Posted on 02/17/2010 10:00:07 AM PST by opentalk
My circle of friends and professional colleagues includes many noteworthy persons; lawyers, scientists, doctors, business owners, etc. Many of them are my Mensa buddies. None of them are crazy and none of them are stupid. Some of them are smart enough to avoid politics altogether.
Those who do keep up with political issues agree that there is something really fishy about Obama’s history. So when we see the irrational “head in the sand” avoidance of the obvious lack of full disclosure we wonder what motivates people to NOT want to know the truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note to Erickson, Breitbart, O'Reilly and Beck: At a minimum, Obama has not been fully candid with the American people about his birth certificate. Giving him a pass for that is wrong. The bad news is that you blinked. The good news is that Abraham Lincoln was right:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
--Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member. Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research.
also from link,comments.
"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
Fireman15 says:
“Everyone has a right to their opinion but I am beginning to think we have an ‘Ellie Light’ type of pr firm stalking the forums.”
“Another weirdo person” says:
“and have no right to see/touch/feel/wave a wand over”
That’s one down.
I was hoping we could reel him in a little longer before we gaffed him........ ;)
It would have been nice to see him batted around a bit longer. Just when it gets interesting the MODS come and take our toys.
The Constitution through Amendment 10 predates case law in America, and comtemporary legal arguments of the time support my position.”
There are very clear contemporaneous arguments from that time and before that do not support your position. The only actual court opinion on record in recent times, that of an Indiana Court of Appeals on one of these suits, says quite flatly that you are wrong. And if you have read the Constitution, you know it doesn't even define the term “natural born citizen.”
But cheer up. You, too, can be President.
Please give me the contemporary arguments that do not support my position.
And no, I cannot be President. The COnstitution does not have to define every term in it when the term was understood by the writers and those that ratified it.
But thanks for trying to cheer me up.
the only thing the Oligarchy is more afraid of than the Tea Partiers....is “Bammy’s birth certificate.....cause if tha thing shows up...for real...it means they’re obviously too stupid to have anything to do with Federal leadership.
Until it does so, their stupidity remains a subject of debate
...Mensa buddies. None of them are crazy and none of them are stupid.
Then they would know that it is, “None of them is crazy and none of them is stupid.”
I thought it could be said either way so I looked it up.
I found this at drgrammar.org
“None has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. [. . .] If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage).
You know, how that book “Where is Waldo?” works.
We then put the bumper stickers everywhere, every state. That would illustrate the point better than any thing we could do in a court.
Yes! Did you report him? I was about to but I decided I’d just wait and see.
I can understand the obamabots, but it does amaze me how simply asking the questions and exploring the issues evoke so much rage and ridicule among freepers and other conservatives.
I should pay attention to how many of those who complain about the GOP rolling over also complain because fellow freepers do not. Instead of ignoring the discussion, they go out of their way to come onto the thread to ridicule and belittle.
Until I see a certified copy of the vault copy, I cannot say it has been proved Obama was born in Hawaii. The Dr. Fukino is worthless because no one will confirm or deny the accuracy of his statement.
This issue does not exist in a vacuum. The birth issue is not in one pot while everything else is in the other pot. It has to be viewed in context of all of the information regarding Obama that has been scrubbed from the public domain.
Patrick Henry said “...I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. ...”
My lamp of experience is telling me there is something Obama is hiding. Something more than personal embarrassment. He has gone through a hell of a lot of trouble to erase as much of his previous existence as possible. Try getting a copy of the Honolulu Advertiser with an article that mentions a family member. All of this trouble because Stanley Ann “had to get married?” I don't think so.
How can any of us judge Obama’s vision for this nation unless we know about his past? He is hiding his past. That in and of itself speaks volumes.
If the usual suspects could drop the ridicule for one moment, they might realize there is much to be gained by searching for information with an open mind and everything to lose with a closed mind stuck in the sand.
For this reason the debate is ended by mocking those who speak of the law. They can not win by discussing it.
The rest of the population simply parrots what the PC sound bite is, that being the birther insult.
To change this, we need a massive blowback of humor. Humor wins the point. Only the truth can be funny.
Well, that's not hard at all. As I'm short on time, I'll just quote at length from the recent Indiana Court of Appeals Decision:
"458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
* * * * *
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to The present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."
So, whether you agree or not, that's a real live Court citing real live history and a Supreme Court decision to state that Obama is a NBC. There's ample historical legal groundwork to support that conclusion. I'm not going to tell you that you can't believe whatever you want, but it's not credible to say there isn't a well established counter position. So come on already, set up that PAC and run for President. I believe in you (smile).
I had what Patrick Henry might have called an “experience” that might also be a strange coincidence.
Quite a while back, I put several things I had read about Obama into a search engine without his name. The first thing that came up was a biography of Bill Clinton.
Seems his mother became pregnant by a traveling salesman who was killed in an auto crash. Clinton never knew him. He was from Chicago. I don’t remember now all of the similarities but I remember thinking how strange it all was as I read the article.
My apologies. The above response consists of the quotations and cut off the ending. The actual Indiana court conclusion is as follows:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
However in the only court decision specifically looking at the Natural Born Citizen status of Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Vattel is not American law nor precedent for US law and that Barack Obama is indeed a Natural Born Citizen. The lawsuit was Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana. Unless and until Ankeny is appealed and reversed, it stands.
Looks like I missed all the fun! I had to leave for work shortly after posting. Was there a brilliant explosion of light when the zot hit him or did he fizzle out like a dud?
Yes you did miss some fun. -Another normal person- managed to get themselves booted after several days of calling people “birthers” and paroting the same Democrat talking points. He/she is probably over at the Daily Kos crying for a wambulance.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of judicial rulings are decided by activist judges who make up their minds then twist what was presented to them into whatever fits their decision. They simply omit and distort evidence that does not suit their purposes. It happens all of the time.
Lawyers know the composition of higher courts and often base their decision to appeal based on the prejudices of the judges they know they will be in front of. After studying a number of rulings unrelated to what we are discussing here I have lost a great deal of respect for our country's judicial system, but what is the alternative?
Obama is definitely hiding something. Whether what he is hiding will make him ineligible to be president I do not know. For some reason the judges in this country continue to hide behind the “standing” of the plaintiffs issue. As far as I am concerned Obama is hurting nearly everyone in the country and indeed the world through his administration's poor policies, his inept leadership, and his inability to tell the truth; nearly everyone in the country should be able to have standing to contest these issues in court.
Unfortunately 99% of the judges in this country are lawyers. I think it is commonly understood that lawyers are members of one of the least trustworthy and least honorable professions. So if we think we are going to be able to right this absurd situation through the courts we are likely to be disappointed. Fortunately people are starting to wake up. Obama’s poll numbers have been dismal for months. The Democrats are likely to lose big in the midterms. When reality starts to smack them hard on the head they may put the screws to Obama. When he goes down it will probably be his own Brutus wielding the knife... whoever that may be. Maybe Michelle?
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.