Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Prayers for your safety. I didn’t realize it was tornado season for GA.
You’re trying to read something into my post which was not in fact said or implied. I was supplying the Department of State’s interpretation of how the citizenship of foundlings is determined in accordance with prevailing international law. While the case of BHO does not involve the issue of a foundling, the foundling principles in domestic and international law illustrates how there is an existing presumptive bias in such laws towards recognizing natural born citizenship in the event the father’s identity and status cannot be determined and the mother is a citizen giving birth out of wedlock. In the case of BHO, these particulars do not clearly apply, but they may provide a very flawed excuse for attempting to create the false appearance of a legitimate legal excuse. In any event, it is worthwhile to be aware of how the domestic and international law treats the issue of citizenship for foundlings. The next thing you know, someone is going to suggest Stanley Ann was never pregnant in the first place and found a poor foundling to mother...who then qualified as a natural born citizen....(LOL)
Bingo and in the SCOTUS case Ex Parte Lockwood it stated this refering to Minor v Happersett:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116
Her citizenship was not in dispute.
It was a fact NOT IN DISPUTE.
NO ONE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS A CITIZEN. Not Happersett, not the Court in Missouri...NO ONE. It is not part of the HOLDING.
I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.
I am sorry if you can’t understand the difference in a court of law.
Is Person “A” a citizen?
Versus
Does the sex of Person “A” preclude her from voting when she is a citizen.
The second question is what was before the court.
NO ONE DISPUTED THE MINOR WAS A CITIZEN.
Fact not in dispute.
The whole question before the Supreme Court was whether the 14th Amendment allowed for Suffrage.
HOLDING - NO.
The holding was not that she was a citizen. EVERYONE AGREED SHE WAS A CITIZEN.
The HOLDING was NO SUFFRAGE.
I want you to show me the EXACT sentence where the Minor court says that her parents were American Citizens.
If her citizenship was in dispute surely there is a discussion of the citizenship of her Parents. Where were they born?
Where is the discussion. Show me the EXACT sentence.
The reason they didn’t dispute she was a citizen was because “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” (Minor v Happersett).
Justice Waite did not say it is not necessary to solve the issue of “parental citizenship.” He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. They used Article 2 Section 1 to avoid the 14th. It’s really that simple to understand.
So it just makes my point. And I apologize for not being more specific in the picture comment. There are no pics prior to 3 years old with any of the people he claims to be family...
I certainly do not wish to argue the announcement theories but I think differently having been involved to some degree in that investigation personally. I do believe they are fabricated. But in either case it is not conclusive of anything without records of back up.
The next thing you know, someone is going to suggest Stanley Ann was never pregnant in the first place and found a poor foundling to mother...who then qualified as a natural born citizen....(LOL)
For instance JoAnne Newman and Malik Shabazz (aka Malcolm Little)?
So you are saying that he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents?
Her citizenship is in dispute and germane to the case according to you but he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents . He never states that her Parents were American Citizens. NOT ONCE. NO WHERE. A fact you claim is in dispute and germane to the case. A fact that is germane must be addressed.
So you claim he addresses a fact in dispute with this:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parentsAs to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen”
You better think about that for a minute.
He implies with this:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE.
Maybe it will sink in to you.
But I doubt it.
Btw, a FACT in dispute has to be addressed outright. Not by implication.
I never said Minor's citizenship was in dispute. The Court didn't say it was in dispute either. The Court said in MvH that citizenship must be affirmed on the record before it can address any other question.
Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed.The Court had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address whether or not she had the right to vote. Thus the affirmation of her citizenship was not mentioned in passing. It was the basis of the plaintiff's argument and the Court considered it and spoke extensively about it as part of their decision.
I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.
Strawman.
My preposterous theory does not state who the bio daddy is. I happen to think he is BHO’s son but of another mother than SAD. I believe that mother is Phillipean and her name is Ann Obama.
Obama admitted he travelled from Indonesia to America as an Unaccompanied Minor. Unaccompanied Minors are taken into Federal Protective Custody by ICE Agents before they clear customs. Since Barry Soetoro, his legal name at 10 YO, was an Indonesian National he was tranferred Federal Foster Care. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut contracted with State Department to conduct child custodial service for Unaccompanied Minors taken into custody at the border. It was Catholic Social Services who flew BHO Sr to Hawaii in Dec, 1971 to determine a final resolution to legal custody. The Hawaii Court rule the Soetoro adoption anulled, the HAwaii COLB for Barry Soetoro seal and archived and the BHO II COLB “Barack Hussein Obama II” filed, and Catholic Soc Serv of CT to retain legal custody of BHO II until his age of majority. CATHOLIC SOC SERV OF CT FILED BHO’S II SSN AS HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN. He was an Indonesian Natl at 10 YO and a Permanent REsident Alien when Catholic Soc Serv applied for his SSN.
Obama admitted he travelled from Indonesia to America as an Unaccompanied Minor. Unaccompanied Minors are taken into Federal Protective Custody by ICE Agents before they clear customs. Since Barry Soetoro, his legal name at 10 YO, was an Indonesian National he was tranferred Federal Foster Care. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut contracted with State Department to conduct child custodial service for Unaccompanied Minors taken into custody at the border. It was Catholic Social Services who flew BHO Sr to Hawaii in Dec, 1971 to determine a final resolution to legal custody. The Hawaii Court rule the Soetoro adoption anulled, the HAwaii COLB for Barry Soetoro seal and archived and the BHO II COLB “Barack Hussein Obama II” filed, and Catholic Soc Serv of CT to retain legal custody of BHO II until his age of majority. CATHOLIC SOC SERV OF CT FILED BHO’S II SSN AS HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN. He was an Indonesian Natl at 10 YO and a Permanent REsident Alien when Catholic Soc Serv applied for his SSN.
Ping me anytime you’re feeling deprived by Orly haters and I’ll gladly give you an apple. :)
I was thinking more of people roaming the streets and harming people that are just walking down the street, idling at an intersection in a car, riding the mass transit system. Like the misnamed “flash mobs”.
But yes, people are looking to protect themselves more at home and on the streets. And citizens who are concealed carriers are on the uprise.
Thank you for the prayers.
The publication of “The Other Barack” has not only given him cover to change the narrative, but actually requires that he change the narrative, IMO.
It will be interesting to see if the Obama 2012 campaign was actually behind the rather slick claim to have been born to a single mom.
Remember that in the Ayers penned “Dreams” the marriage was uncertain and relatives in Kenya said his Dad was not how his mother said he was...and Mooshelle said his mom was very single when he was born...so the “improbable love” was bordering on being out-of-wedlock from the very beginning.
Remember that the Obama voter doesn't give a crap about marriage or having married parents!!!
In 2008 Obama was reaching out to white middleclass voters who valued marriage (at least more than others). Now in 2012 his campaign has already signaled they are giving up on whites altogether and going for the blacks and progressives who could care less about marriage before childbirth.
See prior link to Leo Donofrio. I consider your answer to be there. If you dont’ see it we will have to agree to disagree.
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.