Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

MMDNewswire ^ | February 4, 2015

[DiogenesLamp]

The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. The definition of Citizen of the United States At Birth has been used to define the term since adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1865.

You know, when I cited that quote from Wong Kim Ark, I noticed that Justice Gray said it was. At first I was very confused, then I realized he was probably referring to the 14th amendment, rather than in the original document.

But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

And it was 1868, not 1865.

You still aren't addressing the fact that Wong Kim Ark said that if you are born in a foreign country, you must be a "naturalized" citizen.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United can only become a citizen by being naturalized,...

You adherents of Wong Kim Ark got some splanin to do.

[DiogenesLamp]

If Calero was a trial run, the trial was a failure since Calero was not allowed on the ballot in nine states in 2004 and only appeared on the ballot in five states in 2008.

But didn't you say the states had no authority to do such a thing? Wasn't that one of your constant assertions on this topic?

[DiogenesLamp]

If that was that report done in the last few years by the Congressional research staff, I put absolutely no credibility in it.

I actually have more faith in that report regarding George Romney back in 1968.

[DiogenesLamp]

He wasn’t part of the Mboya program, 0 SR came a little later.

It was worth a shot. On this topic, a lot of stuff seems to run together, and it is not so far fetched of an idea to regard him as a sort of Diplomat. Certainly he was a representative of his country who never intended to Immigrate to the United States.

That's right on the razors edge of diplomacy in all these legal word games being played.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually it was the Supreme Court who interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in a number of holdings and not any action of Congress at all.

So you are suggesting that a supposedly co-equal branch of government possess the power to change the constitution without an amendment process?

It has long been noted that they do exactly this, but it's surprising that you are expressing any hint of recognizing it.

No, the Supreme Court doesn't get to modify the constitution either. That they have been doing so is an usurpation. They have indeed revealed themselves to be the threat that Jefferson said they were.

[Nero Germanicus]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m stating uneqivocally that ever since Marbury v Madison in 1803 the Supreme Court has excercised the power of judicial review and the other two branches of government have ceded that power and authority to the judicial branch.
Judicial review is the power of constitutional interpretation, not alteration.
When one interprets something, they do not change it, they explain its meaning.

“Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the U.S. system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).”

No presidential or vice presidential candidate from the Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Peace and Freedom or America’s Parties
in either 2008 or 2012 challenged Obama’s eligibility. No member of Congress filed suit or entered an existng suit as a co-plaintiff. No state’s Governor or Secretary of State challenged Obama’s eligibility and no state’s legislature filed suit against Obama as ineligible.

[Nero Germanicus]

No, I did not say that. Now you’re just making stuff up.

I have documented the eligibility rulings of courts at the state level and I’ve posted key findings from actual judicial rulings. I fully support every plaintiff’s right to challenge any candidate’s eligibility. The very first challenge in the Obama era was 2008’s Hollander v McCain in New Hampshire which was filed months before the first Obama lawsuit. It challenged McCain due to his birth outside of the U.S.

I believe that the states, through their Secretary of State or other chief election official have every right to block ineligible candidates from appearing on their ballot.

In 2012 there were legal challenges to Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship heard in state courts in 26 states and in the District of Columbia.
If those plaintiffs had prevailed, Mitt Romney would be the president today.
I would have had no problem with that at all.

[WildHighlander57]

also 0 SR was never a permanent resident, just was here for school, so was considered a transient as it were. I believe there’s a rule about that someplace in the immigration law...

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m stating uneqivocally that ever since Marbury v Madison in 1803 the Supreme Court has excercised the power of judicial review and the other two branches of government have ceded that power and authority to the judicial branch.

Those quotes I sent you by Jefferson? They were directed *AT* that Marbury v Madison decision. :) He regarded it as an excessive overreach.

No presidential or vice presidential candidate from the Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Peace and Freedom or America’s Parties in either 2008 or 2012 challenged Obama’s eligibility.

No one cares what the munchkin parties think, and McCain didn't do it because it would have backfired on him. It was just horribly bad luck that the candidate who made it through the Republican primary had just as big of a "natural born citizen" problem as did Barack Obama.

I think that when most people voted for John McCain, they never realized he wasn't born in the United States. They just assumed he was. After he became the hood ornament for the Republican party, there was no way they were going to challenge Barack's citizenship.

How can the guy born in Panama complain about the guy (theoretically) born in Hawaii? That would have cost him the election for sure. I think they both just agreed to avoid the issue, and nobody bothered to look out for the interest of the United States.

I remember 2008. The only decent candidate was Fred Thompson, but he dithered too long before throwing in his hat. McCain was the door prize.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I did not say that. Now you’re just making stuff up.

Not making stuff up. I remember that point being constantly brought up. It might not have been you, but It was certainly a common Obot legitimacy argument.

I believe that the states, through their Secretary of State or other chief election official have every right to block ineligible candidates from appearing on their ballot.

But do I hear a distinction between a "right" and a "duty" in there? You see, I have been saying from the very beginning, that state officials have a duty to do "due diligence" regarding the eligibility of Presidential candidates. I said that the primary line of defense should have been 50 state election officials insuring the candidates are eligible.

They all fell down on the job.

So is your position that "they could have if they wanted to." or is it that "they have the power to do so and they should have done so." ?

Because my argument has always been that "they have the power to do so and they should have done so."

[Nero Germanicus]

Two Secretaries of State petitioned the state of Hawaii to issue Certified Letters of Verification for Barack Obama’s birth certificate: Arizona’s Ken Bennett and Kansas’ Kris Kobach. Hawaii issued those verifications.
Quite a few states had hearings on Obama’s eligibility before their state’s Elections Commissions and Boards.
As I already said, in more than half the states there were lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status.
In many states the law does not give the Secretary of State any investigative or enforcement power. Whoever a political party designates as its nominee must be placed on the ballot. It is then up to the other candidates to challenge credentials of an opponent.
An example was the state of Alabama. Citizens sued the Secretary of State, Beth Chapman to force her to do “due diligence” and investigate Obama’s natural born citizen status. The Secretary of State countered that Alabama law gave her no such authority. The Alabama Superior Court ruled in Beth Chapman’s favor. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus which would compel Chapman to investigate Obama’s eligibility. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Secretary of State has no investigative or enforcement authority under Alabama statutes. The Supreme Court denied the Writ of Mandamus.

[Nero Germanicus]

In 2012, the Republicans nominated a guy whose father was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico.
How was he going to challenge Barack Obama Senior being born in Kenya?

[DiogenesLamp]

Two Secretaries of State petitioned the state of Hawaii to issue Certified Letters of Verification for Barack Obama’s birth certificate: Arizona’s Ken Bennett and Kansas’ Kris Kobach. Hawaii issued those verifications. Quite a few states had hearings on Obama’s eligibility before their state’s Elections Commissions and Boards.

Not sure what this has to do with the point being discussed, but Hawaii did not issue a verification of anything. They simply repeated that the information was consistent with whatever information had been placed in their files.

This is not any sort of verification because ever opportunity was used to avoid stating that this was a true and correct copy of the original information.

As a possible adoption and possible birth outside of Hawaii were some of the things needing to be understood, nothing Hawaii said lent any clarity or resolution to either concern.

As I already said, in more than half the states there were lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status.
In many states the law does not give the Secretary of State any investigative or enforcement power. Whoever a political party designates as its nominee must be placed on the ballot. It is then up to the other candidates to challenge credentials of an opponent.

So here is where you try to weasel out of the point. You have been caught with examples where States used their power to toss a candidate off the ballot for not meeting the requirements, but you try to say they are helpless to do so unless challenged by another candidate.

It reminds me of that Alice in Wonderland comment from the White Queen. “Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Your hair splitting and lawyerly obfuscation might work in a court room where procedure is more important than results, but this is the real world, and we are not taken in by such sham arguments.

I think that public officials have a duty to enforce State Law, Federal law, and Constitutional law, but you'll never guess where a certain member of the supreme court decided otherwise and why. It has had bad ramifications for the country ever since.

[DiogenesLamp]

In 2012, the Republicans nominated a guy whose father was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. How was he going to challenge Barack Obama Senior being born in Kenya?

Now you've been in enough of these arguments to know better than to try that nonsense. You can't be that stupid, so I must assume you are attempting to inject willful confusion.

But just in case you are that stupid, I will once more state the same thing that has been stated probably a thousand times.

George Romney was an American citizen prior to Mitt Romney's birth. That he was born in Mexico is irrelevant to the point. George Romney may have had a constitutional issue with his own attempt at the Presidency (and according to Wong Kim Ark, he wouldn't have been eligible) but his Son had no such issues because his father was a US Citizen when Mitt Romney was born, and it makes no difference how the father acquired this citizenship.

Barack Obama sr was never a US Citizen, and he was also in the country illegally. (He lied on his visa application about associating with communists and polygamists. )

But you know all this, which once again demonstrates that your intent is to sow confusion, and not really deal forthrightly with any of these points.

And Don't think I didn't notice how you've studiously avoided rebutting that Wong Kim Ark quote i've provided. We will discuss it more directly. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

An example was the state of Alabama. Citizens sued the Secretary of State, Beth Chapman to force her to do “due diligence” and investigate Obama’s natural born citizen status. The Secretary of State countered that Alabama law gave her no such authority. The Alabama Superior Court ruled in Beth Chapman’s favor. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus which would compel Chapman to investigate Obama’s eligibility. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Secretary of State has no investigative or enforcement authority under Alabama statutes. The Supreme Court denied the Writ of Mandamus.

And after further thinking on this point, it occurs to me that it produces a very laughable result. If a two year old foreign child decided to run for President, the Secretary of State in Alabama would be powerless to stop it!

Hi! I'm running for President, and I'm good in Alabama!

:) Pull the other one. :) This just once again illustrates the bizarre logic and precedent bound stupidity of the American court system.

We do know in fact that these claims are a convenient lie, and should such an obviously unqualified candidate be put forth, the Sec State Alabama would suddenly *FIND* that power which He/She supposedly doesn't have, and no doubt the Alabama Supreme Court would then "find" that he/she has that power.

They just didn't want to deal with the embarrassment of challenging the legitimacy of the first "Black" president, and so they punted the issue with a nonsensical ruling.

[Nero Germanicus]

Both Secretaries of State who asked for Letters of Verification from Hawaii said that the letters satisfied their need for clarification and both then approved Obama for their states’ ballots, in states that Mitt Romney won by landslides.

The letter for Arizona’s Secretary of State verified 12 specific data points on the Certificate of Live Birth which the Secretary of State had inquired about: place of birth, birth name, birth certificate registration number, time of birth, name of hospital, age of father, birthplace of father, age of mother, birthplace of mother, date of signature of parent, date of signature of attending physician, and date of signature of local registrar.

Neither Secretary of State asked the Hawaii Registrar to verify whether there was a “true and correct copy.” But the Hawaii Registrar is available to be deposed or subpoenaed to testify, so those follow-up questions could have been asked at any time. They haven’t been. However Letters of Verification are issued for the data on the ORIGINAL vital record, not for the information on copies of the original document. since both Secretaries of State did attach copies with their requests, the Registrar also verified that the data on the copies matched the data on the original.

An additional Certified Letter of Verification was sent by Hawaii to U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi but in nearly three years after being taken under advisement, Judge Wingate has done nothing with that letter or with that eligibility challenge lawsuit.

[Nero Germanicus]

I think you might be forgetting that the reason George Romney was born in Mexico was because his grandfather had ex-patriated out of the United States to avoid possible felony prosecution for practicing polygamy.

Under the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, a person can acquire Mexican citizenship, by birth if any of the following apply:
(1) persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents’ nationality or immigration status in Mexico
(2) persons born abroad of a Mexican Citizen born in Mexico
persons born to an individual after that person has become a naturalized citizen of Mexico
(3) individuals born on Mexican merchant- or Navy ships or Mexican-registered aircraft, regardless of parents’ nationality or
(4) children born to Mexican Diplomats or Ministry of Foreign Affairs Personnel working overseas

[Nero Germanicus]

You’re forgetting that the two year old child would have had to win the nomination of a political party in order to be cleared for the ballot. That’s a lot of speeches to win primaries and caucuses that would have come after the two year old’s bedtime.

[Nero Germanicus]

“And Don’t think I didn’t notice how you’ve studiously avoided rebutting that Wong Kim Ark quote i’ve provided. We will discuss it more directly. :)”

One more time, for the slow reading group, US v Wong Kim Ark is the number one precedential decision used to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility. No judge in America, including the nine on the Supreme Court of the United States who have read cites to Wong in Certiorari petitions has found that particular quotation to be proscriptive in any way, shape or form.

What could be more definitive than the following: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”— February 3, 2012

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by WONG KIM ARK, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

[DiogenesLamp]

Both Secretaries of State who asked for Letters of Verification from Hawaii said that the letters satisfied their need for clarification and both then approved Obama for their states’ ballots, in states that Mitt Romney won by landslides.

And all both secretaries wanted was a fig leaf, and that is exactly what they got.

This is politics my dear boy, not due diligence.