Posted on 08/29/2009 9:19:49 PM PDT by rxsid
Though it's clear you're proud of your logic at arriving where you did, the above indicates at least one flaw therein. Barry Soetero absolutely has been part of the conspiracy to present BHO as Constitutionally eligible when he certainly knows that's not true.
That makes him quite blameworthy, not blameless.
While it's true Barry couldn't have gotten himself elected a state senator without very significant help, his decades of sustained serial mendacity (and likely narcissism), when accumulated, must be considered a major factor to this clear fraud upon the US electorate.
HF
Supposing Stanley Ann did indeed take the citizenship of either of her husbands — there’s a distinct possibility that she may not have been an American citizen at the time of Barry’s birth.
Which would make him the spawn of two foreigners.
If they did travel to Kenya and were married there (Stanley Ann staying until after the birth), would there be citizenship records in England? Surely some court action would be required? What was the procedure in early 1961 for assuming British citizenship?
(For that matter, would there be census or tax rolls or any other public records that might place her in Kenya at that time, aside from the phantom BC?)
Oh, give it up.
We’re all tired of hearing 0 blame everything on Bush, and we don’t need more of it here on FR.
Not meaning to be rude, but enough is enough.
Well how about those adversely affected by things issuing forth from the office of this Usurper in Chief — like the decisions of his czars, the decrees of his appointments, executive orders, and things with his signature on them??? Don’t those people have standing to contest these things on the basis that the Usurper is not Constitutionally qualified to issue them????
***
Ya’d think - but SCOTUS introduced this doctrine in the 1920’s (although there is no provision in the Constitution for it).
Prior to that, the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.
I’m working on this - just found the SCOTUS case that started it all and I gotta work my way back. Prolly all the way to Common Law and the Law Of Nations ...
Anyway, current Standing Doctrine states:
There are three standing requirements that must be met:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
The natural born citizenship/dual nationality issue already satisfies Items 2 and 3, above.
The thorn is Item 1. SCOTUS has USUALLY ruled that the plaintiff MUST be uniquely harmed by the contested action.
That is, if you are one of 50 million people harmed (since you voted for McCain), it don’t count - because your injury is NOT unique.
Which is a bunch of BS ...
Thank you for taking the time to post this most interesting information. The logic is irrefutable.
I’m not sure there is any logic there. For one thing, using foreign law to decide who is eligible to be our President seems like a desperate move even for birthers.
***
At the time of our Independence, we were colonies of Great Britain - subject to English Law ...
After we separated, did we ABANDON English Law all together ???
OF COURSE NOT - AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE DID ABANDON IT ... SHOW ME THE MANUAL OF LAWS THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE TO REPLACE ENGLISH LAW !!!
What the Founding Fathers did was to take the BEST of English Law AND the BEST of the Law Of Nations in order to establish our laws.
They ONLY threw out what they OBJECTED to ...
See my new post #44 - below ...
I thought that US citizenship law did not recognize “dual citizenship.” as a category. I thought that one is either a US citizen or not.
Some countries do recognize dual citizenship as a category, like Canada , for example.
They are in the states, not in the federal government. At first the states did use major parts of the Common Law, but for the most part, the states have replaced the common law with statute law, although in interpreting that statute law, references are made to English commons law.
The federal government is one of strictly limited powers. There is no carry over from English common law to any federal power. The only exception to that is in determining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution. Perhaps some terms in federal statute law, if they are not defined in the statutes, recourse to the common law and the Law of Nations may be made, but only to determine the meanings of otherwise undefined terms. The Constitution aside, the definitions usually are in the US Code, and the definition may be different in different parts of the US Code. For example the different definitions of the term "firearm" in 24 USC 5845 (Internal Revenue code) and 18 USC 921 (criminal code, CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS). The second is the "ordinary meaning", more or less. The first is not.
They wouldn't have had much moral authority in contesting Obummer's eligibility *under the Constitution* if they were so obviously engaged in violating another provision of the Constitution at the time.
You must have someone else in mind. I was only commenting on the "giving up power" to Obummer.
But as I said above, Bush and Cheney could, and I dare say should, have used the resources entrusted to them to investigate and expose the facts about Obummer's Natural Born Citizenship, or lack thereof.
It would still come down to a courtroom. If Stretch was charged with fraud, the state government charging her would need to prove it in court. They'd probably have to prove that she knew he wasn't eligible. Otherwise it's at most negligence, not fraud. But it might provide a venue for getting warrant to acquire a certified copy of that CoLB, the administrative rules concerning application for a birth Certificate by those born outside of Hawaii, and even a certified copy of the original long form. But I think getting that long form, rather than the short form, might be problematic, absent some evidence that the CoLB information might be incorrect, rather than incomplete. Unless those rules indicate that "Hawaii" would be shown as the birthplace on those "not born in Hawaii" Hawaiian birth certificates.
I don't disagree. It just would have had to have been done *before* January 20th, 2009. After that, they had no legitimate Constitutional power either.
I suspect they probably didn't believe the "internet rummors" about Obummer's background and thought we were all a bunch of nuts. But that's no excuse. The One himself admitted, in his own (or would that be Bill's) book that his father was never a US Citizen.
I realized that after I'd hit post, and re scanned down the thread to find where I'd been.
Sorry about that.
This has nothing to do with taking into account the British Nationality Act of 1948. Why should what their law says about Obama's father have any bearing whatsoever on who we decide is eligible to be our President?
It doesn't. Only the fact that BHO Sr was not a US citizen can have any effect on whether Junior is a natural born citizen.
Now, it's entirely possible, that under our law, he's not a citizen at all. But that depends on where he was really born, and if his parents were legally married. If born outside the US: parents married, he's not a citizen due to the laws in effect at the time; parents not married, he's a US national but not a citizen under the law at the time, and the current law. Born in the US, he's a citizen, due to the 14th amendment, but "natural born" is still up in the air, but not very high. Using the criteria of "Law of Nations", not a natural born citizen. Using the criteria of the authors of the 14th amendment, not natural born. Using "Blackstone's Commentaries", a natural born citizen of England, since he says it goes with the father in split parentage, with the child born beyond the sea. ( But that is one of the contradictions in Blackstone, he has all children born in England or it's colonies, natural born, regardless of nationality/citizenship of the parents, but then says that children of fathers born outside of the nation colonies are also natural born subjects of England. So which is it? By the way he defines things, one can't be natural born subjects of two different sovereigns. It's a case of the laws of England not recognizing anyone else's laws. Just as US laws on the matter do not.
Interestingly the U. Of Chicago (where have we heard that) press' The Founders Constitution, puts the Blackstone commentaries' section on "Natural born subject" in their section on the power of Congress to define an uniform rule of Naturalization, Art I Sec 8 Clause 4, not Art II Section 1 clause 5 which requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Interesting, no?
For the Art II Sec 1 Cls 5, they refer to the Records of the Federal Convention and Joseph Story's 1833 commentaries on the US constitution
The federal government is one of strictly limited powers. There is no carry over from English common law to any federal power.
***
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States. However, absent any CLEAR understanding of the language and law in the Constitution, SCOTUS has suggested time and again that Common Law ought be consulted in order to arrive at a decision. It has done this in order to ascertain the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.
See Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) for more information on the applicability of English Common Law …
THESE DECISIONS SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT ENGLISH LAW SHOULD BE CONSULTED WHEN UNITED STATES LAW AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ ORIGINAL INTENT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED ...
As proof - read the following:
Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, August Term 1798
Calder v. Bull established the definition of ex post facto laws - which is STILL used to this day ...
SCOTUS consulted English Common Law to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers ...
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.