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

To: Kukai; null and void; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; ...
This is a generally very good article. However it includes several points that cause the serious Constitutional Lawyer to tune out before getting to the significant material.

The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born”, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett”, a “natural born” citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). “Minor” spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case.

That argument is simply based on a technical misreading of the decision in Minor. The language where the Court itself characterizes its decision as a holding that a person born in the United States of two citizen parents is what technical lawyers call "obiter dicta"--it isn't part of the court's decision no matter what the author of the opinion said.

For these two reasons either of which is sufficient on its own.

The argument in Minor was by a lady who claimed to be a US Citizen. She was born in the United States and there is a legion of authority for the proposition that a person born in the United States is a citizen no matter what the circumstances of their birth. Thus addition of the proposition that both of her parents were citizens is simply surplus language--what lawyers call dicta.

You may not like that answer but there is no doubt or room for argument that is the correct answer as a matter of law--that's the reason all of the lawyers on our side who have made that argument to a court have been laughed out of the jurisdiction.

Further, the only issue before the Court in Minor was whether or not the plaintiff was a US Citizen at all--no argument about whether or not she would be treated as "natural born" under Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

In our law, the question of whether or not an individual is "natural born" is relevant only for purposes of resolving an argument over whether the individual is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. That was not the issue here. Thus addition of the term "natural born" in the Court's holding was again, surplus language not relevant to the decision and is thus dicta.

Given the state of the law on the subject, it is impossible to conceive of a set of facts on which a person would be held not to be Natural Born if they were born in the USA.

I understand that is not the popular view. Personally, in my view, that ought not be the law. But that is the way the Court will come down and failure to deal with a realistic understanding of the law on this topic is what precluded lawyers on our side from being able to disqualify zero from the Georgia ballot.

There are two points about the born in Kenya thesis.

If you could show that he was born in Kenya to Stanley and Obama Senior as parents, he was not born a citizen of the United States at all--applicable citizenship statutes are clear on that point. No possible way he would be held Natural Born.

Further, as the article points out, zero went around for years telling anyone who would listen (and authorizing biographies setting forth) that he was born in Kenya.

Under another fairly obscure legal doctrine in the law of evidence, such statements against interest are in most jurisdictions under most circumstances, evidence that is where he was born.

Since there is no other evidence of any nature where he was born, in the proper legal proceeding (which was in place before the ALJ in Georgia and muffed by our lawyers), a court should hold that zero was obligated to prove on the record where he was in fact born or be held to have been born in Kenya, whether he was in fact born there or not.

50 posted on 08/31/2012 1:26:45 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: David

excellent


51 posted on 08/31/2012 2:41:07 PM PDT by advertising guy (" that lie has it's own sleep number " David Feherty PGA Championship 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: David
“If you could show that he was born in Kenya to Stanley and Obama Senior as parents, he was not born a citizen of the United States at all—applicable citizenship statutes are clear on that point. No possible way he would be held Natural Born.”

My reading of the statutes is that if Stanley Ann was legally single she would meet the residency requirement and Barry would be a US national at birth.

Barry's legal team appears to have gamed this out already and has filed legal papers citing 9th Circuit dicta that would make Barry NBC no matter where he was born so long as his mom or dad was a US citizen.

See:

“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2857598/posts?q=1&;page=101

54 posted on 08/31/2012 3:59:18 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: David

Unfortunately no Court has been willing to decide the issue.

As in times past, it has become the task of the People to enforce the Constitution.Maybe we will luck out and that will be accomplished via ballot box, BUT I have my doubts about that, as I am sure you do.

The Tree of Liberty was not planted with any election manure.Its growth required something much more grave.


63 posted on 09/01/2012 4:28:12 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

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