Note from Orly Taitz on her website:
Posted on 01/29/2010 10:00:25 AM PST by Man50D
Note from Orly Taitz on her website:
I would assume this is a good thing. Won’t they find some technicality to dismiss it though?
Probably but Lamberth is as good as we've got. This should be the friendliest court that Orly has seen yet.
I am pretty sure Obama’s corrupt Justice Dept lawyers argued that it was Quo Warranto and needed to be heard in DC District Court. Clueless Judge Carter said the same thing. Carter spewed crap in his ruling and court comments that was unbelievable. He said that if his mother was an American...blah blah... He had no clue or was playing dumb.
I’m 99.99% sure that he does not qualify for prez, however, there is no one going to take this on because of the consequences. It’s a dead issue unfortunately. What would be my request is that Urkle & Tiger go off to an island together & never be heard of again.
Or...Bribed, he and his family were threatened, or blackmail. At least one man was found shot to death in car the night before testifying about Obama’s passport(s).
Any legally constituted official who doesn’t throw out the Citizen Grand Jury presentments would call into question not just his competence, but his basic grasp of reality.
Dr. Taitz has three factuals i.e. in writing that makes her case more compelling than earlir cases. Her case does not depend on trying to obtain undisclosed speculative presentations as to BHO’s eligibility : instead it presents facts tied to our Constitution such as:
1) The Constitution embeds the Law of Nations into Article I Section 8 duty #9 and 2) It is the Law of Nations that defines a natural born citizen(no plain citizen or native citizen ) as one “ born in the country of parentS who are it’s citizenS” and 3) Article II of the Constitution requires POTUSA to be a natural born citizen and 4) BHO by his own writings has said his father was a Kenyan and subject to British rule at time of his birth— Thus BHO by his own admissions makes himself an offender(violator, usurper) of Article I Section 8 duty #9. The court now has a quandry as to how to sweep Taitz’s pleadings under the Constitutional rug as in the past OR up hold the oath to protect and defend the Constitution based on dedicated facts. If it chooses the first course of action the court will have taken our Nation further down the path being set by BHO and enablers. As a further insight to the thoughts of the Founding Fathers , the Constitutional provision cited also calls for punishment of offenses.
And the reference to law of nations in Article I, Section 8 is not Vattel’s book; it is a general use of a general usage term.
obumpa
The Law of Nations is Capitalized in the Constitution and this indicates it is something specific not general as to an object. The object in this case is a specific two volume treatise known as The Law of Nations which the Founding Fathers were well aware of being men of law and writings.I agree none of this is new. However, what is new is that the so called dots of information have been joined into a coherent argument as to POTUSA eligibility within the total framework of the Constitution,and it does give definition for a natural born citizen for which the FFs were very protective.
Article I, Section 8?
What, pray tell, are you two talking about >
When will this case be heard in the D.C. court ?
No, he's showing the proper regard for a bunch of laughable losers as full of themselves as they are clueless.
Pretty self-evident what that means. It's general usage is clear from the affiliation with piracy, whose treatment among nations became a general convention long before the Constitution was written. The ability to define and punish other offenses against the Law of Nations is also deliberately general.
The folks hawking Vattel’s book, “The Law of Nations” as the be all and end all of the U.S. Constitution, which it never has been, are latching on to this usage as “proof” the book is embedded in out Constitution.
As for the fact that “Law of Nations” is spelled with capitals. Please. In that article alone, we see the following capitalized terms: “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” “Rule of Naturalization,” “Standard Weights and Measures,” “Coin of the United States,” “Post Offices and Post Roads,” “Progress of Science,” ‘Writings and Discoveries,” etc. etc.
As I understand it, the issue of this thread is Obama’s eligibility under the Art. II, Sec.1, Cl.5 of the US Constitution to serve as POTUS. Are you denying that the Founders, Framers, and early Supreme Court Justices were familiar with and influenced by Vattel’s writings?
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.