Posted on 02/14/2011 5:19:20 AM PST by Alaphiah123
“You are so wrong about SCOTUS not having a role in this matter. Who do you think has the responsibility to interpret what “natural born citizen” means in the U.S. Constitution?”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C’mon, the SCOUTS can’t do that. Their only SCOUTS. Eagle SCOUTS might someday become politicians..... but probably not the ones who drop out early.
hehe... I had too. You bit.
What if the SCOTUS says Obama is qualified to be president?
‘The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide’
Barack Hussein Obama II
It appears from some of the things I read that one or more of the justices in the majority opinion had been supporters of Chester Arthur who's father was british. They knew this and that's why they made the decision they did.
The problem is that this case has been used as precedent in many other cases. I think there is a snowball's chance in hell of the US Supreme court reversing it after all this years. I think the only way to correct this is a constitutional amendment specifically stating that a natural born citizen is someone born of two parents on American Soil.
I took an oath of allegiance to the constitution. One of the parts of the constitution is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the law. If I do not like their interpretation then I need to get my legislatures to pass a new law or an amendment. Your suggestion of armed revolt, I believe, is premature. Currently under the laws of this country Obama is legally president (as long as he was born in Hawaii).
You are correct in that the Indianna Supreme court Case of Ankeny vs. the governer of Indiana wrongly stated that Obama met the requirements of Article II of the Constitution in the main body of the Decision, however it corrected itself in footnote 13 of this decision.
It behooves us to remember that this case was about the duties and responsibilities of the Indianna state Governor in elections, and the meeting of Article II qualifications was neither an issue in the case nor was evidence presented to the court so that it could indeed rule on the matter in regards to Barack Obama.
In the aftermath of the Civil War the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing slavery. In part, the subsequent 14th Amendment clarified the issue of the citizenship statis of the former, now freed, slaves by stating that all born in the US to parents subject to the juristriction of the US were citizens.
Essentially the 14th Amendment, and the USSC Decision “Kim Wong Arc” answered the question of whether or not there are “born citizens” OTHER than Natural Born Citizens (i.e. born in the US to two citizen parents...... jus solis AND jus sanquine). Taken together the 14th and Kim Wong Arc they expand the definition of mere “born citizenship” to include those that meet only the jus solis portion of the requirement necessary for Natural Born Citizenship. Keep in mind that while all Natural Born Citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
I once had a pedigreed Cocker Spaniel named “Lady” who fell in love with a local mixed breed mongrel named “Tramp,” and bore him a litter of healthy/handsome pups.
Funny thing though.....the American Kennel Club, while agreeing that the pups were indeed “canines” wouldn’t admit them as Cocker Spaniel contestants in any of their Shows.....Were they dogs?.......Yes. Were they Cocker Spaniels?......nope...... Ineligible because of mixed parentage.
Obama, because of his Natural Born US Citizen (pedigreed) mother Stanley Ann (Lady), and his Mongrel (Kenyan/British)father Barack Obama Sr. (Tramp) is ineligible to compete in the Show Arena of the US Presidency.....he just does not have the pedigree.......
Sooner or later, we’ll all have to admit....Obama is a mutt!
Wong Kim Ark declared that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who had immigrated(legally) to the U.S. has citizenship rights. It further states that the child would have rights equal to that of a NATURAL Born citizen, it DID NOT make the child a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ,it only gave that child the same rights. This actually defines that there is difference between native born and Natural born.
Natural born citizenship is based on the citizenship of the parents, both parents must be U.S. citizens., obama is not and never can be the President of the United States.
Do you know where to obtain the judges ruling that found the New York Board of Elections guilty of fraud for certifying a British citizen (Barack H. Obama) as eligible?
I've looked, and I can't find it either.
I don't believe the headline is correct, and Wong Kim Ark is the wrong case to use as precedent, unless the judge wanted to find that ANYONE born in the US is “natural born."
Anchor babies, Chinese vacation babies, and Ayman al-Awlaki are all “eligible” according to some very misguided individuals.
Besides, if it takes a court ruling, an amendment, a law or a statute to make a person a citizen they are NOT “natural born” citizens, they are “statutory” citizens.
“Statutory” citizens have all the “rights” as a “natural born” citizen. However, they do not have the “privilege” of being Commander-in-Chief.
Persons, eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS), NEVER have first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with natural born citizens who have only American ties.
A “statutory” citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Who has learned anything? As long as we have a criminal, lying media, the people will continue to elect frauds like Obama.
While researching this I have found that the birthers are missing the fact that Wong Kim Ark decision changed this. They site the translation by Vattel and other supreme court cases prior to the Wong decision. I am not a lawyer but why would the dissenting judges in Wong say:
“I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such — as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is, from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.
The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that 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;
and
that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
The dissenters further state:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Again I emphasize that this is the dissenters words. Every law school site I go to says the same thing, anyone born on American soil is considered a natural born citizen.
I don't like it and think that Wong was wrongly decided. However, It is no good to the cause to turn a blind eye to the truth and keep slamming our heads against a brick wall. What we need to do is pass a constitutional amendment defining these terms once and for all.
While researching this I have found that the birthers are missing the fact that Wong Kim Ark decision changed this. They site the translation by Vattel and other supreme court cases prior to the Wong decision. I am not a lawyer but why would the dissenting judges in Wong say:
“I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such — as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is, from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.
The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that 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;
and
that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
The dissenters further state:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Again I emphasize that this is the dissenters words. Every law school site I go to says the same thing, anyone born on American soil is considered a natural born citizen.
I don't like it and think that Wong was wrongly decided. However, It is no good to the cause to turn a blind eye to the truth and keep slamming our heads against a brick wall. What we need to do is pass a constitutional amendment defining these terms once and for all.
Sorry for the double post.
Correct. Being a Natural born citizen is a REQUIREMENT, not a right!! if(unlikely) that obama is a citizen, he still does not fulfill the requirement of being Natural born under Article 2.
Whenever I hear the 'birther' issue brought up, the state sanitized MSM host or hostess always frames the question as 'you don't think obama is a citizen?' and lets it go at that.
I'm really tired of being played. Every one of them swore the oath and pretended it meant something. I wasn't pretending.
Supreme Court of the United States Docket No. 08A505
Title: Philip J. Berg, Applicant
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
Jan 21 2009 Application (08A505) denied by the Court.
Obama Eligibility Appeal at the Supreme Court. Mr. Beverly wanted the Federal Elections Commission to investigate the eligiblity of Barack Obama.
Supreme Court of the United States Docket No. 09-794
Title: Arnold Dewalt Beverly, Petitioner
v.
Federal Election Commission
Docketed: January 5, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15562)
Decision Date: July 1, 2009
Rehearing Denied: September 30, 2009
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 8 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2010)
Dec 8 2009 Appendix of Arnold Dewalt Beverly filed.
Jan 29 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Federal Election Commission to respond filed.
Feb 3 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2010.
Feb 16 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 26, 2010.
Feb 16 2010 Supplemental brief of petitioner Arnold Dewalt Beverly filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2010 Petition DENIED.
Obama eligibility appeals at the Supreme Court: Craig v US
Mr. Craig’s complaint addressed the alleged distinction between the rights of citizenship that attach to naturalized citizens and those that attach to natural-born citizens. Mr. Craig asserted that he, as a “Legacy,” or natural-born citizen, suffered from discrimination due to “exclusion of distinctions” and “omission of acknowledgement” due to Congress’s failure to enact laws recognizing this distinction, whereas it has enacted laws defining the requirements to become a naturalized citizen. Mr. Craig thus sought redress in the form of a declaratory judgment defining “natural born Citizen,” as it appears in art. II, § 1, cl. 4 of the Constitution, and providing a means for citizens bearing that title to obtain certification of that fact from the federal government, as well as punitive damages.
Supreme Court of the United States Docket No. 08-10817
Title: Steven Lee Craig, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: June 10, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-6082)
Rule 11
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 22 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 10, 2009)
Jun 17 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Jun 25 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2009.
Jul 8 2009 Supplemental brief of petitioner Steven Lee Craig filed. (Distributed)
Oct 5 2009 Petition DENIED.
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.