Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Cruz could be challenged in court. I have already offered a $500 to FreeRepublic bet that they will decide he meets the criteria for NBC, since he was born a citizen. Anyone want to take my bet?
Rather they were ruling on the claim made by Virginia Minor, a woman who claimed that as a U.S. citizen, she was denied her Constitutional right to vote by the State of Missouri as they had prevented her from exercising what she believed to be her Constitutional Right of citizenship by denying her to register to vote and the question before the Court was whether the Court would uphold as Constitutional, the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordained: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”
So the very first thing the court did was look at the question of whether or not Virginia Minor was a U.S. citizen as defined by the Constitution and then secondly and most importantly whether, if she was, if this citizenship conferred “Suffrage” in the State of Missouri, the second point being the most important and what constituted the binding part of the ruling – the binding part being the Holdings, or ratio decidendi (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts. This binding is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis which provides hierarchical (vertical) and temporal (horizontal) continuity throughout the judicial system.
In considering that question the SCOTUS had to look at the facts at hand and whether Virginia Minor was a citizen and the SCOTUS found that Virginia Minor was indeed a U.S. citizen. The SCOTUS found that this fact was beyond question as she was as not only was she born in the U.S., she was also born of two U.S. citizen parents so her citizenship was beyond question. Whether or not she was a “Natural Born Citizen” or not was beyond the scope of the question at hand although the Court discussed it as a matter of background and as such it was an obiter dictum – “Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument".
It was an “obiter dictum” as the question as to whether she was a “Natural Born Citizen”, a citizen by statute or a naturalized citizen made no difference one way or another in the ruling as it was really not a question of whether or not she was a citizen as that was established, but whether only male citizens ( and there was no question before the Court that Virginia Minor was a woman) could vote under the constitution of Missouri. It was also not a question before the Court as to whether males in the State of Missouri were limited as to their right to vote based on whether they were born here of U.S. citizen parents, or here of non-citizens parents or naturalized or made citizens by statute as all citizen males could vote in the State of Missouri.
What the SCOTUS said:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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 parents. As 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 citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
So the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett admitted there were doubts about whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were natural-born citizens but went on to say that there were never any doubts as to the children born here of citizen parents such as was the case with Virginia Minor. The SCOTUS was merely reaffirming that Virginia Minor’s citizenship, even that as a female, was beyond doubt.
The rest and the pertinent part of the ruling addressed whether individual states could limit who among citizens could vote.
In fact the SCOTUS even went on to say:
“Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.
In other words the Court said that some states allow even non-citizens (presumably male and in some states, with other restrictions that effectively prevented male black citizens from voting) to vote under some circumstances while not allowing U.S. born female citizens to vote and the Court found no fault in this. So at the end of the day, even Virginia Minor’s citizenship was not really the question at hand, but rather, could individual states determine who was eligible to vote or not. Again the court was not addressing who was eligible to be elected POTUS based on their citizenship or of their parent’s citizenship, whether they were born on U.S. soil or on foreign soil but U.S. citizen parents nor did it make a binding ruling on who was a “natural born citizen”. Quite ironically one could take away from Minor v. Happersett by inference, that while she was ultimately ruled not eligible to vote, she was eligible for the office of POTUS.
“Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If [88 U.S. 162, 178] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.”
Finally the SCOTUS said:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Of course the SCOTUS ruling in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) was made completely moot by the 19th Amendment that granted women suffrage in all U.S. States. So while perhaps technically true that no future court ruling never overturned Minor v. Happersett, no future court ruling had to as it was completely vacated by the 19th Amendment.
I will bet that the Supreme Court will never offer an opinion as to whether Cruz meets the criteria for NBC. If forced to say anything at all, they will say that they have no constitutional role in either selecting or removing presidents.
I'm not very trusting, perhaps you are. Either way, many things in life require proof up front, but you say not the president's citizenship? Popularity is proof enough for the president's eligibility is what you seem to be saying.
Yet the world we live in demands more.
I know and can verify the chain of ownership with a notarized document to where the septic tank is buried going back to the beginning and you can't even verify obama's claims to American citizenship beyond whatever is mother could convey to him.
Not only that, obama himself claimed to be Kenyan, so who should we believe?
Remember, this is the guy who commands the military and sends us and our children to fight and die, speaks for us all around the world and signs the treaties and the laws that govern us.
Whether you like or trust him or not, wouldn't it be nice if everyone could see his paperwork?
What's he hiding?
You can't tell me or anyone else with legal certainty who he is or what his actual nationality might really be.
And...you...are okay with that?
Has any Tea Party endorsed member of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives ever called for a congressional hearing on the natural born citizen requirement since the Republicans took control in January of 2011?
Yeah, I know, they’re all “globalist excrement.” Anybody who disagrees with you is “globalist excrement.”
Oh well.
The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.
Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?
Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.
The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.
Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?
Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.
The law permits a person to testify competently as to where and when he was born even though everyone knows that the witness cannot possibly remember having been there. So, if some court were to ignore its lack of any constitutional role in the presidential selection process and were to hold a trial, Obama would competently testify that he was born in Hawaii. Birth records and those newspaper articles would be submitted to support his claim.
Are you telling me that the other side has no admissible evidence to prove that he was born in Kenya or somewhere outside the United States? Not one witness to his birth somewhere outside the United States will be called as a witness? And, you wonder about the outcome of such a trial?
Please, at least find some evidence. Or, forget it. Find another case.
If Cruz was challenged in court, it might go the the Supreme Court. More likely, it wouldn’t get that far. However, it would be reasonable to ask a court if someone with a US mother, born overseas, could run.
Can I sell you some land or a car or a truck. It's mine, I promise, so I can sell it to you. I'll give you a really good deal. You'll love the price. It'll be a steal.
And you're good with that?
You seem cogent enough. I can't help but marvel at you and what we've become. Incredible.
No wonder we were so easy to infiltrate and take down.
It might be reasonable to ask, but my bet is that a court will tell you that it does not issue advisory opinions and that it has no role to play in the selection of a president.
Similarly, if the House of Representatives were to impeach Obama and cite as a high crime and misdemeanor his "continuing fraud about his qualifications to be president," and if the Senate then voted for conviction and removal, the Supreme Court would not assist Obama by weighing the evidence for and against him. The Supreme Court has no role in the impeachment process (other than that the Chief Justice preside over the Senate during the trial).
The Supreme Court does not get to decide everything in this country.
How could the Arizona Letter of Verification have probative value when it has never been introduced as evidence in a court of law? Both the Arizona and Kansas Letters from Dr. Onaka were in response to requests for information from Kansas’ and Arizona’s Chief Elections Officials.
Only the Mississippi Letter of Verification has been introduced as an exhibit in a response to a plaintiffs’ motion for a Trier of Fact, US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate; with its probative value or lack thereof yet to be ruled on.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
And the certification statement over the Registrar’s signature says: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”
Obama claims he was born in Hawaii. He has his documents and newspaper articles. People (including judges) will be inclined to assume that Obama is correct. It's just not a bizarre claim for someone to claim he was born in Hawaii. If you really want to prove he was born somewhere else, you really need some significant evidence to support the claim. It's not enough to criticize the way Hawaii keeps records or to state that the newspaper articles might have been written even if he had been born in Kenya. You might just as well spend the first day questioning that the judge is really the judge.
This whole birther thing seems to be a train wreck. You better hope no judge grants a trial.
You obviously don’t pay any attention to what goes on in congress.
Real honest consevative congressmen have been doing all they can, and it has been a constant battle.
The globalist excrement are in control, and to them evil trumps party every time. They haver to go with the one they love: Satan. (your daddy!)
Obama’s “documents” and newspaper articles are all recent frauds, but then you knew that and love them all the more.
There is zero evidence of any Hawaiian birth. He never even saw Hawaii until immigrating from Indonesia.
Most people that you reference don’t even know that TPM Muckraker left out half of Bennett’s request. They haven’t looked at the law nor the complete request. One of the Republican Presidential primary candidates said nobody will look into it because it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, they know there is treachery that goes far deeper than just Obama’s eligibility - and Obama’s eligibility problem is just the tip of a deadly iceberg.
It wasn’t until Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett that we had an official document from Hawaii which contradicted what the HDOH Directors had previously said - which is why the legal presumption was that the HDOH Directors were acting in good faith. But as I’ve said repeatedly - and to this day nobody in opposition to me has mentioned, addressed, or even acknowledged this fact that I’ve proven - the HDOH deliberately falsified their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes individual names that are from non-valid BC’s. They inserted names that should not have been on that list. That is proof that the HDOH is deliberately deceiving the public, and falsifying official records to do so.
None of that was known before, and even now that the state SOS’s and AG’s have all been informed, the responses all claim that they don’t have to care about it one bit.
My analysis about Onaka’s verification - that he effectively confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid - has been affirmed (through words to me or by actions) by 6 hostile attorneys, including the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s lawyers, who were very careful NOT to ask for any birth facts to be verified or for the validity of the record itself to be confirmed, even though they said those were the 2 critical issues in the lawsuit in question.
The counsel for my own SOS first (immediately) noted that the copy of Klayman’s letter that he received was not specifically addressed to him. Then he wrongly claimed that Bennett had not asked for date of birth, gender, etc to be verified. Finally he settled on Nebraska not having to care what HI said to AZ, and said that since NE law doesn’t require the nominating papers to be LAWFUL (non-fraudulent and non-perjurious) Obama’s name would go on the ballot even if Bob Bauer was sitting in jail convicted of fraud for the fraudulent nominating affidavit.
IOW, the people you refer to are either ignorant or wilfully ignoring the substance of the issue because they say it is not their concern.
And that is pathetic.
Okay, you've confused me. He originally claimed to be Kenyan and then claimed to born in Hawaii and it's all good with you? He's whatever he says he is?
Sure, of course a judge would agree to that. If s/he didn't think that was okie dokie I'd know there was something wrong.
I was naive once, but not that naive. Onward through the fog, dude.
And that’s apparently good enough...any judge will tell you that, doncha know.
The letter to Kansas wasn't actually used within the legal proceeding.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Good point. Why does it say a "birth certificate" is on file and not a "certificate of live birth"?? Later in that same letter, it switches the terminology.
Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.
Also, why does item No. 1 say "indicating" that Obama was born in Hawaii?? That's not verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii; it's a verification that a birth certificate of no known legal value (not a certificate of live birth) claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's a nice play on words, but it's NOT a legal verification of a birth fact, plus the DOH refused to verify the additional facts requested by Bennnett in their own standard request form.
And, the bottom line is that NONE of this complies with the legal standard in the Federal Rules of Evidence (which is the same as most states' rules of evidence) in certifying that the alleged LFBC is a correct copy of the original record. Having information that "matches" doesn't make it legally correct. p
Honestly, I would enjoy “wading in,” but I have other projects, critical in nature (for me), and I cannot divert significant resources at this time. Once you tell people you’re a lawyer, they begin to expect serious, well-reasoned analyses, and if you really can’t give it the time it deserves, you can fall well short of that expectation.
Though I have to say, I have seen some real hilarity on this thread, people trying to sort out dicta from holding, misreading holdings when they do find them, ignoring very basic principles of statutory analysis, etc. It’s why one needs a license to practice law. If there were an actual client whose interests these folks were trying to defend, they couldn’t get away with the slop I am seeing here. It would be actionable malpractice.
If I was young, and needed no sleep, I would join the fray. But alas, not so. I think you and a few of the others are doing a fine job (and yes, my initial, casual, non-rigorous perusal of Bellei finds little significant difference with the Cruz facts). The key is respect, respect for others, and respect for the rigorous challenge of getting the law right.
Peace,
SR
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.