Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Message to the SCOTUS: Stop Avoiding the Eligibility Issue
Creating Orwellian Worldview ^ | 2/14/11 | Alaphiah

Posted on 02/14/2011 5:19:20 AM PST by Alaphiah123

It is the 3,000 lb gorilla in the middle of American politics. Is Barry Hussein Soetoro eligible to be president of the United States of America? And if he isn’t, why is everyone who has a sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States allowing an illegitimate Usurper to continue his personal quest to undermine the fundamental principles of a Constitution-based federal republic form of government rather than protect the constitution, which is their sworn oath to do? (see story)

What is absolutely true and in the words of former President Clinton’s U.S. counter terrorism official Richard Clarke. Our government has failed us. Moreover, it is continuing to fail us on the must import constitutional question to come about in the history of the United States of America. Is Barry Hussein Soetoro Constitutionally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of this nation?

(Excerpt) Read more at creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama; scotus; supremecourt; supremes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: armordog99
armordog99 said:

They are using the Wong Kim Ark case as precedent. I think the Wong Kim Ark case was decided wrongly and that just because you are born on US Soil should not make you a natural born citizen. However, I don't see the supremes reversing the Wong Kim Ark decision. I think for those of us that believe only someone born of two US citizens on American soil should be eligible for president we will need to push a constitutional amendment.

These supporters of this view are wrong for two reasons:
  1. Case decisions are based on the context of the case, and this case was not about Article II requirements
  2. The Supreme Court rewrote the 14th Amendment, as there is no mention of "Natural born" anywhere within it.
What the Supreme Court did in 1898 was clearly Unconstitutional. Looking at the text of the 14th Amendment, their decision allowed a back door for any citizen (naturalized or otherwise) to be Natural Born Citizens. The amendment clearly states those born in the United States and those Naturalized in the United States are "Citizens of the United States".

Their poor logic is also clear in their decision as 2 of the cases they use to bridge the citizen-subject "gap" also mention de Vattel's definition of a natural-born citizen, which would have clearly eliminated any discussion with regards to "natural born citizens" born to foreign parents. The authority of the King to grant protection for his subjects is not dependent on place or birthright. The authority of a republic to grant protection for its citizens most certainly is dependent on place and birthright.

Should the Supreme Court uphold this decision in the case of a sitting president, they would be in clear violation of Articles I & II of the U.S. Constitution. If or when that day arrives we will know 100%, without question, they are to be eliminated along with the rest of the federal government. This breach in separation of powers along with the allowance of a foreign-usurping president would be quite clear, and the framing fathers warned us about this breach and what to do to correct it.
21 posted on 02/14/2011 7:39:10 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

“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.


22 posted on 02/14/2011 7:41:48 AM PST by NeverForgetBataan (To the German Commander: ..........................NUTS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: walsh; Alaphiah123

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


23 posted on 02/14/2011 7:47:41 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: devattel
I agree with you that this was a wrong decision. In fact when you read the dissenting opinion they actually point out the fact that the decision makes it possible for someone born from two parents who are not citizens to become president.

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).

24 posted on 02/14/2011 7:54:44 AM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin
Gena Bukin said:

Does anyone honestly believe SCOTUS would render any other verdict than this?

The Supreme Court would be wise to make a Constitutional decision. The context of this case is clear and would not confuse the common people of this nation. No civil eligibility case will reach the Supreme Court. Only a state challenge will.

This would be a perfect excuse for the people of the United States to justify a civil war to remove the federal government completely. If the people and several states of this nation feel they have lost their voice in the Supreme Court on matters of fundamental Constitutionality, they will have no other recourse but to eliminate its authority. As the states would be demanding a decision, the states would be sent a clear signal they have no authority to "usurp power granted to the federal government only".

This, along with the current health care bill, is not a case of being a "sore loser" by the states. This is a case of critical Constitutional importance, and many in this nation, including the states, are watching the Supreme Court very closely.

What we will witness is the following:
  1. Stall tactics in the judiciary
  2. Long deliberation on decisions past 2012 and 2014, respectively
They will attempt to diffuse an uprising until after the critical dates of implementation. The attorney general will enforce an immediate stay at the state level in any state that passes an eligibility bill. This will in turn render the states powerless in the 2012 primaries, just like they have with Arizona. This will be the tipping point for many, as there would be no reason for the courts to block these bills unless someone would receive "considerable harm" in 2012. That will be the clear signal the states and We the People are correct in our assessment: we have a usurper in the White House. At this time, the attorney generals of each state now have the signal it needs to demand additional documentation from the state of Hawaii at the state level. Even so, the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court will continue to stall. Courts in Hawaii will block any requests from judges in the respective states. Cases will get denied, then slowly snaked up through the appeals process.

After 2012, the Supreme Court will have a greater chance at denying the review of the eligibility cases, or they will simply decide that the states "don't have authority" to create such a bill (defer the decision altogether). After 2014, they will have a greater chance at allowing the 2014 health care bill, as it would be in full effect without repeal. Are you noticing a pattern? Timing is everything. The courts will use this timing to their advantage, allowing the federal government to continue its practice of Unconstitutional supremacy.

This is not a new tactic by any means. The judiciary is quite political and has been since 1791.
25 posted on 02/14/2011 8:19:51 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: armordog99
armordog99 said:

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).

I never suggest armed revolt, nor encourage it. I am merely referencing historical precedence. We already witnessed this issue in the 1850's and 1960's when the Supreme Court and federal government made controversial decisions that did not bode well for the southern states. If the states do not feel they have 10th Amendment protections or feel the federal government is failing to honor their responsibilities towards the states, they or its citizens will revolt.

States are bankrupt. They feel this to be the fault of the federal government. That is why many states have filed suits with regards to the new health care bill. Many states have already passed bills or resolutions reaffirming their 10th amendment rights. We are witnessing the precursors to "Civil War 2.0".

Adding more "straws", the federal government has:
  1. Blocked Arizona from enforcing immigration laws at the state level
  2. Blocked Montana from exercising intrastate commerce
  3. Blocked decisions to allow states to drill along their shores
  4. Blocked the states in other issues that are at the state level
This is an all-out-battle, and it is states vs. federal government in every case. This is never a good sign, and it is clear the states have had enough of the federal government's abuse of power.
26 posted on 02/14/2011 8:30:21 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

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!


27 posted on 02/14/2011 9:09:20 AM PST by Forty-Niner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

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.


28 posted on 02/14/2011 9:43:01 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

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?


29 posted on 02/14/2011 11:18:35 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: armordog99
Re: “Actually that is an affidavit that the attorney filed reporting what the judge is alleged to have said. I have been searching for the actual case and currently cannot find it.”

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.

30 posted on 02/14/2011 11:25:42 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

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).


31 posted on 02/14/2011 11:33:02 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
This may be one for history to record so we don’t make the same mistake again.

Who has learned anything? As long as we have a criminal, lying media, the people will continue to elect frauds like Obama.

32 posted on 02/14/2011 11:37:08 AM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
The problem is that the misguided individuals seem to be the the majority of court rulings since Wong Kim Ark.

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.

33 posted on 02/14/2011 12:44:34 PM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
The problem is that the misguided individuals seem to be the the majority of court rulings since Wong Kim Ark.

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.

34 posted on 02/14/2011 1:00:47 PM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

Sorry for the double post.


35 posted on 02/14/2011 1:02:34 PM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

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.


36 posted on 02/14/2011 1:51:25 PM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Woof! Nicely explained.

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.

37 posted on 02/14/2011 6:14:25 PM PST by GBA (Not on our watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alaphiah123

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.


38 posted on 02/14/2011 6:58:34 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaphiah123

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.


39 posted on 02/14/2011 7:43:13 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaphiah123

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.


40 posted on 02/14/2011 8:01:05 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson