Posted on 01/23/2015 7:32:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Yes, that is true. 27 attempts to get them to address the issue as applied to Obama have been denied. The latest attempt, John Albert Dummett, Jr. and Edward C. Noonan, Petitioners, v. Alejandro Padilla, as California Secretary Of State, Barack Obama, et. al., Respondents is awaiting action from the Supreme Court on a Cert. Petition at this moment.
And seemingly for the rest of us as well. There will be ugly consequences from letting this corrupt idiot into power.
Sadly true. It’s much like turning the controls of a jumbo jet over to a person who’s never even flown a glider. It won’t end well.
In Obama’s case, add in the factor that he hates the passengers on the jet, and has—or imagines he has—a fail-proof parachute at the ready. He’s likely to be the most unhappily surprised of all.
No court ruling and no action of Congress has created a separate category called “natural born citizen” that is distinct from “Citizen of the United States At Birth.”
That being the case, then the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution still abide.
The courts have interpreted the terms “natural born citizen” and “Citizen of the United States At Birth” to be synonymous over the last 117 years. No court and no action of Congress has ever stated anything different. If a person qualifies as a 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States At Birth under the current law of the land (8 USC 1401) then they are also an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born citizen as well.
For example: Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
and: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
or: Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
The person you are arguing with posted a link to the site of a poster JR had banned. As to the tagline, it is a sham. The party in question has exhibited beyond the shadow of a doubt that he has no idea what Palin stands for; in fact, he’s been promoting the very things she stands against.
Just so you know.
Bravo! Exactly right. And, we know from the contemporaneous record what they intended:
That the commander-in-chief of our nation's armed forces should bear no allegiance or loyalty to any other nation by reason of birth.
We had just completed a bloody, painful struggle with England and the founders had no desire for a future commander with any possible allegiance to a European nation.
The fact they gave the legislature the authority to speak on future matters of citizenship should not be allowed to redefine their underlying qualification.
Court rulings explicitedly stating that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen:
1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
9) Judd v. Obama (California)
10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
12) Paige v. Obama (Vermont)
13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
15) Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (NY)
16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
17) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
18) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
19) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)
Court rulings staing that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen: 0
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
"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."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
For his own good, he needs to STFU and go away.
From “The Father of the Constitution, Congressman James Madison:”
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States. It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton
And jumping ahead 223 years:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
The act of birth is in accordance with “The laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
The law of the land under the Constitution states that a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” includes: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
There is no distinction in law between a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” and a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Parentage is a much too inexact standard. In all the years of the republic before DNA testing, how could fatherhood ever have been precisely determined? Just because a man raises a child as the father does not mean that he is the true biological father.
"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."....David Ramsay, 1789.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Regarding your New Jersey administrative law judge..... So what.
The Madison quotation has been used in legal briefs submitted in eligibility lawsuits and Obama ballot challenges since 2008. Its up to judges to decide if the quotation is out of context or not.
In his 1829 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), who in 1791 had been appointed the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington, wrote that:
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html
In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that:
“[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The court went on to say: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and the majority decision stated:
“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
You cannot cite any authority on which Rawle relied for his personal opinion as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. And by the way, Rawle was just one of those “authorities” to whom Minor referred when it said “some authorities” (the Court did not even feel it merited mentioning their names) go further and consider as “citizens” those born in the country without reference to their parents. Note that our Supreme Court did not cite any case that so held but just referred to “some authorities” that took what the Court described as a doubtful position. ... Puzo 2009.
Nonsense.
The Declaration of Independence is a document with its roots in the law of God. Perhaps the best place to begin understanding how the Declaration serves in this capacity is to discern how the framers understood and applied its principles to the creation and formation of civil government. If we can understand how they took the Declaration’s principles and applied them to the formation of constitutions, then we too should be able to apply those same principles to any other legal difficulties that our constitutional governments may face.
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence sets the stage for the American revolution and its indispensable reliance on the laws of God, the Creator.26 It declares:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
By invoking the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God’s law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God’s Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature’s God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God’s creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.
If you can find a modern day conservative, traditionalist, orginalist judge anywhere in America to take up that interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Obama eligiblity issue might have gone somewhere.
But today, February 10th is the eighth anniversary of when Senator Barack Obama first announced that he was a candidate for the presidency and in 349 attempts to have him ruled ineligible, there have been no judicial victories in local courts, state courts, federal courts, appeals courts or state and federal Supreme Courts.
The constitutional interpretation set forth in 1898 in U.S v Wong Kim Ark has prevailed and continues to prevail,
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.