obliterates any legal claim he had to the office of POTUS.
I believe that he has asked surrogates like Ambercrombie in Hawaii to keep the pot boiling.
In reality it doesn’t matter where he was born, no matter what he could never have been a natural born citizen.
It is relevant because of his parents status at the time of WKA’s birth, not later when they returned to China. They were domiciled here and that treaty with China meant that his parents had changed their allegiance. Could they change it back by going back to China? Of course. Just because they had legal status because of that treaty does not mean that they could change that status, nor does it mean they were citizens or had any of the privileges of being citizens. Gray could have easily used the Treaty with China and avoided all issues with the 14th and his circuitous defense of Chester Arthur. He CHOOSE not to. he wanted to protect the man who raised him to the bench.
I agree with your other very well thought out points!
The pdf is a blatant forgery. If it was a supplemental BC following an adoption it would not be forged. And it would be lawfully certified; the pdf - even considering the vestiges of a seal - is not legally certified because it’s the registrar’s seal instead of the official HDOH seal which is 2 1/4” in diameter.
Would it have to be a GA lawyer? I could give my evidence to a lawyer and have them file an amicus brief; then it would be done by a lawyer. The information is in the public record.
That’s what I believe happened.
But just being quiet isn’t a legal option for the HDOH folks. Since they know that what Obama posted is not what they sent him (it’s not legally certified; has the wrong seal) they have a responsibility to report the forgery/deception to law enforcement. If they don’t it is misprision of forgery. And especially now that Obama’s lawyer has claimed that what they posted online is the actual birth certificate. That is what they claimed, isn’t it?
For Obama’s lawyers to put that in their argument means that Obama is guilty not only of forgery but also of perjury because what he posted is not what the HDOH sent him - unless the HDOH is breaking their rules and the law regarding the legal certification of vital records copies.
No matter how you spell it, both the HDOH and Obama are in big trouble because what was posted online is not a properly, LEGALLY certified copy of anything, much less what the HDOH has in their office.
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.