[David]

He does claims he is a “Native” citizen, NOT a NBC!!!

Fine. Do you or does anyone know of any legal authority--a decided case; dictum in a decided case; anything in the way of real legal authority supporting the proposition that there is some legal difference?

It continues to astonish me that many of the posters here just drive along speculating about how things ought to work or what the result of a legal contest ought to be without really knowing anything about how the process works or about what the real legal authorities are.

I find it disturbing that there is a continuing effort in the legal process to focus the issue on considerations other than the place of Obama's birth--I have heard several times the suggestion that Obama's lawyers are looking for a decision other than one based on a place of birth finding for the purpose of establishing a Supreme Court precedent confirming his eligibility without having to face the Kenya birth location. I don't mean to impugn the officers who are supporting Lakin's case but it almost seems that the continuing effort to dilute the argument on place of birth is directed to ultimately obtaining a decision supporting Obama's position.

During the course of my own career, the "natural born citizen" clause has been the subject of fairly intensive debate on more than one occasion.

First was Goldwater who was born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state.

More recently, Republicans and many members of Congress were concerned about the qualification of John McCain. With respect to McCain, the natural born citizen requirement is a test of eligibility set forth in the Constitution. Yes, it could be amended through the Amendment process. But even enacted legislation signed by the President making McCain a natural born citizen would not cut it if he was not in fact qualified in that respect.

Congress, or in this case the Senate in a sense of the senate resolution, does not have the power to directly amend the constitution.

We all recognize that the Senate effort with respect to McCain was initiated by Obama's allies for the purpose of attempting to clarify Obama's position. However during the course of the discussion and in communications to the House about the prospect that the House would pass a bill if one were enacted by the Senate, significant attention was paid to the narrow kinds of issues that have been set out here.

Experienced Constitutional lawyers in DC were involved. The Republican National Committee became concerned and ultimately sought legal advice. Now when a client comes in with a checkbook and says we need a written opinion that this deal works the way we want to do it so write the strongest opinion you can write, cooperative counsel does what he is asked to do.

However those opinions are recognized by the bar as having the weight of the client's checkbook and not much more. The bottom line is that uncertain issues of great Constitutional significance ultimately get resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

In the McCain episode, the issue was further confused by the question of the "canal zone". Most of the initial arguments and facts were couched in terms of his birth in the "canal zone" and it was argued that somehow made a difference as distinguished from Panama proper. It didn't and doesn't.

Anyone who examined the extensive work that was done at the time of the Goldwater issue understood clearly that if Arizona remained a territory and had not become a state, Goldwater was subject to objection even though the US was the primary sovereign in the territorial period.

The Constitutional Bar generally, absent any bias resulting from current issues, is of the consensus view that adoption of the 14th Amendment vitiated any underlying historical authority on the purpose of the natural born citizen clause to the extent that authority would suggest other conditions of qualification other than birth within the territorial limits of the several states.

I know that many poster's here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama's case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office--if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple. (There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

And if the legal question proceeds to McCain, and it would not surprise me even at this late date if it did, the Court would hold that he is not eligible because he was born in Panama. The Canal Zone issue is a red herring--it shouldn't make any difference whether he was born in the Zone or in Panama proper and the McCain campaign has conceded that he was in fact born in Panama.

Either way, McCain is not eligible because he was not born in the territorial limits of the several states.

I also want to address Constitutional legal procedure. The Courts are not "hiding behind" some artificial requirement with the standing decisions. Standing is a long established procedure doctrine imposed to assure that a decision when rendered will resolve arguments and provide an enforceable conclusion. Law Schools spend a four hour course for an entire year on nuances of these kinds of issues which I am not able to summarize in the available space here. But to my knowledge, with a single exception of a wrong District Court decision which was not appealed, all of the other standing decisions I have read on this issue have been correctly decided.

As to the military tribunal in Lakin, there are other procedural considerations in force here. As I set out in one of my earlier posts, if the legal strategy in Lakin is being micro managed by some able legal decision makers, the current posture of the case may be directed to getting rid of the argument without leaving an appeal open.

Ultimately, subject only to the considerations set forth in my closing comments, Lakin cannot be punished for refusing to obey the order without having access to a collateral attack on the decision in the Federal Courts in which the Military would be forced to face the issue of Obama's legal authority on the merits.

The limitation on that view is that competent counsel needs to get the issue squarely framed to force the proper tribunal into facing the facts. So far, the reported WND and other commentary suggests that counsel has not done the most effective job of getting the issue to the proper court and it may be that Lakin will wind up holding the bag even though he is correct on the merits.

[thecodont]

(There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

We still haven't seen in any legal proceeding an official, long-form birth certificate proving he was born in the State (not Territory) of Hawai'i, in the United States of America.

[LucyT]

"Do you or does anyone know of any legal authority--a decided case; dictum in a decided case; anything in the way of real legal authority supporting the proposition that there is some legal difference?

"It continues to astonish me that many of the posters here just drive along speculating about how things ought to work or what the result of a legal contest ought to be without really knowing anything about how the process works or about what the real legal authorities are.

"I find it disturbing that there is a continuing effort in the legal process to focus the issue on considerations other than..."

. . . . Check out David's comment # 45. - 0bama, and McCain mentioned, too.

Perhaps the discussion should have its own thread, but I don't know where to post it.

[Thanks, David.]

[danamco]

Thank you for the post!

We all recognize that the Senate effort with respect to McCain was initiated by Obama's allies for the purpose of attempting to clarify Obama's position.

I don't think that the "Senate's" effort was to clarify Barry's position. Rather it was to cover up and only for the purposes of protect his worse position!

I know that many poster's here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama's case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office--if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple. (There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

The B.C. in essence of the NBC is mostly irrelevant, except for when the copy of his Kenya (footprint) B.C. is validated. But more obscure is the fact he probably still is an Indonesian citizen as SAD dropped him from her Passport application at a time he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and was an Indonesian citizen according to an AP school application form. To get back to Honolulu from Jakarta required a separate Passport!!

I also want to address Constitutional legal procedure. The Courts are not "hiding behind" some artificial requirement with the standing decisions.

Seems to me within the judiciary sphere it's like a "hot" potato that neither the crooked Congress or the courts want to touch with a ten-foot pole, Thomas saying with a "straight" face/smile(?) "We are evading it." They are extremely good punters that they would have done well in the NFL. The "Marine" judge Carter promise to hear the case on its MERIT and went along with procedures, UNTIL one of Bob Bauer's employee became a clerk for Carter - (or maybe a 3:00 AM call from the Red Phone?) - he then likewise punted the case out of court on the alter of "jurisdiction/standing," case closed. I don't have any kind of edifying view of our court system, regardless the Bar or how many classes they have taken. Your example with the check book is a good one, however!!!

[bgill]

So you keep saying, though you’ve yet to provide an argument that has standing for the courts to proceed.

[STARWISE]

Post #45
MUST read in its entirety
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2590828/posts?page=45#45

__________________________

I know that many poster’s here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama’s case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office—if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple.

(There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya—however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

~ ~ ~ ~

Thank you very much for your legal insight, David, .

I pray the truth comes out and the official and viable individual and/or class and approach, with standing, in which that will happen occurs .. and soon.

[El Gato]

Fine. Do you or does anyone know of any legal authority--a decided case; dictum in a decided case; anything in the way of real legal authority supporting the proposition that there is some legal difference?

Of course there is no such case or authority. The difference only matters in qualification for the office of President. That issue has not been adjudicated. Although there is dicta and citations indicating that such a difference exits.

From "Wong Kim Ark"..

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

In which a distinction is made between a "child of alien" born in the country, and the "natural born child of a citizen".

There are many others.

In the case of McCain, the fact that his father was serving in the Navy means, according to Vattel, that he is considered born in the country, since his parents never left its sovereignty or control.

Is not a territory, except maybe an unincorporated one like America Soma, whose inhabitants are not US citizens, but are US Nationals, part of the United States? Of course they are. Thus the Goldwater issue was a non issue. But in any event it also was not adjudicated.

Now clearly if born in Kenya, he's disqualified. But it does not follow that if born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the US, he's automatically a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th amendment does not use the words "Natural born" only "citizen".

[butterdezillion]

How can Alan Keyes not have standing? How can any military person not have standing?

Is it true that “standing” is actually supposed to apply to lawsuits where someone sues over laws?

Where in the Constitution is the responsibility and authority to determine Constitutional eligibility or whether a President elect “qualifies” specifically given to a branch other than the judiciary, that it could be called a “political question”? Impeachment is given to Congress, but that is not the same thing as determining whether a President elect is “qualified” and could thus ever have been allowed to use the presidential powers.