Posted on 03/08/2010 6:26:35 AM PST by patlin
It became obvious records were created after the fact for Obama and were later changed. However, the computer access date is frozen on Sept. 9, 2008; two days after Obama appeared on Stephanopoulos’ show saying he registered with SS in 1979 when the requirement was nonexistent.
The mistakes made by adding to and changing the fraudulently created record after Coffman’s FOIA request was fulfilled but before the Allen’s was received, provides an audit trail of the fraud.
It would appear Flahavan, who processed both requests, should have caught the glaring incongruities. Instead, he got cocky in his letter to Allen by proclaiming, “Mr. Obama did indeed register with Selective Service …”
(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...
Ankeny has already been debunked —
Every court decision can be argued as inaccurate by anyone supporting the other side of the issue.
The fact remains that if and until any court’s decision is reversed by a higher court, that decision stands. The Ankeny appeal was decided unanimously by a three judge panel and then an appeal of their decision was denied unanimously by the full Court of Appeals and of course the original trial judge also rejected the plaintiff’s claim.
Judges often provide a rationale for their dismissal of a lawsuit in the dismissal order unless there is a summary dismissal.
The US Supreme Court’s rejection of all Obama eligibility suits to date came with no explanations whatsoever, just the words “application denied.”
Ankeny has already been debunked —
So the Ankeny decision stands as of today as the highest court to rule specifically on Obama’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen and that’s one more Court than has ruled Obama to be ineligible out of 63 separate attempts.
Courts are supposed to base their decisions on precedents of sound law and time-honored definitions, not invent their won definitions and subsequent law:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
Right. It’s a continent. I don’t remember anything about Africa in 61. But I do know the term African-American wasn’t used. Negro was. “African” on the COLB is ridiculous. In 61, we weren’t PC.
Courts are supposed to base their decisions on precedents of sound law and time-honored definitions, not invent their won definitions and subsequent law:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
We’ve never been here before. How could the Founders have envisioned a Marxist taking over and actively trying to destroy the country when he wasn’t even eligible? I don’t know what the remedy is. But I do know that we can’t let the Constitution be trampled or we’re toast. And Bam is shredding every part of it he can.
And scores of conclusions disconnected to the reality of those precedents, as the article points out from the Court's own words:
"In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
"Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen."
It should be noted, that to read the Happersett decision as “leaving open” an issue, is a novel concept of legal interpretation, because Happersett did no such thing, it cited Vattel’s definition, as the Court itself just quoted. It left open the issue of who is a citizen, but not of who is a natural born citizen!"
As you can read, the Court cited a precedent but then deliberately misstated that precedent so that it could reach into its prefabricated imagination to come to the wrong conclusion.
I’ve seen a story that made a big deal out of Barak Sr. being the first African student at the University of Hawaii. Perhaps at the time, African was a generic term like American or European. Whichever the case, Barak Sr. enjoyed this distinction, so it’s very possible he or those who knew him would have described him as African.
On a personal note, I remember meeting a guy from the Ivory Coast who was attending the same college as I was (in the United States). He told me he didn’t realize he was a black man until he came to the United States. I mention this because it’s about self-identification. I can easily see Barak Sr. thinking of himself as African, for similar reasons, before he would have ever thought of himself as being Negro.
Right, and one of these footnotes very clearly undermines their conclusion.
"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial."
WKA did NOT pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen, nor does anything in Ankeny's citations pronounce Obama to be an NBC. They don't really explain how they get from point A to point B when point A doesn't take them where they want to go.
I don’t know as his opinion of himself would carry much weight on an official document. But as we have seen, Hawaii was, um, different. Do we have any docs from 61 that sheds ANY light on this? I think it’s an interesting puzzle as before 64, there were no civil rights.
The racial classifications on Hawaii birth records were said to be self-identifying. The Patricia Decosta certificate listed one parent as “Hawaiian Caucasian” and the other as “White.” This leads me to be believe that maybe there weren’t real strict standards.
Well there hasn't seemed to be. Ever. Especially regarding birth records. Until Bam appeared.
And scores of conclusions disconnected to the reality of those precedents, as the article points out from the Court’s own words:
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
It should be noted, that to read the Happersett decision as “leaving open” an issue, is a novel concept of legal interpretation, because Happersett did no such thing, it cited Vattel’s definition, as the Court itself just quoted. It left open the issue of who is a citizen, but not of who is a natural born citizen!”
As you can read, the Court cited a precedent but then deliberately misstated that precedent so that it could reach into its prefabricated imagination to come to the wrong conclusion.
I recognize faulty logic when I see it. I can explain why the rest of their citations fail too, if you'd like. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, it doesn't look like they got a chance to challenge the assumptions made in this decision.
In my humble, non-lawyer, layman's opinon, the largest legal hurdle for those who challenge Obama's eligibility is the 14th Amendment. Since its ratification in 1865, court after court and decision after decision has found that there are now only two classes of citizenship for all Americans (and that would include presidents and presidential candidates): born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens cannot. And since the 14th Amendment, the interpretation of natural born citizen and born citizen have merged in the law. There are many court decisions where they are used interchangeably. If they should be separated, new decisions and new laws passed by Congress will be needed.
The Minor decision (which preceded WKA) clearly said that the definition of NBC was extraconstitutional. This is AFTER the 14th amendment was passed. IOW, that specifically acknowledges that the 14th amendment doesn't define NBC. The 14th amendment does acknowledge two types of citizenship but it doesn't redefine nor preclude the concept of natural born citizenship, which was dependent on paternal citizenship. Also, I don't think you can define NBC by any law, but only by a Constitutional amendment.
No -- that was after the WKA decision in 1898 and no court can amend the Constitution. Until 1898 children of naturalizing immigrant parents were, like their parents, counted by the Federal Government as aliens or foreigners -- not citizens.
Immigrants and children of immigrants were aliens on American soil until the father's naturalization. Then even those who had been born during the five year residency became citizens -- not through birth or at birth but through and at the naturalization of the father.
Thus children born on American soil of immigrant parents during their residency period became citizens not by birth but by naturalization -- the naturalization of their father.
No — that was after the WKA decision in 1898 and no court can amend the Constitution. Until 1898 children of naturalizing immigrant parents were, like their parents, counted by the Federal Government as aliens or foreigners — not citizens.
Immigrants and children of immigrants were aliens on American soil until the father’s naturalization. Then even those who had been born during the five year residency became citizens — not through birth or at birth but through and at the naturalization of the father.
Thus children born on American soil of immigrant parents during their residency period became citizens not by birth but by naturalization — the naturalization of their father.
Here is the reference for the Supreme Court’s syllabus in US v Wong Kim Ark so that people can read the decision for themselves.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
ONE MORE TIME: The Supreme Court ruled that WONG KIM ARK was BORN a citizen of the United States, he was NOT naturalized as a citizen and his parents NEVER became naturalized citizens, EVER. They remained Chinese citizens until their deaths.
From 1868 until that 1898 WKA, THAT WAS NOT SO.
You need to pay closer attention to the details in the WKA conclusion:
“... subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory,...”
The parents were determined to be subject to the United States because they were permanent immigrants. Obama’s papa, is not. Obama’s mama married two foreign nationals and ended up leaving the country. From whom does Obama derive natural allegiance to the United States?? Yes, the 14th amendment might make him a 14th amendment native born citizen, a la WKA — if it can be shown he was actually born IN the United States — but it does NOT make him a natural born citizen, which Ankeny admitted WKA did not make the plaintiff an NBC.
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.