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 ...
I like your choice better...Bibi for Pres!
Nothing on that subject. People had lied to them and told them he was legitimate. Those people ought to go to jail for interfering with an election, but you miss the point.
The judges can say anything they want. When the people decide the law will NOT be what the judges say, the Judges will accept the people's decision or they will not be judges any longer. All we have to do is to educate the people, and the Judges will eventually follow what is correct, not this idiot crap they are currently stuck on.
“It says the opposite. Why do you have so much trouble telling the truth?”
Why do you and other birthers have such a hard time with English?
The ruling says the 14th uses wording that excludes from citizenship the exact same people who were already excluded under the NBC clause “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”.
But then, they had already said that “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, NBC included the children of aliens domiciled here in amity with the government.
Birthers complain that all the judges are corrupt, but there is an alternate explanation - that birthers are simply wrong about the Founder’s intent.
Maybe, just maybe, life isn’t a giant conspiracy...
Because you and other Foggers don't understand it and have to have English explained to you all the time.
The ruling says the 14th uses wording that excludes from citizenship the exact same people who were already excluded under the NBC clause “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”.
It doesn't say ANTHING about the NBC clause, so stop trying to pass of a lie. It's talking about a separate and generic principle of "citizenship by birth." The only time the court talks about the NBC clause is to explain how it is not defined by the 14th amendment and that it is defined by birth in the country to citizen parents.
But then, they had already said that “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, NBC included the children of aliens domiciled here in amity with the government.
Yes, the "English colonies" would have utilized the law of England ... the United States, not so much ... AND this doesn't say ANYTHING at all about the NBC clause. You're playing a dishonest game of connect the dots.
Birthers complain that all the judges are corrupt, but there is an alternate explanation - that birthers are simply wrong about the Founder’s intent.
I haven't said anything about judges being corrupt. They have been wrong, and I prove that point constantly, just like I school you every time you post one of your lies.
IMO, ONLY proof of a foreign birth combined with criminal fraud in forging documents to cover it up would (will, IMO!) result in Barry's removal from office.
The Congressional Research (whatever) already has made the case based on Marguet-Pillado case dicta that Barry is a “citizen at birth” and thus a “natural-born citizen” even if born in a foreign country as long as he has a biological relationship to a US citizen. Therefore, only criminal actions could defeat eligibility. Even then Barry could claim, OK I lied about where I was born, but I am still eligible under Marguet-Pillado.
See my FR vanity thread:
"Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya"
The next step is a “President for life” and everyone “gets” to vote for him alone.
“It’s talking about a separate and generic principle of “citizenship by birth.”
It is talking about “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - discussed in length in the first half of the decision.
“The only time the court talks about the NBC clause is to explain how it is not defined by the 14th amendment and that it is defined by birth in the country to citizen parents.”
You can go on claiming that, and you can go on losing every case brought to court. Not because the world is a giant conspiracy, but because you are factually wrong. They spent half the decision discussing the meaning of NBC: “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, or as they say elsewhere:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same 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.”
Repeating for emphasis: “...and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It really helps if you think these things through before you post. This was a very long decision. The court knew this was not a strong legal foundation to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen, else there wouldn't be a second half to the decision, especially with the parts that separately define NBC as birth in the country to citizen parents.
y spent half the decision discussing the meaning of NBC: “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, or as they say elsewhere:
Nothing in what you quotes says ANYTHING about the meaning of NBC. Sorry, but it just isn't there. An eye doctor or shrink might help you with this problem of seeing things.
Repeating for emphasis: “...and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It's a meaningless phrase. The court never uses this to define NBC, and the court contradicts itself because the part that "prevailed" only applied to free white people. So much for a prevailing law. Meanwhile, when it actually came to a specific definition of NBC, the Ark court affirmed Minor's definition: "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens" These were the natural-born citizens. And from that point forward, the term is never used again and it is obviously never applied to Wong Kim Ark. Another Fogger lie is defeated.
We can conclude after over 4 years that the US judiciary will dishonestly misconstrue again and again and ignore past Supreme Court Opinions about natural born citizens. They are psychologically flawed, especially when they are political cases that concern the left and Obama. We see it time after time.
US v. Marguet-Pillado "dicta" does not overcome these Supreme Court cases that conclude natural born citizen and their holdings.
For many examples.
1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch
1830 Shanks v. Dupont, 28 1830 Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor
1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford, as an example, where it cites Vattel directly:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again:
“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”
Enough of snippets to keep this post short. ...
To continue Supreme Court cases that honestly understand natural born citizens:
1872 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.
1875 Minor v. Happersett
1884 Elk v. Wilkins
1939, Elg v. Perkins
1964 Schneider v. Rusk
We know they are dead wrong and they know it too. These Supreme Court cases, in totality, above prove it.
I agree as to foreign birth being an exclusionary condition for NBC, other than for children of diplomats and arguably for children of active military as claimed by the Senate for McCain in a non-binding resolution.
And yet similarly worthless dicta in the Ankeny state appeals court case has been cited to keep Barry on the ballot in several states based on an assumed HI birth and only one US citizen parent.
This is why I believe that only a criminal conspiracy to hide Barry's foreign birth can be counted on to oust Barry in the court of public opinion.
Sheriff Arpaio appears to be insinuating that his posse has found exactly such evidence. I don't believe that the Marguet-Pillado dicta gambit will save Barry if foreign birth or definitive non-HI birth is proved by Arpaio.
Great stuff, but it should be apparent to all that post here, the law means very little to the current political class.
It is the plaintiff’s burden, however, to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So?...The plaintiff must prove but then access to the proof is barred. Wow! What a Catch 22.
Only because the people are too stupid to know the law.
The only law the means anything to them is Commercial law.
read post #11:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2902290/posts
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.