Posted on 08/18/2014 6:00:08 AM PDT by Ray76
Obama was elected in a constitutional manner.
He was approved for the ballot in every state in 2008 and again in 2012 despite numerous court challenges and state elections board challenges and 19 court rulings have explicitly stated that he qualifies as a natural born citizen.
His electors were unanimously certified by both Houses of Congress without objection. He took the Oath of Office from the Chief Justice.
Both Houses of Congress interact with him as the duly elected president. Congress sends him bills to sign into law. The Supreme Court has upheld some of his policy initiatives as constitutional and the Senate has confirmed close to 100% of his nominees; many have been confirmed unanimously.
In order to prevail at SCOTUS there is going to need to be at least one lower court finding of ineligibility. There has been none to date.
Ineligibility is not laundered by election.
>> Obama was elected in a constitutional manner.
NLRB members held office in violation of the Constitution.
If Obama is ineligible he is holding office in violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution is quite clear that an ineligible person shall not be eligible. There is no asterisk “unless the Office has been obtained”.
Birthers still exist?
>> The Constitution is quite clear that an ineligible person shall not be eligible.
Allow me to better phrase that.
The Constitution is quite clear that a person who does not meet the stated criteria shall not be eligible to hold office.
There is no asterisk “unless the Office has been obtained”.
The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” (”The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;”).
The time to stop an ineligible candidate is before the certification of the votes of the electors at the Joint Session of Congress that is held for that purpose.
The way the courts traditionally have dealt with appointed officials is totally different from the way they approach elected officials. I don’t believe that there is a court in the land that would try to reverse the electoral will of 66 million voters years after the election.
Now if there were to be significant evidence of ineligibility, it might lead to resignation or impeachment, conviction and removal. I could see a grand jury investigation or a congressional inquiry producing such evidence.
Rudy only wants his money back.
Suggest you read up on Thomas Moodie
Moodie didn’t have 19 court rulings stating that he was eligible to be Governor of North Dakota. Obama has those lower court rulings stating that he is a natural born citizen.
Which is meaningless.
Time will tell. The conference on this appeal is September 29th and the announcement on whether Certiorari was granted or denied will follow a few days later.
The U.S. Patent Office and Trademark Office and Obama have waived their right to submit a Brief in Opposition.
Allegations of ineligibility are distinctly different from ineligibility.
He also wants:
10. Thus, Mr. Rudy seeks a declaration that constitutionally Mr. Obama was not and is not a natural born Citizen, and was not and is not eligible to be, and was not and is not, President.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130133324/Rudy-v-United-States-Patent-and-Trademark-Office-Et-Al
I believe that is where the courts get hung up. Declaring Obama to not be the President is up to Congress, in the courts opinion.
More interesting is Professor Titus' amicus brief.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236680266/Rudy-v-Lee-SCOTUS-Amicus-Brief-Obama-Not-Natural-Born-Citizen-8-13-2014
In his discussion of NBC, he starts with a simple analysis of Minor v. Happersett:
Unquestionably, there are two distinct classes of citizenship, “first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.” Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162,167 (1874).
It is well-established that there are two kinds of birth citizenships, one acquired by parentage of birth and the other by place of birth. As for the first kind, this Court stated assuredly in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett that:
At common-law, with the nomenclature ...as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Less confidently, this Court opined in that same case that:
Some authorities go further ...to the citizenship of their parents.
However, 23 years later, this Court appeared to elevate this second view, asserting that citizenship acquired by birth was governed by the English common law rule that citizenship at birth was definedby place of birth...
He follows that with a more in-depth analysis of Justice Gray's opinion and Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark.
But here is the sentence that is interesting.
It is not necessary at this point to decide whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa. Indeed, Mr. Rudy’s case against President Obama’s citizenship is based upon both views — that he is not a natural born citizen based either on his place of birth, or on the citizenship of his parents.
He doesn't rely on Minor v. Happersett for the definition of NBC but instead tells the Court that the choice is between Justice Gray's and Chief Justice Fuller's opinion and dissenting opinion. Apparently Professor Titus believes that the Court made Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen.
They won’t explain why they denied the petition. There will simply be the word - denied.
By the way the respondent has waived the right to a response and no Justice has requested a response (as of today). Normally that means the case has already been denied but because the Court is in recess that may change the normal way things proceed. At any rate if a response isn’t request by about the 21st of September than it is a sure bet the petition was denied.
Kenny Bunk
Your analysis is spot on!
The supreme court and all the lower courts are supposed to go to the constitution as their basis, and use that as their guide.
In the case of the eligibility suits, they MUST correctly apply “natural born citizen” to the cases that come before them.
For them to refuse to hear a case is tantamount to them allowing politics to interfere with the application of the law.
I. E. They have been compromised by “political winds”.
And (to use a military term) have abandoned their posts, and are derelict in their duty.
Admit it, you people. This isn't a legal case. It's a medical case. You want to know if the GOP is alive, or dead? I'll admit that when it came Mitt he Mormon Milquetoast, I couldn't tell!
It's possible I voted for a dead guy.
You see, if anyone living in Albania during the past 11 centuries owned an Atlas, any territory delineated by ANY of the maps in that Geographical Atlas, automatically ipso facto e pluribus unum is part and parcel of the Sacred Soil of Greater Albania, and as night follows day, natives born on, near, over, or under this territory are pari passu subject to Albanian laws, whims, and regulations.
If we are discussing territory NOT in one of these ancestral maps, all that is necessary is that an Albanian has been there suspected or wanted for GTA, White Slavery, Kidnapping, Illegal Alien Smuggling, Nun-Rape, Arson, and Extortion. This of course, automatically confers Natural Born American Citizenship, providing said Albanian speaks Spanish and can present an Anchor Baby and an EBT Card.
I hope this sheds some light on present legal thinking.
CC:
Justice Scalia
Justice Alito
Justice Thomas
You fellows may return to the card table.
Maybe you can dig up a fourth for Bridge some day.
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.