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

Skip to comments.

The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 03/02/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq

Posted on 03/02/2011 10:15:41 AM PST by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 next last
To: devattel

jamese777 said:

The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They would send an appeal back to the Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits. After that trial and appeals are heard and the actual finding gets back to the Supremes, it would be well after the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Here are the cases where a party can directly submit a case to the Supreme Court, as per U.S. Code:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
Obama can not pass any further law upon immediate decree he is ineligible, should the case ever be decided and the decision claims the Natural Born Citizen clause is what it is supposed to mean.

A sidebar to this is why the multiple states did not just go directly to the Supreme Court for the health care bill. Apparently the attorney generals do not know the law.


Has anyone attempted to have the Supreme Court exercise original juristiction on an Obama’s Eligibility lawsuit?
Here are the Obama eligibility suits that have reached the Supreme Court thus far:
1)Berg v Obama
2)Beverly v Federal Elections Commission
3)Craig v US
4)Donofrio v Wells
5)Herbert v Obama
6)Hollister v Soetoro
7)Kerchner v Obama
8)Lightfoot v Bowen
9)Schneller v Cortes
10)Taitz v MacDonald
11)Taitz appeal of Sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald
12)Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz
None of them is a lawsuit seeking original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court.
Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency on February 10, 2007. It has been more than four years and no one has applied to the Supreme Court to have Obama’s eligibility heard as an original jurisdiction case.
There is no such thing in American law as a decree that a president in ineligible. It ain’t going to happen under separation of powers.
The Court could hand down a decision favorable to those challenging Obama’s eligibility and then Congress could impeach him.
As US District Court Judge David O Carter already ruled: “On the day President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms from removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the court that it should disregard the Constitutional procedures in place for removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president, REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON, is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”
Barnett v Obama, October 29, 2009

No Health Care lawsuit has sought a Supreme Court ruling as an original jurisdiction case either.


181 posted on 03/04/2011 4:12:37 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
How can you impeach a person that is not legally a President? If you can prove it, just send the Sheriff in to send him to court and lock him up until he proves he is a legit citizen?

Everyone is making this so complicated.

182 posted on 03/04/2011 7:09:57 PM PST by AGreatPer (Voting for the crazy conservative gave us Ronald Reagan....Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

How can you impeach a person that is not legally a President? If you can prove it, just send the Sheriff in to send him to court and lock him up until he proves he is a legit citizen?
Everyone is making this so complicated.


The 12th Amendment to the Constitution says that whoever receives a majority of the Electoral College votes and has those votes counted and certified without written objections from at least one member of the House of Representatives and one US Senator “shall be President.” The only other requirement is to take the Oath of Office.
The time to stop an ineligible person is before the vote of the Electoral College. If not then, then in the period before the Counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes and if not then, then before the swearing in ceremony. After that, the person elected IS the President.
They can be removed by impeachment and trial in the Senate.


183 posted on 03/04/2011 7:16:50 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Thank you jamese777. Best factual reply I have received on a subject ever ib FR.
I was hoping that everything that he has signed would be void. According to your facts...it would hold up. He is the President now like it or not.

Why Hillary never did anything about this will always bug me. My guess, she realized it after it was too late.

184 posted on 03/04/2011 7:41:22 PM PST by AGreatPer (Voting for the crazy conservative gave us Ronald Reagan....Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Have another copy of the Kenyan-Wonder Boy in the US


Sara Obama's wall hanging - the Kenyan wonder boy

185 posted on 03/04/2011 8:39:02 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7170089.stm


186 posted on 03/04/2011 9:14:27 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
jamese777 after being schooled by edge919. Photobucket
187 posted on 03/04/2011 9:28:45 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Listen..its time to move along..you made a gallant effort supporting your golden calf Obama..this is not to be denied but at this point you are only embarrassing yourself.

Please show some self respect..think of your dignity. Its time to go.

Take care and God Bless.


188 posted on 03/04/2011 9:46:03 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Listen..its time to move along..you made a gallant effort supporting your golden calf Obama..this is not to be denied but at this point you are only embarrassing yourself.

Please show some self respect..think of your dignity. Its time to go.

Take care and God Bless.


Thanks so very much for your kind words and for your advice.
It’s been great fun responding to your interesting posts.
You take care as well and may all the blessings of the Lord be bestowed upon you and yours.


189 posted on 03/04/2011 11:43:34 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

Thank you jamese777. Best factual reply I have received on a subject ever ib FR.
I was hoping that everything that he has signed would be void. According to your facts...it would hold up. He is the President now like it or not.
Why Hillary never did anything about this will always bug me. My guess, she realized it after it was too late.


You are most welcome and thank you for your very kind words.
However there are many things that could be done to remove Barack Hussein Obama II from the presidency before 2012.
A grand jury investigation into his eligibility could provide the legal grounds for impeachment, trial and removal or uncover information so embarrassing to Obama and the Democratic Party that Obama is forced to resign as “damaged goods.” It is also possible that a Congressional Committee investigation in the House of Representatives could do as much damage to Obama’s reputation as a Grand Jury might do and force his resignation or his impeachment.
I have long supported the grand jury option as the best way to get to the bottom of the Obama eligibility debate, one way or the other.

Everything that Obama has signed into law originated in Congress and if it is still the law of the land, that means that the Supreme Court has not found it to be unconstitutional (yet). Under our system of government, it takes all three branches of government to implement law.


190 posted on 03/05/2011 12:09:44 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

http://iowaindependent.com/53330/birther-legislation-introduced-by-sorenson


191 posted on 03/05/2011 3:16:08 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Have we located both editions?

“Two London editions of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations were in circulation at this time: a 1759—;60 edition in 2 vols., and a 1760 edition in one.”


192 posted on 03/05/2011 6:29:27 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Spaulding; edge919; Red Steel

Congressional Globe, 1833-1873 : Index to 28th Congress, 2nd Session
INDEX TO THE APPENDIX.

28th Cong.Senate and House of Representatives.2d Sess.

A.
Adams, J. Q., on the western boundary of Louisiana ... 187
Alabama, concerning the debts of ... 52
Allegiance, natural. (See Webster. See Vattel.)

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_ff0W::


193 posted on 03/05/2011 7:16:18 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
jamese777 said:

No Health Care lawsuit has sought a Supreme Court ruling as an original jurisdiction case either.

Of course. None of them fit the criteria of original jurisdiction. I was merely correcting your statement that the Supreme Court does not have any original jurisdicition.
194 posted on 03/05/2011 10:45:22 AM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Of course. None of them fit the criteria of original jurisdiction. I was merely correcting your statement that the Supreme Court does not have any original jurisdicition.


I was, of course, talking about original jurisdiction to rule on the eligiblity of Barack Obama under Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.


195 posted on 03/05/2011 11:02:37 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer
Why Hillary never did anything about this will always bug me. My guess, she realized it after it was too late.

Obama waited until AFTER she conceded the primary to release his fraudulent COLB. As much dirt as she might have had on him, not even she would have been able to access his birth records in Hawaii. She had no way of knowing he was going to post a fraudulent COLB. By then, it WAS too late. Had she complained, it would have looked like sour grapes or the race card would have been played.

196 posted on 03/05/2011 10:33:16 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

James is an 0h0m0 toady. Don’t believe anything he posts. Lies, distortion, dissimulation, obfuscation, misquotes, partial quotes, and worse are his methods.


197 posted on 03/05/2011 10:40:18 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Congressional Globe, 1833-1873 : 28th Congress, 2nd Session

page 100

http://books.google.com/books?id=YWEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25&dq=congress+globe+1845&hl=en&ei=VytzTfSfBoGDgAe3vfjjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=allegiance&f=false

198 posted on 03/05/2011 10:50:25 PM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Spaulding; edge919; Red Steel
Congressional Globe, 1833-1873 : 28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 100

http://books.google.com/books?id=YWEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25&dq=congress+globe+1845&hl=en&ei=VytzTfSfBoGDgAe3vfjjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=allegiance&f=false

199 posted on 03/05/2011 10:52:35 PM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS'S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pp 153 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

So clearly we see that some states proffered local citizenship to children of aliens born in that state prior to the adoption of the 1st US Naturalization Act of 1790, but it was not until the father was naturalized & became himself a US Citizen that the child, if under the age of 21, became a US Citizen after the 1790 Act was passed, thus his allegiance was utterly temp & local and had nothing to do with US Nationality.

200 posted on 03/05/2011 11:59:04 PM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 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