Posted on 08/16/2009 5:10:06 PM PDT by Vincent Jappi
Never underestimate the power of high-powered attorneys, to dazzle with bs. The people as a whole do not grasp the primacy of the Constitution over statutory law. The vast majority of our Congress appear not to grasp this, either; otherwise, that stone-cold stupid Senate Resolution 511 would never have seen the light of day.
Many in positions of power in our government are actively trying to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement. There have been at least five since the year 2000 alone. But, you have even co-sponsors of these bills to alter or remove the requirement, professing not to have studied the matter, when asked specifically about Obama’s eligibility. I’m referring specifically to Jim Inhofe, a Republican. There was an article posted to FR regarding this, within the past few days.
This thing crosses party lines, and so only political pressure is going to blow these people out of complacency, that we’ll settle back into blissful ignorance, and then the Presidency can be quietly opened up to the world.
I see. I stand corrected. Part of me still has the gut feeling he was born in Vancouver, BC. If so the points still stand. Don’t know how we’ll ever prove it, unless. . .
There are no other Supreme Court decisions that indicate anything other than “C,” though, El Gato.
welcome to free republic....if you would like to see my previous posts, click on my name then go to in forum at the top...that will save you some time researching NBC...and where I stand.
The article expressedly denies such conclusions, quoting allegedly relevant Kenyan Law. Maybe you could address specifically such arguments put forward, using your own legal texts.
This indeed makes eligibility most unlikely. On the other hand, per Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court says the jurisprudence hasn’t been settled.
How about READING Art II, Sction 1, § 5 of the Constitution?
It hasn’t, unfortunately.
On the other hand, when the Gray Communist declared under oath that he was a “natural-born citizen” to apply at the Arizona (?) primaries, he could only know how unlikely he actually was to be one.
That makes him a felon, no matter what stands on his real Birth Certificate.
That depends upon the reading. The punctuation and the two references to doubt, to me, says that a natural born citizen is never in doubt, and that such status was known to mean two citizen parents and born in the United States. This reading indicates a rejection of other possibilities.
From page 2 of the Kenya Independence Act as linked below:
“(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.”
The provision was altered in 1981 by the British Nationality Act of 1981, but those changes would not have affected Obama.
Maybe this case with Orly Taitz will open up Obama’s hidden records-
“................. at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial. 2. It will be heard on the merits. 3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues. 4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority. 5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC. 6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.”
You don’t have to accept my characterization of him. You have to accept what you can see with your own two eyes when it comes to the law.
Using the facts that he is using....he is basing his whole analysis on the fact that Sr was his father..
He is wrong unless he can prove Sr was domiciled in Hawaii..and even that is a stretch given the way the law was worded since that particular law that Rolling Stone brought up is talking about SUBSEQUENT marriage..and specifically states “and not otherwise.”...and presumably is referencing a VALID marriage. I would have to see case law .
And if you are going to hold him on a higher standard because he has been practicing immigration law for decades..then you have to wonder what else he is ignoring to further his agenda...because surely someone who has been practicing for 20 years would KNOW about the importance of legitimacy..both in the UK law and the US law.
there is a Luo tradition that illegitimate babies cannot go live with a new family..and can even be killed. They are considered bad spirits..or some such thing. I can’t remember the exact details.
They have to go live with the grandparents.
The Luo can go have sex with various girls as long as they don’t penetrate. I guess they have to marry the girl if they do that.
I have seen reported that in order to go to Indonesian schools that one must become a citizen of Indonesia, and by law give up other citzenships. If Obama (or step dad) renounces his citzenship in Indonesia, he may not be a citzen or a natual born citzen?
There are many facets to this issue.
Quote from Obama: “Issues are never simple. One thing I am proud of is that only rarely will you see me simplify the issue.”
All I've seen with my own two eyes, as far as facts in evidence in the United States, is a divorce decree between Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barak Hussein Obama, Sr. Every understanding of the meaning, of the Constitutional term "natural born citizen," deals with "parents" only. Marriage is not mentioned.
You're going out on a limb, tangentially, assuming that the British would use their Nationality Act to render a child born nearly 50 years ago, a bastard, on the basis of a customary, tribal marriage that thus far has no legal record evidenced. It's not as if anyone is making a spurious claim of British citizenship, here. Obama is at pains to avoid it.
And, British citizenship for Obama, Jr. is not the central problem for him; British citizenship for Obama, Sr. is the central problem for him, because that makes his father an alien.
Apuzzo is arguing that Obama is a British Citizen.
Why don’t you scroll down and read what it means to be a father according to British law.
IF you want to make the claim that Sr was NEVER married to Kezia- which I think is ridiculous...then go ahead and do so..but don’t pretend that UK citizenship law didn’t address Bigamist marriages. It did because they knew this was practiced in some of their colonies.
They had different classes of citizens and their law is quite complicated.
But one thing is for certain, the parents HAD TO BE MARRIED.
Here is more discussion of this
http://wapedia.mobi/en/History_of_British_nationality_law#3
To ignore the fact that a bigamous marriage has an effect on the analysis borders on malpractice.
The effect upon US natural born citizen status is the only issue that matters. Everything else is tangential. Obama has admitted, upon information and belief, that he was a citizen of Kenya, and the only way that is true, is that he was born a British citizen. His father, it cannot be argued, was definitely a British citizen, and this is the central problem, an alien father.
Again, his father was an alien. That is the problem.
Marriage, the lack of it, or the excess of it is not the problem. Even if it were, there was a legally recognized marriage in the US, as demonstrated by the divorce decree being granted.
You will not see a divorce undone, and a marriage essentially annulled after the fact, in order to make a child a bastard. Even if this bizarre extreme were to be pursued, you do not have legal proof of any customary, tribal marriage in Kenya. And so, you will not see a foreign government intervene, to strip their citizenship from a foreign head of state, in order to make him a bastard, either.
What is actionable, and what is fantasy or speculation, has been the problem on FR and elsewhere, with pinning this whole thing down. I’ve participated myself on occasion, but am trying mightily to put a stop to it now.
I have something for you to think about.
http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nichapter37/ch37annexc?view=Binary
Read the bottom of this chart.
Legitimate or Legitimated.
The section of the 1948 law that you referenced to me used the word legitimated. This means...illegitimate at birth but legitimated through subsequent marriage.
So does that section even apply..since the marriage was void at inception and there never was a subsequent marriage?
If you were already illegitimate at time of the bigamist marriage in Hawaii...would that law operate to legitimize you?
But this concept is not even relevant because the supposed marriage was before he was born.
It is a complicated matter and one that every attorney latching onto clients had better be familiar with before representing to their prospective client that Obama was or still is a UK citizen.
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.