Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: IntolerantOfTreason

Where have you found one shred of credible evidence that Zero *is* a natural born citizen? Every previous president in my lifetime has had credible evidence already in the public domain that they were a natural born citizen, and thus complied with Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Obama hasn’t. He has broken the Constitution.


Well there was this: “Hawaii: Obama Birth Certificate is Real”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Also in a lawsuit challenging Obama’s Indiana Electors (Ankeney v The Governor of Indiana) the Indiana Court of Appeals declared Obama (and McCain) to be Natural Born Citizens for purposes of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903


14 posted on 01/25/2010 11:56:51 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777

You really are an Obamatron aren’t you. The Hawaians have never given a proper answer, and the Ankeney Judgement is a joke that Leo Donofrio shot to pieces, shame he’s taken his website info down. Still Leo says as follows:

Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]

The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue. …

Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.

Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:

1. natural born

2. citizens by statute

3. 14th amendment citizens

- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.

- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.

- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.

All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.

To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.

Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident. …

Blogger and attorney Larry Welch goes on to show some of the other oddities of the order:

…Something I uncovered a few months ago that has been overlooked by all of the parties is that the certification filed with Indiana’s Election Division by the DNC and Indiana’s Democratic Party omitted language certifying that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. That’s not a problem though for Judge Brown, who then went on to offer her constitutional interpretation of what “natural born citizen” means, something our U.S. Supreme Court has never done and something she had no obligation to do since there were already sufficient grounds to affirm Judge Dreyer’s dismissal of the badly flawed lawsuit.

The only thing I believe the plaintiffs got right in their lawsuit was their contention that a “natural born citizen” is a person born within the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents. Obama’s father was at all times during his life a citizen of Kenya, which at the time of Obama’s birth was a British commonwealth. By virtue of his father’s citizenship, Obama was indisputably a dual citizen at birth. A person owing allegiance to two countries cannot be described as a natural born citizen in my opinion. The fact that Obama says he never affirmed his British citizenship before the age he was legally required to do so is irrelevant. A fact conveniently overlooked in Judge Brown’s decision is that Obama immigrated to Indonesia at age 6 with his mother and became a citizen in that country as well after his step-father adopted him. Sen. John McCain also arguably was not a natural born citizen because he was born in a Panamanian hospital while his father was stationed at a Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone. Both Obama and McCain are U.S. citizens for different reasons, but the term “natural born citizen” is a unique term used in the U.S. Constitution only to define a person’s eligibility to serve as president. …

It is worth noting that of the dozens of cases that have been brought forth over the past year challenging whether Obama is a natural born citizen, this is the only opinion that has been decided on the merits of the claim that he is not a natural born citizen. Every other decision refrained from making any determination on the actual merit; instead, the courts dismissed the complaints for lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs to bring the constitutional eligibility challenge. There’s a reason other courts failed to reach a conclusion Judge Brown reached in this opinion. It is based upon the long-held rule of constitutional interpretation that a court should refrain from deciding a case on constitutional grounds when the case can be disposed of on other non-constitutional grounds. Procedurally, this case had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs sued the wrong defendant and lacked standing to sue. There was no reason for the court to decide a constitutional question as it did in this case, and that’s what makes it so disturbing. Judge Terry Crone and Melissa May signed on to Judge Brown’s decision. Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed Judge Brown to the Court of Appeals last year. I bet we won’t hear Gov. Daniels complaining about the judicial activism of his own appointees like he did the judges who ruled Indiana’s voter I.D. law unconstitutional.

The truth of all the above can be summed up in the following two points:

The Judiciary has never made a ruling on the definition of natural born citizenship eligibility with respect to the presidency. For any Judge to attempt to opine on the subject, as has been done before when there is no legitimate reason to do so, shows further anecdotal evidence that the Judiciary needs to be restrained;
Since even this Judge won’t touch the fact that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth, this bigger issue of his background will continue until the evidence is shown that otherwise contradicts what is already admitted about this man.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/16/eligibility-update-ankeny-v-daniels-and-citizenship-sen-frist-on-birthers-kerchner-ad/


22 posted on 01/25/2010 2:02:07 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777

If Hawaii actually declared the online COLB for Obama to be real then there is no doubt that they themselves are guilty of the Class B felony of forgery. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/


39 posted on 01/27/2010 2:16:46 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson