Na na na na na you have no Standing

Creating Orwellian Worldview ^ | 9/11/09 | Alaphiah

[Alaphiah123]

“Na na na na na you have no Standing” has been the legal argument that President Barry Soetoro, his attorneys and now the attorneys of the U.S. Justice Department, have used to have dozens eligibility suits dismissed throughout the country.

As legally profound and convincing as that argument is on September 8, 2009 in a California Federal Court, Judge of the Central District David Carter has for the first time since this issue has been brought up has scheduled a case to be heard on its merits. Image that someone in black robes has finally said okay let’s get to the bottom of this controversy once and for all. That ought to make all of the anti-birthiers happy.

The first case was filed before Barry Soetoro received the Democrat’s nomination to be the Democrat candidate for the presidency. It was filed in Philadelphia by attorney Philip Berg a Hillary Clinton supporter who feared that if Sen. Soetoro received the Democrat Nomination Republicans would be able to use the fact that there was were questions surrounding the birth of Sen. Soetoro however Sen. John McCain never raised those questions. Democrats in the DNC all knew of the questions regarding a lack of a birth certificate because they were served notice by Mr. Berg in fact all of the major players knew but no one did anything about it for whatever reason(s)...

[El Gato]

I am not expecting impeachment hearings to interrupt regularly scheduled programming during this NFL season.

Impeachment is for Presidents who misbehave, not for ineligible usurper who have been unconstitutionally acting as President.

[El Gato]

I have always wondered if his mother had him established as an Indonesian Citizen and renounced his American Citizenship

She could not do that under US law, regardless of what she or her husband Lolo did under Indonesian law. Only the individual can renounce their citizenship, and then only as an adult (in general, it is possible for someone near the age of majority to do so, if they can convince a US consul that they are not under duress or pressure to do so, even by the parents.).

It's status at birth, natural born or not that counts, until and unless the person themselves renounce their citizenship.

[Kenny Bunk]

It is obvious to most of us who read, accept, and therefore commit to the Constitution as part of our being, to accept the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," as one born to to two (2) "American citizens." Therefore, and quite simply, our present claimant to the office of President is ipso facto ineligible to run for, much less hold the office.

Problem: Why is no elected official seemingly interested in this? One can see very well why the party in power might shy from the question, having been granted literally TRILLIONS to reward those who back them. Why would the party not presently in power choose to let it slide?

Republican elected representatives: Where TF are you?

[Kenny Bunk]

OBTW, I am quite prepared to take my legal lumps on this. Courts, where TF are you on this?

[Non-Sequitur]

It is obvious to most of us who read, accept, and therefore commit to the Constitution as part of our being, to accept the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," as one born to to two (2) "American citizens." Therefore, and quite simply, our present claimant to the office of President is ipso facto ineligible to run for, much less hold the office.

And if you were able to point to the clause in the Constitution, the federal law, or the Supreme Court decision that supports that interpretation then I'd agree with you. But you can't.

[Kenny Bunk]

And if you were able to point to the clause in the Constitution, the federal law, or the Supreme Court decision that supports that interpretation then I'd agree with you. But you can't.

Yes. Those are exactly the "legal lumps" I said I would take in my previous post. This "Natural Born Citizen" concept was so obvious; such a foregone conclusion to the Framers of the Constitution, that they saw no need to define that status or specify a process for ascertaining it. This is the opening through which Team Obama so easily drove.

That does not lessen the need for clarification. It does not lessen the need for state laws requiring proof of eligibility. It does not lessen the need for one (1) elected official to pay at least as much attention to the matter as was paid to the question of Chester Arthur's eligibility, in which matter some very thorough research was done at the time.

Speaking of "Legal Lumps," it is entirely possible that I, and others who agree with me, are 100% wrong on the issue. But when the issue is properly structured, if ever, I would simply request that the SCOTUS tell us we are wrong and define the concept once and for all.

[Non-Sequitur]

This "Natural Born Citizen" concept was so obvious; such a foregone conclusion to the Framers of the Constitution, that they saw no need to define that status or specify a process for ascertaining it. This is the opening through which Team Obama so easily drove.

Can you provide some quotes from the founders indicating their belief? I fully understand, and support, their belief that the president should have a connection to this country from birth, and that someone who obtained citizenship after reaching adulthood lacks the life-long tie that natural born citizenship bestows. But none of the founders listed any sort of definition in their writings that I'm aware of. Even John Jay in his letter to Washington merely stated natural-born citizen without defining it. They believed, as I do, that loyalty is transmitted at birth. And that a first-generation citizen, such as Bobby Jindal for example, is no less an American than someone who's family has been here for generations. Yet you would deny Jindal and people like him the presidency. Sorry, but I just don't see where that can be supported by the Constitution, by the law, or by any of the writings of the Founders.

[Kenny Bunk]

1st: I am not about denying anyone anything. It's about following the Constitution as written and amended.
2d: Bobby Jindal's parents are both naturalized American citizens. Whether they were at Bobby's birth or not, and how that would affect his eligibility to run for President is an interesting question and should be decided by law, and not by my or your opinion on the matter, or our favorable opinion on his worthiness.
3rd: here's a link for a review of the history of the concept and the some of the major pertinent rulings:
: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07 /30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
The fact that controversy swirls about these cases means that a definition of "Natural Born Citizenship," is urgently needed.

I have no doubt that BHO, Jr. has a claim to American citizenship, perhaps even native-born. I also have no doubt that at one time he had the same reasonable claim to British citizenship, Kenyan Citizenship, and Indonesian citizenship.

If I were to follow your reasoning, (i.e. that loyalty is transmitted at birth) the native-born child of two illegal aliens would be a "Natural Born Citizen," and thus eligible to run for President. I am unwilling to agree.

Logically, you would support the right of any American Citizen to run for the office. I do not. Eligibility for the office is not a civil right.

Sorry, but I just don't see where that can be supported by the Constitution, by the law, or by any of the writings of the Founders.

I believe that one can see support for my position in each of those three. Others, apparently yourself included, interpret them differently, which is why this issue must be settled at law. Should my side lose at law, so be it. Should your side lose at law, you are in the more advantageous position: i.e., your side can seek redress by amending the Constitution to equalize the eligibility status of all citizens..

[Non-Sequitur]

1st: I am not about denying anyone anything. It's about following the Constitution as written and amended.

In your opinion.

2d: Bobby Jindal's parents are both naturalized American citizens. Whether they were at Bobby's birth or not, and how that would affect his eligibility to run for President is an interesting question and should be decided by law, and not by my or your opinion on the matter, or our favorable opinion on his worthiness.

Neither one was a citizen when Jindal was born. So by your definition of natural-born citizen he is not qualified. Correct?

3rd: here's a link for a review of the history of the concept and the some of the major pertinent rulings...

I've read the Ark decision, and to draw that conclusion from what Justice Gray wrote is quite a stretch.

If I were to follow your reasoning, (i.e. that loyalty is transmitted at birth) the native-born child of two illegal aliens would be a "Natural Born Citizen," and thus eligible to run for President. I am unwilling to agree.

We're not talking about illegal aliens.

Logically, you would support the right of any American Citizen to run for the office. I do not. Eligibility for the office is not a civil right.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have no problem with the Constitutional requirement that only a natural-born citizen can be president. I disagree with your definition of natural-born citizen and do not believe there is any legal or Constitutional justification for it.

[BP2]

No trial, no discovery.

Even though CAIR, UMA or whomever is paying you 4 bits a post - and it may seem lucrative - might I suggest your nearest ACORN office. You'd fit in there nicely.

They need legal advisers to assist in the areas of:
- property acquisition (whore houses)
- underage work programs (child prostitution)
- tax deferment (just don't file with the IRS)
- Census enumeration

ACORN is looking for Americans like yourself to assist with their goals and help reshape the US, while blindly following and ENABLING Mr. Obama's agenda. Since you enjoy working overtime to that end, perhaps you should pay them a visit.

I hear they have IMMEDIATE openings ...

[Non-Sequitur]

I hear they have IMMEDIATE openings ...

Well you certainly seem well versed in ACORN and their dealings, so it seems that they would be a better fit for you than I would be. Plus if you go there an start tossing your legal advice around then it'll guarantee disaster for them. So I'd say go for it.

[Kenny Bunk]

It's about following the Constitution as written and amended.In your opinion

The interpretation of the Constitution is not governed by my opinion, but by the majority opinion of the SCOTUS, expressed in a ruling when a case makes it way to them. I would merely ask for their opinion on what a "Natural Born Citizen" is, or isn't. that, and as I have repeatedly said, will abide by it, as every citizen should. Of course I hope the opinion that counts, i.e., theirs, coincides with my own.

We're not talking about illegal aliens.

Why not? You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that some citizens are ineligible to to run for the Presidency. I disagree with your definition of natural-born citizen and do not believe there is any legal or Constitutional justification for it.

What is your definition of a "Natural Born Citizen?" How does it differ from mine, which is, again, "a person born of two American Citizens?"

The fact that we may differ on the key definition that qualifies or disqualifies a candidate for the Presidency is exactly the reason why this issue must be settled by the SCOTUS. For example, in re Bobby Jindal. If his parents were not naturalized when he was born, he might well be ineligible for the office. OTOH, they were here legally, and became naturalized. Again, not our call. That's why we need a ruling from SCOTUS.

[Mogollon]

Why is no elected official seemingly interested in this?

Pretty simple really. The rats don't really care and the GOP members are afraid to be labeled 'birther'. However, if it is proven that zer0 is indeed a usurper, several GOP members will jump on the bandwagon.