Posted on 04/30/2010 2:25:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
Part II of an investigative series
In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.
As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
ML/NJ
You lie
No, I didn’t lie. I’ve posted a link for anyone concerned to read.
They argue that since natural born subject and natural born citizen are equivalent, and common law at the time of the Constitution said the child of TWO aliens was still a NBS if born in country, therefor WKA would be a NBC and thus a citizen.
Notice the dissent argued that this would allow WKA to run for President, a situation the 2 dissenters thought was appalling:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Show me
No...you go read their argument yourself, and read the dissent, and then read how it has been cited in following cases.
the dissent is not the decision and you know that.
Therefore by your own admission: You Lie
I said read both. I haven’t lied.
But it requires two or more brain cells to read the decision, and I don’t think you qualify. All you’ve ever shown the ability to do is call names and make accusations.
Any who read this thread and want to decide for themselves can use the links I posted to see what the SCOTUS said. It might also help to read follow-on cases to see how the SCOTUS has interpreted the precedence.
Is this statement of yours in post #94 the truth or a lie:
In WKA, they found that WKA was born in the USA, and that sufficed for him to be a natural born citizen
When birthers are refuted on the dual citizenship issue (because they can't stomach disqualifying all American Jews from the oval office since they are ALSO dual citizens), they suddenly shift to a new argument. Arguing with birthers (and truthers) is like nailing jelly to a wall.
“Odd. Birthers keep telling me that British law makes Barry a citizen of the UK forever, regardless of the fact Barry hasn’t ever claimed it or indicated any interest in it, and that this affects US law on who is eligible. But I agree with you - British law doesn’t determine US law..........”
Yes it is odd! I’ll not ever say that to you......, the British Nationally Act of 1948 that some people cite, doesn’t make him a British subject, it only allows Barack to go before a British Court and claim British citizenship, because his father Obama Sr was a British subject...... As far as I know Barry has never done that, nor does it appear that he will do that in the near future.....
Still, it is a potential conflict of Allegience, one that the Founders sought to avoid in the Presidency, and the prime motivator for them to include NBC as a requirement for the Presidency. Neither of us can truely know what is hidden in Obama’s (or anyone else’s) heart....for all we know tomorrow he may apply for British or Kenyan citizenship...Likely....No, I don’t think so....possible....Yeah, it is.
The potential of that happening is what sets Barry’s status as a non NBC in conflict with the established Founder’s Intent.......
“In WKA, it is cited as being the common law at the time the Constitution was written, and therefor instructive in what the Founders intended - original intent.”***
You may want to review WAK again, and their citing of the Minor decision, and it’s acceptance of Vittals definition of NBC as being undisputed. That quality of citizenship, NBC, has never been disputed, the question has always been, in suits before the SC,...” what other qualities of citizenship are there?”
In WAK they found that WAK’s birth in the US to two legal resident aliens was sufficient to establish a quality of basic (non NBC) citizenship with rights equal to those of a NBC....
By the way Common Law is not operative in the US, we use a statute based law system......... futhermore, Blackstone’s is just one man’s commentary on, and view of British Common Law.....
***So your contention is that the Founder’s intent was to copy the Laws of the Country that they just successfully rebelled against? In effect establish Great Britain II.... Somehow, and maybe it’s just me, the logic of that is a bit well....uuhh, unsupportable? .....
I always thought the Founder’s Intent was to establish a Representative Republic using the ideas/ideals and thoughts of the greatest political thinkers/jurists of their time......have I been wrong all this time?
Back on point....
When you think about it, the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are very simple...
1) Age... Have reached 35 years of age..... (have at least some minimum life experience as an adult, and hopefully some maturity in both thought and action.)
2) Residency...have spent his adult years in the US, and have been a participant in daily American life..... (21 years to be an adult + 14 years in the US minimum = 35 years old the required minimum age to be President.)
3) Loyality .....Have undivided loyalities to the United States. Heck, how can you insure that? Pretty hard to do wouldn’t you say? Well as a start, a basic minimum if you will, how about “birth in country to 2 citizen parents”..... just as Vittal, a contempory political jurist, suggests in his “Law of Nations? Doesn’t really insure complete loyality, but can you name a better way?
(see Barack Obama Jr’s “I am a citizen of the world.” statement..... but then he’s not NBC is he? (But he is an International Communist....not LOLOLOL))
Time to man up, Mr. Rogers... and take “THE CHALLENGE!”
Question.... If YOU were writting the Requirements for President at the Constitutional Convention, what things would YOU require to be eligible? Why do YOU feel YOUR requirements are important for the position of President? Give us the basis for YOUR reasoning......( you may cite others that are in agreement with your ideas...no Freepers allowed....just historical figures, and their writtings...)
Sit right down among the Founders... Madison, Franklin, Washington, Jay, Randall, et al... and put on your thinking cap....
No fair using the 3 requirements already used by the founders and leaving it go at that...LOLOLOL.. State in your own words, with your own reasons for the requirements you choose for POTUS......you may be as uncomplicated or complex as you choose, but you must be complete.......
If you do take up this Challenge you’ll be the first one to do so......No NBC deniers have so far, they’ve always wimped out....Maybe they just enjoy being in the catbird’s seat..”talk is cheap”...LOLOLOLOLOL
You tried that the last time we exchanged thoughts...LOLOLOLOL........
A dismissal is not an Evidentuary Finding and you know it....Show me a case where a Court said that Obama met the requirements of eligibility to be President as you contend.....you can’t, because they haven’t...
No Cigar..... try some one in the 3rd grade, maybe they’ll buy that arguement.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
See ya Sonny...your momma’s calling ya!
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
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.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009. Appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court, rejected on April 6, 2010.
“State Justices Reject Birther Lawsuit”: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_4da2bd4c-62b3-556f-a97c-8c3009013129.html
You have yourself a lovely day now.
<>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.<>
That wouldn’t be the same Court that put the following disclaimer in the footnote of their decision, would it:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation& history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
So they admit that they misrepresented the words of the court in their citation of the words of the court. And we’re supposed to take this decision seriously??? It’s like asking us to take the misrepresentations posted by a bought-and-paid-for Obamabot seriously.
As for Jews, maybe you have a problem?
I'm Jewish. I'm not an Israeli citizen. I know hundreds of natural-born American citizens who are Jewish, but the only ones I know (a handful) who are also Israeli citizens are those who have made Israel their permanent home. As far as I am concerned they have would have no more business assuming the American Presidency that Barack Obama has. But that would be a decision for the American people to make, not some judge or secretary of state.
ML/NJ
“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,”
Sorry WAK doesn’t say that at all.... in part it cites portions of Minor v Happersett....
“........ 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
In WAK the USSC established that there are classes(qualities) of citizenship other than Natural Born Citizenship... ie born in country of 2 citizen parents.....
They held that birth in the US to legal resident aliens was sufficient to establish citizenship of a non NBC class....with rights of citizenship the same as a NBC....(you’ll note that the Presidency is not a right of citizenship.)
The requirements for the Presidency limit those eligible to the NBC Class......WKA did/does not qualify..... is he a citizen..... yes.....Is he a NBC....no.....therefore he could not have met the requirements for the Office of President as you incorrectly state that he does.
“A summary dismissal means “you’re wasting the Court’s time with this drivel.” 50 summary dismissals means “this particular issue is for wearers of the tin foil hat.”
LOLOLOL..... Recently Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the judiciary is avoiding/evading a trial/judgement in this matter......( they all know Obama is not by definition a NBC, and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS)
What you are suggesting is that Judicial cowardice can be translated into the plaintifs being “....wearers of the tin foil hat?” (paraphrased).........
You might take a look in the mirror....you’re looking pretty stylish in your Renyolds Wrap Cap.......LOLOLOLOL
“You have yourself a lovely day now.”
I will.... I always do....Like Reagan I believe that every day is a bright sunny morning in America......You on the other hand have spent too much time in your cellar.....(Hows the wine this year? Was it a good year?)..... LOLOLOL
BTW a Natural Born Subject and a Natural born Citizen are two quite different things....but you know that already don’t you?
You are right that all citizens enjoy the same rights, no matter what type of citizenship. But not all qualify for the presidency or the vice-presidency. People born on American soil to one or more foreigners are native-born. People born on American soil by 2 American parents are natural-born. It is like the US Air Force will not allow just anybody to be a fighter pilot because not everybody qualifies for the job. Qualifications and eligibility’s are not rights. If you say they are, please show me a link to where I can maybe educate my self.
“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,”
Sorry WAK doesn’t say that at all.... in part it cites portions of Minor v Happersett....
“........ 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
In WAK the USSC established that there are classes(qualities) of citizenship other than Natural Born Citizenship... ie born in country of 2 citizen parents.....
They held that birth in the US to legal resident aliens was sufficient to establish citizenship of a non NBC class....with rights of citizenship the same as a NBC....(you’ll note that the Presidency is not a right of citizenship.)
The requirements for the Presidency limit those eligible to the NBC Class......WKA did/does not qualify..... is he a citizen..... yes.....Is he a NBC....no.....therefore he could not have met the requirements for the Office of President as you incorrectly state that he does.
“A summary dismissal means “you’re wasting the Court’s time with this drivel.” 50 summary dismissals means “this particular issue is for wearers of the tin foil hat.”
LOLOLOL..... Recently Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the judiciary is avoiding/evading a trial/judgement in this matter......( they all know Obama is not by definition a NBC, and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS)
What you are suggesting is that Judicial cowardice can be translated into the plaintifs being “....wearers of the tin foil hat?” (paraphrased).........
You might take a look in the mirror....you’re looking pretty stylish in your Renyolds Wrap Cap.......LOLOLOLOL
“You have yourself a lovely day now.”
I will.... I always do....Like Reagan I believe that every day is a bright sunny morning in America......You on the other hand have spent too much time in your cellar.....(Hows the wine this year? Was it a good year?)..... LOLOLOL
BTW a Natural Born Subject and a Natural born Citizen are two quite different things....but you know that already don’t you?
I’m suggesting that frivolous lawsuits get dismissed and thrown out of court all the time.
There is no clause in the US Constitution, there is no law in the US Code and there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that a president must have two American citizen parents in order to assume the office.
Obama is the sixth president to have a foreign born parent.
The 14th Amendment is quite clear: “ALL persons BORN or naturalized...”
There are only two classes of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – Supreme Court, 1964
I find it hard to believe that Justice Roberts would have sworn Obama in if there was any doubt in his mind as to Obama’s eligibility. That fact is backed up by the US Supreme Court refusing to entertain any of the seven Obama eligibility suits that have reached them for Writ of Certiorari conferences and it only takes four Justices to agree to hear a suit before the full Court.
Here is the exact quote from Justice Thomas in context: “I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Congressman Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative, but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
US Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth who described the natural born citizen quest of Orly Taitz as “tilting at rainbows” is a Reagan appointee to the federal judiciary.
If anybody really wanted to see Obama’s original birth certificate, they would get it subpoenaed and examined by a Grand Jury. The fact that no one has done that speaks volumes. Obama’s permission to release his long form certificate is not needed if a person (and I quote from Hawaii statutes) “who’s right to inspect a vital record is established by an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.”
ANY prosecuting attorney in the nation could get a subpoena for Obama’s birth certificate.
You will have to forgive these bought-and-paid-for Obamabots. They get stuck on stupid. Their Constitution is Wong Kim Ark, their founding father is Justice Gray, and the founding of their regime began in 1898. Their whole regime is based on one decision by a Court ignoring the words of the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and led by a jurist appointed by a man who was not a natural born citizen himself. These Obamabots find their intellectual refuge on sinking sand.
“I find it hard to believe that Justice Roberts would have sworn Obama in if there was any doubt in his mind as to Obama’s eligibility.”
So do I.....Guess that’s why it took 3 stabs at it, over a few days, to get it done....Roberts kept choking on the words, don’t blame him at all........LOLOLOLOL
Chief Justice Roberts’ job was to swear Obama in, not raise questions about his eligibility. To have done so would have been cause for Roberts recusal on any NBC suit. Bringing up Obama’s eligibility was the job of others and they failed miserably at it....... not LOLOLOLOL
“That fact is backed up by the US Supreme Court refusing to entertain any of the seven Obama eligibility suits that have reached them for Writ of Certiorari conferences and it only takes four Justices to agree to hear a suit before the full Court.”
The USSC is not a Trier of Fact. It is a Judicial Review Court. There is no wonder at their not granting a Writ of Certiorari in these 7 cases. Trying to go that route dooms it from the git go, no matter what the issue....... To do so would have them stepping outside of their Constitutionaly mandated role, and set a dangerous prescedent of allowing suits being filed directly to the USSC, effectively bypassing lower courts. Please, you can think of better arguments than this can’t you?
“I’m suggesting that frivolous lawsuits get dismissed and thrown out of court all the time.”
Yes, but you are also suggesting that all suits dismissed are frivolous.....not so, your logic is severely lacking.....cases can, and are, thrown out for a variety of other reasons.....including judicial cowardice which was my point backed up by Justice Thomas’ statement in the first place...see below
Question for youse..... Do you think that Obama’s nulification team is filing intentionally flawed suits in order to give the appearance that any questioning of Obama’s eligibility is just frivilously nuts? I know that Obama has spent near $2 million dollars up front quashing suits, I wonder how much he is spending at the back door for the nulification effort?
Play chess, not checkers.....
“There is no clause in the US Constitution, there is no law in the US Code and there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that a president must have two American citizen parents in order to assume the office.”
Yes there is! The Constitution requires that, in order to be eligible for the Office of President you must be a Natural Born Citizen.....there is few that deny that NBC means....”Born in country to 2 US citizens”...... You do recognize the Constitution as law don’t you? See the previously cited Miner v Happersett.....you might visit Perkins v Elg also.......both USSC cases where NBC is discussed/defined.
I’ll grant you the fact that there are no USSC cases for the presidential requirement of NBC that are directly on point, because all Presidents, except Arthur and Obama, have been unquestionably NBCs. Arthur seems to have gotten away with it in his time, and we are working on Obama right now, with no help from guys like you.....
“Obama is the sixth president to have a foreign born parent.”
Yes, but with the exception of Arthur, all of them had parents that had been naturalized (ie became citizens) before the birth of their son, thereby meeting the NBC requirement for their son’s NBC status... You’ll note that although Arthur’s Irish born father eventualy was naturalized, it was not until Arthur was 14 years old..... This was the reason Arthur went to great lengths to hide/destroy documentation of his birth.... He was not an NBC..... the same as Obama and for the same reason...Obama is not a NBC)
Or is your argument that because Arthur got away with it, so we should let Obama off too? Is That what you are saying?
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question”
So your point is? The Constitution only requires NBC in one area....to be eligible for the Office of President...ie born in country of 2 citizen parents. Just as I have been saying...hey, you posted the quote not me!
“Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – Supreme Court, 1964”
From Law of Nations...
“...The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens....”
Schneider v Rusk USSC agrees with both me and Vittal...seriously you need to get out more....LOLOLOLOL
“Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot.’
Read the Constitution....The Presidency requires Natural Born Citizenship.....not “born citizenship.” You are as wrong as rain....again...
yet you posted....
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
“Didn’t go far to make your point did it? Did wonders for mine though.....LOLOLOLOLOL
The Thomas /Serrano conversation....
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one ( being a USSC Justice)?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
Let me re-state the conversation in simplfied form so you’ll understand....”So you haven’t answered the one about (who) can be President.” We’re avoiding that one.....”
Justice Thomas was being coy with his double entandre answer in an informal setting. I’m sure that is why the thrust of it went over your head.....everyone else in the room got a laugh out of it though.....LOLOLOLOLOL ( note Justice Thomas did not have a mouse in his pocket....”we” meaning the judiciary.)
Schools out! Time for you to go to bed. Wash your hands and face....brush your teeth first....
So true! Problem for them is that don’t/ can’t/ won’t read the parts of any decison or law that goes outside their narrow viewpoint....
BTW loved your point in #112...good on you!
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.