Posted on 01/29/2012 11:19:11 AM PST by devattel
The issue is not just about winning Georgia in an election. The point is, if he was forced off the ballot in Georgia, then other states would have to consider why and even the lapdog media would have to pay attention. “Birthers” would be vindicated and the media would have to explain what happened.
How odd.
In a nation of individual rights, the citizen must have the right to vet a candidate, before voting for them.
Citizens vote for the secretary of state to protect their rights, not pretend that they don’t have any.
Every county has a registrars office where the requirements for office must be clearly enumerated when candidates take out papers to run for office.
Your comments are indicative of the force pushed down on individual citizens to make them believe they have no rights.
That is a separate issue, and I wouldn't want to bank on the courts seeing it correctly. I've talked to a LOT of lawyer types, and they are virtually unanimous that being born a citizen is the same thing as a "natural born citizen."
If the courts see it the same way as most of the lawyers i've talked to, then it is over and the other side won.
My point is, there is a very extensive belief among most Americans and Most Lawyers that just being born in the country makes you a "natural born citizen." It takes a great deal of research to learn that this view is incorrect, and i'm pretty sure none of the judges likely to be involved in such a case will have ever seen any of the research, and will very likely dismiss it without even looking at it.
I think it is an uphill climb to pry judges off their predisposed notions about being born in the country making someone a "natural born citizen."
The smartest thing to do is to contest everything. Contest his eligibility due to his father being a Foreigner, AND contests his eligibility on the basis that he hasn't conclusively proven he was actually born in this country. I'm suspicious that he can't even prove he was born in Hawaii. I suspect his original birth document is just a handwritten affidavit of home birth, most likely written by his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham.
If all he has as an original record is a handwritten affidavit, and no non-family member actually witnessed the birth, it will be very difficult for people to accept this as conclusive proof of Hawaiian birth. He BEHAVES as though there is something wrong. Therefore I suspect something *IS* wrong.
Your comments are indicative of the force pushed down on individual citizens to make them believe they have no rights.
My comment never suggested who should vet. I was merely commenting on the claim to vetting rights by various groups and government entities.
We are seeing a "tipping of the apple cart" by citizens. That apple cart is hundreds of years old. In the past, governments and their citizens went through the motions and ignorantly trusted their parties to choose qualified candidates. If citizens want the right to vet candidates, they should have been vetting candidates day one.
I am very proud of the Patriots in this nation today who are working so hard to make the system accountable. It speaks volumes as to this nation's tenacity.
Democrat Party - no standing
I’ve talked to a LOT of lawyer types, and they are virtually unanimous that being born a citizen is the same thing as a “natural born citizen.”
If the courts see it the same way as most of the lawyers i’ve talked to, then it is over and the other side won.
____________________________________________________________
Doesn’t this whole issue become moot when evidence has been submitted that he has used someone else’s SS# which is a felony? That alone should be enough to keep him off the ballot. Maybe I’m missing something.
Something I haven’t seen addressed, but would like to know, what are the potential consequences of O and his lawyer not showing up? What kinds of actions might be taken by the court?
I’ve got to get in shape to do an extended “happy dance”.
For what it's worth, copy from WND.
The outcome is the same.
On his latest document last year that was testified as fake at the hearing. However, the MSM never questioned the document.
According to the article they are saying they will go into the U.S. District Court and restore the One to the ballot and that it will be easy. One wonders why they would think that and what the federal cause of action would be.
the last word on the second line, between the 25 and the 28...
through spelled as though
The U.S. Supreme Court has already defined natural born Citizen four times.
Former President of the United States in Congress Assembled, David Ramsay, defined it in 1789:
The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.
Do you really want Obamites Butch Kagan and the "wise Latina" deciding this?
You may be right. Rest assured the republican Elites are probably putting tremendous pressure on him to cave on this, citing nebulous national security issues.
Default Judgement.
This will not mean that Indiana (who has a Court Of Appeals case that indicated Wong Kim Ark is precedent and Obama can run ) is conflicting with Georgia. At least I don’t think so.
Different reason for Obama being on the ballot.
There are comments from Scalia that MIGHT indicate that he would not overturn Wong Kim Ark. He quotes WKA in a case and then references his quote in the Nguyen case.
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”
Scalia does talk about natural born citizen in the oral argument of Nguyen in passing as do a few of the other Justices.
The lower court in Wong Kim Ark spent considerable time distinguising Law of Nations - de Vattel from Common Law Doctrine and concluded they could not take into consideration concepts of de Vattel . They made their ruling.
Scotus confirmed without exception.
“There’s always the chance, I suppose, that the Republicans would support a decision that kept Obama on the ballot. They would figure it would help Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and others”
You make an interesting point.
Is it important or not important to the elite that Chester Arthur be shown to be eligible to be President??????
His father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth. If Leo D knows this then surely many of them do as well.
I wonder if this fact plays into any of this.
I am not so sure that this little fact was irrelevant in the Wong Kim Ark case since Gray was appointed by Arthur.
That particular court was very interesting. When it appeared that Justice Horace Gray was not going to get money from the French Spoliation awards - SCOTUS came up with another plan. Gray had recused himself so his vote wasn’t on the table.
Apparently, at one time, Horace Gray’s grandfather was one of the richest people in America. Then he went bankrupt.
As did Horace Gray’s father. These facts also played into the French Spoliation award drama. The son who had the most kids left his share of the award to his brothers instead of his children. This played into as well. Quite the Drama.
You just never know what is weighing on the minds of SCOTUS when they make a decision -especially one as bizarre as Wong Kim Ark.
The US Supreme Court has never, ever issued a formal ruling on the meaning of natural born citizen.
In WKA, the dicta would strongly indicate that natural born citizen is the American form of natural born subject, and thus that someone born here of legal parents would qualify as a NBC.
However, as many birthers have pointed out, it was dicta AND not conclusive in its phrasing. I suspect the Supreme Court would follow WKA, as the Indiana court did. But if a Georgia court rules Obama is NOT qualified, then the states would be using different definitions of NBC. That would force the Supreme Court to take up the issue and make a formal ruling on the question, “Does the phrase natural born citizen require two citizen parents?”
I think as long as the state of Hawaii is willing to certify that Obama was born there, birth location will not be a concern for the courts.
Good work on this issue. I have been following closely. Regardless of which issue, the Judge can actually put all this information in his recommendation to the SOS. It would be like a legal brief. He will cite the reasons given to him and the applicable law. He will also mention the fact that Obama did not show up. This would be much better than a default judgement. I think that is what he will do. It gives the SOS all the ammo he needs to keep BO off the ballot. If appealed, the appealant would have to address all the cited issues and reasoning behind same. That is how I see it playing out(best case scenario). God bless the Ga. Judge and SOS who seem to be honorable men with respect for the citizens of Ga. to whom they serve.
Nonsense. How does that square with David Ramsay's definition in 1789?
Citizenship, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
“[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….”
“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….”
Original intent, remember.
If you want to see how WKA considered original intent, read it here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
I get tired of the bitterness on birther threads, so I’m not going to debate if their reasoning is right or wrong. What is indisputable is that no Supreme Court case has hinged on the definition of natural born citizen, and thus no ruling has ever been made.
All Supreme Court cases to date that have NBC in the decision have all been dicta - legal reasoning that carries some weight, but is not conclusive.
If Georgia disagrees with the conclusions of the Indiana Court in this case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
then it would set up the need for an actual RULING on the question. I think they would follow the reasoning in WKA, but they would not have to do so.
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.