Obama, Rubio Birthers Should Read the Law

The Examiner Washington ^ | 05/24/2012 | Byron York

[circumbendibus]

Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.

But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.

The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.

[New Jersey Realist]

Fireman, I agree with you 100%. Deep in my heart I know this bastard has something to hide. We are just not going at it the right way. I am not that clever but there must be a way to get to the bottom of it without the help of the press. Sheriff Joe is on the right track but he’s getting no help.

I understand the birther movement has a two prong attack. One is to prove he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii and that is the only prong that is correct because the law is clear that if he WAS born in Hawaii he is NBC so the NBC issue is pointless and detracts from the seriousness of this issue. We must prove he is a foreigner.

No one questions his student status. Was he on foreign aid? The press should be all over that. How could he have traveled to Indonesia when there was an American ban there. The press should be all over that.

There are so many things to go after him on that we have a better shot at than proving he isn’t natural born because his father was Kenyan. That ship won’t sail.

[New Jersey Realist]

Edge, listen to yourself. Are you serious?

You say, “It cited and affirmed the exclusive Minor definition of NBC, ” when in fact it said EXACTLY the opposite. Minor v. Harpersett did make a comment on this subject, which some say would disqualify Obama, if applied, but for whatever reason, this recent decision rejects Minor's definition because the court specifically said, “Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise. ” The Arizona judge went with the WKA decision as the precedent setter totally knocking out Minor.

Then you say, “The Ankeny decision admits that there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark. ” When in fact Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana states very clearly, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You're clever, use a word search to find it.

Then you finally say, “The Arizona court simply brushes this aside with a very flawed misinterpretation of the natural-born citizen predent (sic).” A republican appointed judge by the way.

You infer that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOUR flawed thinking is an idiot.

You are either trying to pull my leg or you have a serious comprehension problem. You would do better at joining the “world is coming to an end” faction.

The constitutional question was settled long ago in 1898 when SCOTUS ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that if you are born in this country, no matter what the citizenship status of your parents, you are a natural born citizen with but a few exceptions which Obama doesn’t fall into. The law clarified what the Constitution didn’t specify. The matter is closed as far as reasonable people are concerned.

[Mr Rogers]

It also cites Elk, which says you are either a citizen born or a citizen made.

The court could have written “a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the natural born citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency” - but they didn’t. They were either careless and wrote a false statement, or they wrote what they believed true.

There is no legal basis for claiming there are THREE categories of citizens - naturalized, native born of alien parents, and native born of citizen parents.

[New Jersey Realist]

You say, “Minor, and other USSC decisions have have consistently defined NBC as ‘born in country to citizen parents.’”

A flat out lie! You can’t prove it. Minor just said there was some doubt about a certain class of citizenship but drops it like a hot potato ONLY to be picked up and clarified by a court with more guts.

[New Jersey Realist]

Now you inspired me to pull it out!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re in for a surprise!

[Mr Rogers]

“Minor, and other USSC decisions have have consistently defined NBC as ‘born in country to citizen parents.’ That is settled Law in the US. “

Not true. Minor specifically said it wasn’t going to try to resolve the issue. Thus it left it open for WKA to resolve the issue.

[New Jersey Realist]

I hate it when these threads degenerate into a “you’re a liar, no you are” back and forth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree and I try to avoid it but when someone states an out and out lie it must be addressed. Some people here claim that it is law that a natural born citizen MUST have citizen parents. I ask them to show me that law and all I get is a load of you know what - but NEVER the precise law.

You know, if it was a law, I could certainly live with it. It’s no skin off my nose if you need 2 citizen parents, heck, I’d even go for a rule that says your great grandfather must be a citizen if that’s what the founders wanted. I will do anything the founders want because I honor and respect them.

I also respect that lots of people (like Paine, Jay, Madison, etc., had personal thoughts and ideas but unless it somehow got into writing as part of the Constitution or enacted law, it is JUST an opinion and not binding. Hell, I’d like to have restaurants serve free meals on Sunday! Ain’t goin’ to happen.

I just want to see a precise assertion by some judge or law somewhere that mandates a two citizen parent rule. It can’t be found - but many judges and laws and knowledgable sources state quite the opposite. What is an honest man to do?

[edge919]

It also cites Elk, which says you are either a citizen born or a citizen made.

AND Elk excludes children from being under the operation of the 14th amendment, so it destroys the Fogger and Faither claim that all children born in the country are natural-born citizens under the 14th amendment. You idiot, you showed a direct citation of Minor as THE legal precedent for defining presidential eligibility: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

There is no legal basis for claiming there are THREE categories of citizens - naturalized, native born of alien parents, and native born of citizen parents.

Absolutely false. Minor recognized two separate classes of citizens at birth and Wong Kim Ark acknowledged a separate type of citizenship at birth through the 14th amendment that only applies to children of resident aliens. This has been SHOWN to you conclusively several times. You've just destroyed your own arguments with the Luria quote. Congratulations, fool.

[edge919]

The only issue Minor left open was whether children born in the country to anyone but citizen parents could be citizens. The other class of persons, children born in the country to citizen parents, was EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural born. Wong Kim Ark affirmed this. Why did either decision say ANYTHING about citizen parents when Virginia Minor did NOT make it part of her argument or birth facts??

[Mr Rogers]

So...why is it no court in the country agrees with you? Why is it that 0 out of 50 states agree with you? Why is it that 0 out of 535 members of Congress agree with you?

Oh wait! It is a vast conspiracy! The Supreme Court is in on it. All of Congress. Every state. Every party.

Only edge, and his valiant band of birther brothers know the truth. Only THEY know what Minor said, and only THEY have the magic mirror that unlocks WKA.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For any who wants to read the decisions, here they are:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

[Mr Rogers]

“AND Elk excludes children from being under the operation of the 14th amendment...”

WOW!

You really ARE a fruitcake, aren’t you!

[MHGinTN]

Please remember that the poster wears obamanoid kneepads and will argue anything at FR to defend little barry bastard commie’s illegitimacy as legitimate.

[edge919]

Here's the direct quote to help you understand:

the plaintiff, if born while his parents were members of an Indian tribe, would not be embraced by the amendment even had he been at the time it was adopted, a permanent resident of one of the states, subject to taxation and in fact paying property and personal taxes, to the full extent required of the white race in the same state.

[edge919]

So...why is it no court in the country agrees with you?

You just cited one that does ... and it was the SUPREME COURT. What an idiot. Anyone who reads those links is going to see that I'm right, except that Lynch is NOT a controlling decion and you know that. Wong Kim Ark cited it as an extreme view which they never accepted as controlling on the issue of natural-born citizenship. You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole for your Kenyan Coward™.

[Rides3]

The cases you cite do not define natural born citizen. And in particular, I’m having a hard time understanding why you would cite the Indiana case. It clearly states that WKA did NOT define natural born citizen, and then directly contradicted that by citing WKA as a reason to find that Obama is a natural born citizen. That was a kangaroo court, plain and simple.

The only SCOTUS case that defines Constitutional natural born citizen is Minor v. Happersett: born in US to 2 US citizen parents.

[edge919]

And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark is NOT the legal precedent and Ankney knew it. They only used it to create a justification to punt the plaintiffs arguments as inconclusive. The meat of their dismissal of the case was only by virtue that the governor of Indiana could not be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The Ankeny decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

[altura]

I haven’t read any of the comments or the article. I’m fixin’ to take the article downstairs and read it to my husband who was asking me about the birther thing yesterday because of good old Donald Trump (peace be upon him)

But, as far as getting rid of Obama is concerned, the quickest and best way to do that is in November, only a little more than four months away and the despicable creature can be banished from our leadership.

A lot of freepers need to wake up, put their hatred and self-righteouness on the back burner for a while and get rid of the Kenyan.

After that, if they are not satisfied with Pres. Romney, double down on the tea party movement and find someone better.

But for now there’s an easier way to rid ourselves of this loathsome president... just fill out a ballot.

[Rides3]

And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark.

I strongly suspect that's because Rogers and those like him just copy and paste the scripted defenses they've been handed without reading them. If they have bothered to read the cases they cite, it certainly seems they don't understand them.

[Mr Rogers]

“if born while his parents were members of an Indian tribe”.

It was being part of an Indian nation that was the problem. It had nothing to do with someone just being a child.

“Anyone who reads those links is going to see that I’m right...”

I posted the links so anyone CAN read the decisions. There IS a reason no state and no court agrees with you. A fair reading of those decisions will make it obvious - and the answer is not a conspiracy.

“It clearly states that WKA did NOT define natural born citizen, and then directly contradicted that by citing WKA as a reason to find that Obama is a natural born citizen. That was a kangaroo court, plain and simple.”

No. What it said was that the court didn’t specifically write, “WKA is a NBC” is irrelevant. The argument they used in the decision says WKA met the definitions of NBC & 14th Amendment, and that those two definition are identical.

Of course, you can choose to refuse to believe that, but every court who reads it agrees with me. Every state in the union agrees with me. Every member of Congress agrees with me. When every court, every state and every member of Congress says the decision means A, and you insist it means not A, then your opinion is irrelevant. Further, your opinion is probably the opinion of an idiot, because your theory requires all of the USA to be in a conspiracy. And that is nutjob land...

[Rides3]

A lot of freepers need to wake up, put their hatred and self-righteouness on the back burner for a while

Well... there's this little thing called establishing precedent. If Obama is allowed to get away with being POTUS even though he is Constitutionally ineligible, it leaves the country vulnerable to more of the same.

Obama's ineligibility has to be exposed and he has to be removed from office because his presidency is a direct violation of the US Constitution.

Many know Obama is Constitutionally ineligible, including Obama himself and his attorneys. Obama's attorneys try to argue...

In one of the more bizarre arguments made on behalf of President Obama, his lawyers filed a motion in the Arizona eligibility court case asking that all challenges by the LLF be dismissed. The President’s lawyers argue that it is not the jurisdiction of the courts or the US Constitution to decide who can and can’t hold the office of President. Instead, President Obama’s attorneys insist the voters on election day have the final legal say.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22012/lawyers-challenging-obama-eligibility-speak-out639/

Um... actually... POTUS eligibility requirements ARE specifically stated in the US Constitution.

Why else would Obama's lawyers try to have the Constitutional requirements legally dismissed unless they already know Obama does not meet them?