Judge savagely ridicules Orly Taitz in Jan 3rd hearing.

It says that children born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US “becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” But a person “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized” and that naturalization can only occur by “treaty” or “by authority of Congress”.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I said that what Fuller was referring to was one of those Acts of Congress.

One of those examples of Congrssional authority is to conferr “citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens”.

Right, and in that Act of Congress as cited by Fuller, the foreign-born children of citizens are "considered as natural-born citizens." This is why Fuller thinks they are eligible for President. This is probably in part because he sees Congress's legislation being declarative of natural law such as in the Law of Nations definition that he quoted, which says, "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights" and "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent," and finally, "The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction." In Obama's case, this makes him a British-Kenyan subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Congress can pass an act to declare children born outside the US to citizen parents to be “citizens” but that is in Justice Gray’s opinion a form of naturalization.

Under that same principle, Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment to declare children born of resident aliens to be citizens at birth. By the same logic, this TOO is a form of naturalization. It's probably why Gray chose NOT to apply the term natural-born citizen to Wong Kim Ark or to any child born in the U.S. of a resident alien.

CJ Fuller is objecting to the contention that child of aliens can be President but children of citizens cannot.

Because the lower court cited another court that made a declaration of the child of an alien being a natural-born citizen. Gray never says any child of an alien is a natural-born citizen. It's why he AVOIDED giving any direct quotes from the lower court decision, from Look Tin Sing or from Lynch v. Clarke that uses the term, natural-born citizen. If you think this is what Gray said, give me a direct quote that uses this specific language where it is applied to the child of an alien.

It says they are native born citizens. And we know that native born can be President (Luria v. United States).

"Native-born" in Luria refers to the Minor definition of Native which is "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Luria does NOT cite WKA in reference to presidential eligibility NOR to define native nor native-born.

“[F]arthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law” the statutes he is referring to are those that confer “citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens”.

FARTHEST is a superlative. That's why I called these outliers. These decisions go FARTHER than other decisions, but the extreme position is in the last clause of the sentence you quoted. They are EXTREME because they have "have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents." If you look at Lynch v. Clarke, there's no question that it distinctly claims children of aliens born in the U.S. should be considered to be natural-born citizens. Of course, Gray WISELY does NOT include this direct citation because the Lynch decision is NOT based on good law. It was a personal opinion expressed by the judge. Second, Lynch IGNORED a Supreme Court precedent at the time, I believe, Shanks v. Dupont, which said persons born on U.S. soil could be naturally born as FOREIGN citizens. IOW, the Supreme Court contradicted the opinion in Lynch. This is why Gray does NOT stop at this passage, but instead continues 30 pages trying to build a stronger legal foundation for making Ark a citizen. But once Gray cites Minor and gives the definition of natural-born citizen, based on birth in the country to citizen parents, Gray does NOT use NBC again in the decision. Instead he uses a distinct term that he calls "citizenship by birth" and he emphatically asserts that it can apply to children born of RESIDENT ALIENS, a status of which Obama's father never held. Thus, there's a question of whether Obama is even a 14th amendment citizen.

Friends, what we know; what we believe; what we think is in the Constitution; what we think isnt; isn't worth a hill'o'beans if a court cannot be found to agree ... or disagree ... with any one of us.

This is what the Law and The Courts are supposed to do for us. That's why we have linemen and umpires in tennis ... it's their job to tell the players ...us ... if our shots are inside the line, on it, or out.

If those whom we have selected to serve this function do not, our reaction is to fight amongst ourselves. Every country in this hemisphere has suffered through civil war and insurrection. Some have suffered through wars and revolutions on a regular basis. What makes you think we can continue to escape this fate?

I think we have lived through a successful anti-constitutional coup. Not a lot of options for undoing that if the leaders of the coup contol the vote!

I think we have lived through a successful anti-constitutional coup.

I don't believe this. Most people don't believe this. Most conservatives don't believe this. If you want to know why we aren't taking to the street in a counter-revolution it's because we don't believe this.

Maybe we're all wrong, but if you want us to adopt radical stances like "there is no Constitution and we're living in anarchy," you're going to have to come up with some convincing arguments.

A friend of mine told me that the birth documents released by Obama were forgeries. He explained that it had "something to do with layers." I looked into this, and discovered that someone had interpreted a standard behavior of scan-to-PDF software (breaking the document into image layers) as some kind of evidence of forgery.

Now, my friend is technical enough to understand this, so I went back and told him what I'd found. He agreed that this was not evidence of forgery and then said, "There's something about the fonts that's wrong." I haven't bothered to investigate further because I'm only willing to waste so much of my time.

Whether or not I like its chief executive (which hasn't been the case since 1988), I have a patriotic duty to remain loyal to my country. I'm not going to reject the legitimacy of the entire US government over "something about fonts" or because a marketing blurb mistakenly identified Obama as being born in Kenya of any of the other myriad half-baked "evidence" that circles around this issue.

Frankly, it should tell you something that the only lawyer in the whole country who thinks this is an issue worth pursuing is a part-time attorney who got her degree through the mail.

Dear KIA,

I do not think that we shall fall into anarchy and revolution very soon. There are enough social "cushions," and really dumb people about to prevent an immediate explosion. Being of advanced age, I can at least see that it will (WILL) occur at some future time after my demise. I'll leave you, if you're under 40, and my offspring and their cousins to handle it.

As far as the Birth Certificate controversy goes, why deal with bytes, bits, pixels and layers? It's much simpler than all that infinitely tedious cyber-gab. The birth certificate in question, as presented by the White House to a fawining media and a stupid public, does not match the materials obtained by Team Obama's lawyers from the authorities in Hawaii. Note that these authorities there have told us only, "...that the data matches data on file in the HIDOH."

Ask a real estate title officer, a bank lending executive, or any lawyer on Main Street: Tthere's a huge legal difference between an "abstract," of data on file, and a "certified copy." The Hawaiians flat out refuse to say that the Team Obama-released certificate is a "certified copy." That KIA, is because it isn't. Of course the WH, could prove me wrong in an instant. All they need do is show the world what they got from the authorities in Hawaii!

It's too simple. It's as if the WH tried to create a car title from "Carfax," rather than get a legitimate title from the DMV. It's a fake. But so what? There's nowhere to take the evidence. But that doesn't make it not a fake!

in re the only lawyer in the whole country who thinks this is an issue worth pursuing is a part-time attorney who got her degree through the mail.

Although lumping them together and ridiculing them all at once is a strategy that has worked for Team Obama, there are actually three (3) fairly distinct issues:
<1> Place of birth. We cannot prove where BHO was born and neither can he, to everyone's satisfaction.
<2> Circumstances of birth, i.e., the non-citizenship of the alleged father. Whatever one's "feelings" on this matter of paternity, it will require a specific SCOTUS ruling and intrerpretation of the Constitution to truly resolve the issue of "Natural Born Citizenship".
<3> The suspicious provenance of the Selective Service records and the Social Security card.

Now the statuesque Orly has the best figure and probably the worst legal brain of all the attorneys on the field, true enough. However, bring yourself up to speed on the actual case against Obama's legitimacy by reviewing Donofrio's masterful amicus curiae brief to the courts in Georgia.

Quite frankly, your logic is excellent in regard to the strategy adopted by Team Obama. In agreement with you, they seem to know that no court in the land, much less the SCOTUS on appeal, is willing to look at the various issues upon their actual merits. Basically, you (and a majority of citizens) feel that since Obama was indeed elected, certified as President, and sworn in, that he is the de facto President of the United States.

The minority, to which I belong, accepts your view because the courts having failed to even consider the case, makes your party in the matter at least appear to be temporarily correct. He is the de facto POTUS, but not as yet the de lege POTUS.

As far as the "right and wrong" of the matters goes, until the courts deal with this, it is a profound disagreement. Eventually the matter will be settled by, if not the courts, by impartial historians. Even as Chester Arthur has been found to have committed fraud in his election and was not a qualified candidate, so IMNSVHO will be found one Barack Hussein Obama.

You claim that this is not a counter-constitutional coup. What would you call an executive that usurps the powers of the representative branch? When age or death takes down the 3 remaining independent supreme court justices ... or even one of the 2 semi-independents ...during this 2d administration, the coup will be complete.

The birth certificate in question, as presented by the White House to a fawining media and a stupid public, does not match the materials obtained by Team Obama's lawyers from the authorities in Hawaii. Note that these authorities there have told us only, "...that the data matches data on file in the HIDOH."

What I've seen does not match this claim.

In 2008, when the issue first came up, Obama released his COLB. This sole purpose of a COLB is to legally prove where and when you were born. This document was immediately attacked by the font people and all that. It was a flat scan, and "image experts" assured everybody that the original didn't have the required raised seal. Then a fact-checking web site published photos of the document where you could clearly see the raised seal. That did it for me. I was done with this in 2008.

Then, after 4 years of hectoring, Obama released a photocopy of his long-form birth certificate. The claims that this document was fake are so convoluted that I haven't bothered to chase them all down. I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the materials don't match because I've never seen anyone on the pro-Obama side claim that the second document was an "abstract." Maybe I missed something, but the discussion around this usually involves some monumental word-twisting. One guy (I think in this discussion) claimed that because the HIDOH didn't verify that Honolulu is on Oahu, the whole verification was discounted. That's silly. If might be less silly if there were another Honolulu in Hawaii.

reviewing Donofrio's masterful amicus curiae brief to the courts in Georgia.

I only know of one Georgia case and these "masterful" arguments were thrown out.

Whatever one's "feelings" on this matter of paternity, it will require a specific SCOTUS ruling and intrerpretation of the Constitution to truly resolve the issue of "Natural Born Citizenship".

I agree that a SCOTUS ruling would be helpful, but let's be honest: it's not going to stop the birthers. They will find some reason why the SCOUTS ruling doesn't apply. It will either be some badly-supported claim that BHO was born in Upper Mongolia or something about how he was holding Roberts' children hostage.

Even as Chester Arthur has been found to have committed fraud in his election and was not a qualified candidate, so IMNSVHO will be found one Barack Hussein Obama.

There is some question as to whether Chester A. Arthur was born 15 miles inside of Canada, but there are no conclusive records. Floods, fire and other ravages of time destroy records, and I'm sure that if we went through all 44 presidents, we could find a few whose birth records cannot be located. BHO isn't one of them, however, so I wouldn't hold your breath about being vindicated by future historians.

Chet Arthur destroyed his own records. Catch up on the latest historical research. He was a fraud. You can bet that Team Obama knows all about it, and is trying the same strategy.

in re the BCWhat I've seen does not match this claim....Then, after 4 years of hectoring, Obama released a photocopy of his long-form birth certificate. The claims that this document was fake are so convoluted that I haven't bothered to chase them all down. I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the materials don't match because I've never seen anyone on the pro-Obama side claim that the second document was an "abstract."

Why would they? What they did was take various data on file in Hawaii and use it to create what they adamantly claim is a genuine, even if not certified to be so, copy of a BC. Does it never occur to you that all that was needed here was for the authorities in Hawaii to go into their files and photocopy a BC, stamp it a "Certified Copy of a Document on File," and fax it over to DC?

The BC and the faux ID documents aside, does it not also occur to you that the SCOTUS owes the citizenry a clear Obama-specific explanation of what the hell a "Natural Born Citizen," is? They have been properly asked, you know. Furthermore, various of the black-robed bastards have told us that they are avoiding the issue. Why?

Since Obama IS the de facto POTUS, you are taking that lugubrious fact as an excuse for sweeping my legitimate questions under the rug. BTW, this is no longer "about Obama." Does this "place of birth" reasoning mean that the offspring of two alien residents ... legal or illegal ... can also run for President?

Do you claim that "Native" = "Natural?" Of course, you may be ...gasp... correct. However, since you are not cashing SCOTUS paychecks, there is no reason for me or any other citizen to accept your ruling. IMO, you and your like-minded compatriots accept Obama as the de facto President ... because he is. He spends our money on vacation and we pay for his rides in AF1 and his all-important ESPN subscription. What you have not accepted is that the questions of his legitimacy are entirely appropriate. Me? I claim that until the issues are settled in corcordance with the Constitution... by constitutionally authorized procedures ... the country can go nowhere.

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.