[Flotsam_Jetsome]

This seemed kind of significant to me, that we appear here to have an actual judge referring to the matter as a Federal one, and important and deserving of resolution to boot. Kicking the can down the road yes, but this seems like a new twist to me, from a judicial standpoint.

Hedging of bets, perhaps?

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

I'd be very, very interested in people's views on the actual judge referring to a dispute vis a vis the constitution and Minor. I was personally taken aback, reading this piece.

[faucetman]

“A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.””

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

““The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.”

This could be HUGH!
or he could find a horses head in his bed, or a dead fish wrapped in newspaper.

(even spell check thinks “Obama” is illegitimate)

[stanne]

From the headline, thought we were talking about Rubio.

Could we?

Here’s what I hear about him:
He can speak for 45 minutes straight without notes.
He’s a senator. (after Ob. can’t we assume there’s not much to that?)

My son had more stringent criteria getting into ninth grade.

[New Jersey Realist]

I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

[Sirius Lee]

Maybe Jughead won't be the dem nominee come October.

Either he's a Kenyan, or by some weird, unprovable fluke he is an American named Barry Soetoro, but he perpetrated such a massive fraud in order to get into Harvard including the forging or theft of federal documents (his CT SSN, draft) that he is impeachable for crimes and misdemeanors.

What if Jughead gets tossed and the dems put up a dem like Ben Nelson who is to the right of Mittens? I can see voter's heads exploding now.

[bgill]

Hussein wants to delay it getting to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS (Thomas) has already admitted they are “evading” it. They’re all in on the delay. Look for 3 resignations or retirements after the election. That will give Hussein a majority with his 5 total appointments of enemies to America and our Constitution to do his bidding.

Ginsburg is 79
Scalia is 76
Kennedy is 75
Breyer is 73

[rodguy911]

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.” “This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

These idiots are about four years too late but I guess better late than never,hard to imagine the judiciary is this stupid.

[philman_36]

So the long and short of it is that the case stays at the Federal level.
Fed Court: Eligibility Question “Important and Not Trivial”
I also told you that LLF had filed a motion to remand the case back to the State court. Last Friday the Federal court denied our motion.
Good. IMO it needs to be at that level.

“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
While I would like to see that in context, evidently someone argued something to garner such a declaration by the Judge, it seems to me that the "dispute" is already settled.

[philman_36]

Here we go...4-13-12 – Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Case Back to TN State Court

[philman_36]

Well, well, well...would you look at this new twist! Defendants further assert that the matter of President Obama’s qualifications for office arises under federal law. In any event, the Court should hold that Plaintiffs’ claims turn on significant federal questions. Defendants offer one other basis for denying remand, that federal constitutional interpretation should preempt any state law claim involving presidential qualifications.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”3 The removal statute, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), provides that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”4 A case may “arise under” federal law where (1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law.5 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”6

Perhaps the Defendants might have known that their case wouldn't pass muster in this State so they forced it into the Federal level to avoid a negative ruling.
The question to ask is...why hasn't this been done before this case is if it's such a significant "federal question"?

[philman_36]

Context before the statement... Based on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are exactly of the kind which “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” As one of the elements of their claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants somehow misrepresented a material fact.14 It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. It is true that viewed from one perspective, Plaintiffs’ suit is about state elections and the manner in which a state political party selects its nominee for federal office and then takes steps to have the nominee’s name appear on the state-wide ballot for a general election. When cast in this light, it could be argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are peculiarly a matter of state law. Nevertheless, the primary basis for Plaintiffs’ state-law claims is the allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as the Supreme Court has defined the term, and therefore not qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs concede as much and actually allege in their First Amended Complaint that President Obama cannot be considered a natural born citizen based on a definition of “natural born citizen” the United States Supreme Court announced over one hundred and thirty-five years ago in Minor v. Happersett. Plaintiffs’ ultimate success in proving Defendants liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation turns then on Plaintiffs’ ability to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as federal law defines that concept.15 Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.”

Furthermore, it is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are “actually disputed and substantial.” There is a sharp dispute in this case over Plaintiff’s main contention that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is otherwise disqualified from the office under the United States Constitution. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor. The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.

IMO things just heated up!

[philman_36]

This gives some insight into the arguments presented... Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).”16

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

[edge919]

It’s really important for Van Irion to emphasize that the Minor definition of NBC, which was unanimously supported, was also unanimously support by both the majority opinion and dissent in Wong Kim Ark. That’s 18 Supreme Court justices that agreed the only definition for the Article II Constitutional term is “all children born in the country to citizen parents” in exclusion of children born of foreign parents. There’s no legal precedent for any lower court to go against the judgment of 18 SCOTUS justices.

[bluetick]

Delurking just to say that apparently this case is being argued in federal court here in my hometown. I need to look into this further and see if there might be an opportunity for me to go watch some of the proceedings. I’ve lost all hope that the usurper will be dealt with appropriately, but I do like surprises. It’s all history in the making regardless.

[itsahoot]

Heck, all he needs to do is come over here, we have several definitions, most of which make no sense whatever, but they certainly look scholarly and legalistic. The more simple case; Did he submit fraudulent documents in an attempt to conceal facts about his citizenship, and other pertinent information. Did he conspire to conceal records that would reveal facts about his past that would disqualify him from eligibility?

Just some of the easier questions to answer, no need for the Supremes to get involved yet.

[wintertime]

“Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

These cases almost always start out in this manner. Then the judges fold like rag dolls.

I pray that God will raise up one good judge with a massive set of gonads.