Posted on 07/02/2012 12:53:09 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The Plaintiff alleges that candidate Obama is not eligible for that office because he is not a "natural-born citizen" within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. Because I find that the plaintiff has not and cannot state a cause of action for the relief requested under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, I grant the motions to dismiss with prejudice.
The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve. The Presidential Preference Primary Election in Florida is an integral part of that process for the parties, but as it relates to Florida law, there is no qualifying and no certification of nomination of the candidate as a result. Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.
It is the plaintiff's burden, however, to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible. The Secretary of State also has no affirmative duty, or even authority, "to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running."
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Minor v. Happersett. However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States." See Hollander v. McCain; Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (citing Wong Kim Ark, and holding that both President Obama and Senator John McCain were "natural born citizens" because "persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born [c]itizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Judge Lewis also noted:
"In oral argument on the motion, the plaintiff's attorney advised the court that if given an opportunity to amend the complaint, the plaintiff could affirmatively allege that the candidate was not born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, that defect could theoretically be remedied. The second prong of the plaintiffs challenge, however, is also deficient and cannot be remedied. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that even if the candidate was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, he was not born of two parents who were American citizens and therefore cannot be a 'natural born citizen' as required by the Constitution."
The foregoing looks like dicta. Lewis says that while the claim of a two-parent NBC requirement cannot be remedied in an amended filing, addition of a claim of evidence that Barry was born outside the jurisdiction actually could be filed as a remedy to the prior filings, but in end such a filing would fail due to lack of jurisdiction.
Bottom line is that because Barry is not the nominee and no Florida elector (voter) will be able to challenge his placement on the ballot until after the election, plaintiff has no cause of action at this time.
As usual.
Even proof that Barry was born outside the US wouldn't gain standing for an FL ballot challenge, according to Judge Lewis.
Seems to me it's the candidate's burden to prove he is eligible.
But that was America before the Communist Revolution.
IOW, the judge in this case held the same as every other judge to look at the supposed ‘two-citizen’ requirement - there is none.
Birthers need to read WKA carefully and consider what it says, rather than what they want it to say (or not say).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
So what is it gonna take to get this done?
I look forward to Sheriff Joe’s presser on 7/17, but doubt much will come of it.
If I’m reading this correctly, Lewis received an offer he couldn’t refuse, as I predicted.
Zero could have six legs and a pair of antennae. He’d still be eligible.
This judge contradicted himself the same way Ankeny did, a decision which was self-admittedly not supported by any legal precedent. The same Supreme Court that said, “Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States ...” (a citation of the 14th amendment) also said, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” How does same provision from the Constitution simulatenously say and not say who are natural-born citizens??
Summary of decision and next steps for Klayman...
JUDGE ISSUES RULING IN OBAMA-ELIGIBILITY CASE
Addresses question of whether dual citizen can be ‘natural born’
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/judge-issues-ruling-in-obama-eligibility-case/
dual citizenship means you are a citizen of two countries
so... according to this idiot, a foreign citizen is eligible for the office
yea, that’s in line with the founders
/sarc
Good. Since no one has a right to complain, I nominate Vladimir Putin to be the Republican Presidential nominee. His chief qualification is that he is a citizen of the world. Besides, then we don’t have to go through Obama as an intermediary any longer.
If we choose to do so, there is, as far as I can tell, no living human being on this Earth that has legal standing to either challenge the nomination, or to properly structure a claim for relief based on the US Constitution.
Until people realize that there is a difference between a “U.S. Citizen” and a ‘Citizen of the United States” you will never win anything.
Replace the ‘16th amendment’ with ‘all statuatory laws’ and it has the same meaning.-——————————————————————————————————————————————
This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:
United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:
1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:
3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.
[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]
It is very important to note the careful use of the word “sovereign” by Chief Justice Stone in the Hooven case. Of the three different meanings of “United States” which he articulates, the United States is “sovereign” in only two of those three meanings. This is not a grammatical oversight on the part of Justice Stone. Sovereignty is not a term to be used lightly, or without careful consideration. In fact, it is the foundation for all governmental authority in America, because it is always delegated downwards from the true source of sovereignty, the People themselves. This is the entire basis of our Constitutional Republic. Sovereignty is so very important and fundamental, an entire chapter of this book is later dedicated to this one subject (see Chapter 11 infra).
The federal zone, over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, is the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions belonging to Congress, and a limited amount of land within the States of the Union, called federal “enclaves”.
The Secretary of the Treasury can only claim exclusive jurisdiction over this federal zone and over citizens of this zone. In particular, the federal enclaves within the 50 States can only come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress if they consist of land which has been properly “ceded” to Congress by the act of a State Legislature. A good example of a federal enclave is a “ceded” military base. The authority to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves originates in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (”1:8:17”) in the U.S. Constitution. By virtue of the exclusive authority that is vested in Congress by this clause, Congress shall have the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States**, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article l, Section 8, Clause 17]
[emphasis added]
Complete article can be read here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf
AFFIDAVITS: A very powerful weapon to use against the Fed Gov.
#6: Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No.
Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so-called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so-called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Read the rest here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
As RUSH would say, right on, right on, right on.
Birthers need to read WKA carefully and consider what it says, rather than what they want it to say (or not say).
Mr. Rogers, you could get every lawyer and judge in the nation to assert that there is no such requirement and all you would prove is that the entire collection are ignorant and stupid.
You are not arguing with ignorant people. You are arguing with people who have researched this for themselves and learned what the original intent of the founders was. I doubt any lawyers or judges have gone to such efforts and therefore they are ignorant, and their opinions do not matter. Sure, their POWER matters, but this is an intellectual debate, not one about strength.
Apart from that, I dispute the validity of the notion that a non-unanimous group of judges dealing with a case not directly related to Article II compliance, ought to be regarded as the last word on the issue. In any case, judges aren't the final say, the people are.
Same old same old. Back in the USSR.
“It is the plaintiff’s burden, however, to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.”
This comment alone, proves this judge is a fraud. I wonder how a judge can write something like that and retain any pride at all. It’s like a neon sign...”This court is corrupt.”
Yes. I saw this article. Sadly, judges don’t bother with the law and the case at hand. This judge was asking Klayman about scenarios that were out in left field and had nothing to do with the facts. I guess he got his cue from Roberts last week by ignoring the law and making it up as he went along. Liberals have no logic, only “feelings.”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/07/purpura-and-moran-file-petition-for.html
This goes to NJ Supreme Court today.
That's asking Obama to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate to the court. We all know dang well that a judge would not hesitate to order just that to an ordinary citizen.
Even proof that Barry was born outside the US wouldn't gain standing for an FL ballot challenge, according to Judge Lewis.
So much for Lewis that he upholds the US Constitution. He must have taken his cue from judicial activist judge Roberts.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Does Lewis seriously believe that a naturalized citizen ( one born out of the US ) is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president ?
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.