Posted on 01/18/2011 1:20:48 PM PST by rxsid
First, the old Wong Kim Ark - common law - natural born subject is a natural born citizen shibboleth; Justice Gray begins by citing Chief Justice Morrison Waite's explaination of natural born citizenship from Minor v. Happersett. Here is the relevant quotation:
“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 citizensbecame themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Anyone believe Gray will blatantly contradict what Morrison Waite said was “never doubted?” Anyone doubt that had Gray's citation contradicted Waite's that challenges would have appeared in 130 years? Justice Gray determined that Wong Kim was a citizen. His whole case is a somewhat grandiose treatise on the 14th Amendment, including an irrelevant history of British citizenship. (Some wonder if all the verbiage about common law wasn't to help cloud the ineligibility of the only other ineligible officeholder, Chester Arthur, who appointed Gray, and deliberately concealed his birth certificate to distract political enemies from his British subject father.) All Gray's citations of Calvin's case show is that Obama was born, as Obama himself said, and British law confirms, a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth - obviously not a natural born citizen/subject of both countries.
What affect did the 14th Amendment have on the definition of natural born citizenship? Here is the explanation from the Congressional Globe (Record) by the principal author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman and Judge John Bingham, of natural born citizenship:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Subjects are not citizens. Someone pointed out that citizens can become president but subjects can never be king. Perhaps the most eloquent explanation comes from framer and founder, Dr. David Ramsay, who wrote a dissertation on citizenship in 1790. He said:
A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.
One obot claimed that no one had objected to presidential candidates born of non-citizen parents. Breckenridge Long, a Missouri Attorney and subsequent FDR State Department appointee, wrote a lengthy analysis of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ failure to satisfy the natural born citizen requirement for the Chicago Legal News, the largest law journal in the country, in 1916 (Thanks to Sharon Rondeau of Post & Email). Long's essay can be found on “Scribd”. It only confirms Jay, Washington, John Marshall in The Venus where he cites Vattel, Waite, Story, Kent, Bingham, and Horace Gray of Wong Kim Ark who cites Waite's statement above. Sadly, one example of "Ruling Class" arrogance is that Justice Hughes, who was reapponted Chief Justice, wrote the decision in Perkins v. Elg in 1939, citing Justice Waite's Minor v. Happersett definition. Hughes knew he was ineligible!
Whether arrogance, political expediency, or fear, every Senator, Democrat and Republican, including Obama, signed his/her agreement with Pat Leahy and Michael Chertoff in Senate Res 511, Apr of 2008. No one in Congress could not have known that Obama’s father, the source of his dreams and allegiance, was a non-citizen. Chertoff said, trying to cover for McCain's questionable eligibility:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
It doesn't get more clear. We must, in time, bring every legislator to account for failing his/her oath to The Constitution.
It is very evident that these stooges uses same tactics we have seen from their pals in the left media painting Sarah Palin. No difference!!!
You won’t find a better tap-dancer than miss rogers and miss WKA!!!
Wow, the old Holder brigade is back, hello they are back for some fun!!!
They like the cookies and juice boxes. Fruit Punch don’t chaknow!
Brilliant post Spaulding!!!!!!!
It is very evident that these stooges uses same tactics we have seen from their pals in the left media painting Sarah Palin. No difference!!!
Alinsky’s Rule 13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972: 130). This is perhaps Saul Alinsky’s most controversial rule and is the counter to the common idea that we should not make things personal. When pursuing the changes in the inheritance law for paintings he targets one individual. He will often find out who the CEO is in a company and hound that person. In the organophosphates debate it is one scientist that he targets and the validity of his findings.
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm
It doesn’t get more clear. We must, in time, bring every legislator to account for failing his/her oath to The Constitution.
Which is why now Speaker Boehner will not touch it. He was a memeber of the 111th Congress that allowed this usurpation to take place, along with other members such as Darrell Issa. New arrivals on the scene have no such baggage, but of course are outgunned by the established members.
So how to move forward? With the recent memory of ACORN still relatively fresh in our minds and the shenanigans in the dem primaries in 2008 by Obama’s crew against Hillary, voting integrity should be the number one goal. Everyone should be for integrity of the vote, should they not?
States need to assert their rights with shoring up loopholes that allowed unqualified candidates, regardless of party, to get on their ballots.
And a poster child for this would be Hawaii. Pen Johannson, in his blog post from January 17th at The Daily Pen http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/ lists specific questions for Congress. Since Congress is reluctant to investigate, perhaps Attorney Generals of the various States should pose these questions to officials in Hawaii (or in their own states for that matter) as I doubt the newly elected Governor as well as the other HI state officials identified in the blogpost could be trusted to get to the truth. Maybe it’s time to forward this information to our respective Attorney Generals in the name of ensuring future vote integrity.
QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS
QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?
QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?
QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?
QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?
QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?
QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?
QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?
QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?
QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?
QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?
QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).
QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
No, the judge dismissed the case. Strunk (the plaintiff) then sought an order permitting him to amend the complaint, and the judge denied that motion. Strunk, who is not a lawyer and is representing himself, doesn’t seem to understand what is going on.
Chris Strunk said...
I am awaiting the entered order from the NYS AG and with it I will file for reconsideration within ten days for Justice Schmidt to review cure to the procedural matters accordingly.
Procedural matters:
In the NYS CPLR 3215 (c) as to the matter raised by the court in regards to failure to file a motion for default would be subject to “unless sufficient cause [is] shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.”
Crossing the “sufficient cause” hurdle along with the CPLR 306-b service ordered by the Court with the attached CPLR 307 service upon the state; and as for the referenced “vague” portions of the verified complaint and or the proposed FAC I have within ten days to cure the vagueness after the order of entry is had with a more definite statement with CPLR 3024.
In regards to particularity, CPLR 3016 (b) and the vagueness referenced by the court in re the cause of action for “sediton treason and conspiracy” as not being a civil action, I regard each as part of the proximate cause of injury as part of a scheme to defraud that has a 6 year statutory limit with CPLR 213(8) “an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued (from collusion in re NBC on or about December 2005) or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under who plaintiff claims discovered the fraud (DOS FOIA release July 29 2010), or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”
The court question as to why a new complaint could not be filed is now under consideration.
However, my motion for reconsideration will include a reworked Amended Complaint as welll as the Amended Summons.
January 18, 2011 3:55 PM
You’re exactly right. Ther is no such power granted to the judiciary.
“Born a Brit, not legit!”
That is catchy. Kinda reminds me of Johnny Cocroach when he said “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” It is about time someone on our side came up with something clever.
“...If NOTHING else, the cretin should not be ALLOWED to run in 2012...”
One way to do that is for at least half of the states to ram through legislation demanding proof via a verified long form birth certificate be produced to prove eligibility. That’s a tall order but, if done, that would assure this country of being rid of this Kenyan usurper and his henchmen.
The consistent position of the Constitutional Bar has been that any requirement of any class of citizenship (including Natural Born for purposes of Article II) has been overruled by adoption of the 14th Amendment.
You may not like it but the guys who argue this kind of stuff to the Supreme Court are all on the same side of the boat. And I think their view is likely to prevail. All he has to do is prove he was born in the USA and he wins, whatever his parentage is.
And my understanding of the arguments goes all the way back to Barry and I don't think there is much doubt. I tend to view the people who bring these suits on grounds of parentage or other commitments and not on place of birth as either not very competent or malicious because I also think it would be in Obama's interest to get one of them to the Court without the place of birth argument and get a decision he could claim was res judicata in a subsequent argument with a state filing officer in 2012.
Heya Enterprise! I think if one large state... Say Texas... That would do it. Just one..........
Oh it was Known, it just was ignored.
LOL. Like a typical birther, when confronted with evidence that your argument is dead wrong, you baselessly dismiss it.
I can point to that it was discussed on FR and elsewhere.
No you can't.
You hung yourself in post 110 and hey obfuscator, you hung yourself again in post 116 too.
Actually, no. In both those posts, LorenC totally demolished your argument, your protestations not withstanding.
LorenC: No, you simply can’t point to pre-November 2008 discussions of ‘two-citizen-parent’ claims.
Red Steel: You got called on your nonsense.
No he did not. You simply cannot produce a single example of anyone making an eligibility argumetn based on the supposed two citizen parent requirement.
Here it is again troll-bot.
Nope. Freedom of Speech Wins was not making the two-citizen parent argument, no matter how often you say otherwise.
Isn't it funny how no one thought his father's citizenship mattered until after the election?
Born a Brit;
Not Legit---
He must quit!
LoL. You can hardly call it baseless as I point out to why below. And are you still making the argument that because they didn't have jet commercial aircraft in 1961 that could be flown into Kenya, therefore, Obama could not have been born in Kenya? LoL. That's a silly and baseless argument.
No he did not. You simply cannot produce a single example of anyone making an eligibility argumetn based on the supposed two citizen parent requirement.
Actually, I did produce a single example from July 2008. This guy said it,
"So Obama isn't eligible for President as he isn't a natural born US Citizen according to the wells site. Even if he was born in Hawaii the site claims that he isn't eligible."
So ms. Un-Curios, how can Obama be born in Hawaii and not be eligible for president? One can only conclude that the jus sanguinis argument was being presented besides the jus soli argument in July of 2008. It only takes a single instance to blow the Loren's argument apart.
As the argument at the time had to be that two parents required and/or inherited citizenship through his British/Kenyan father that disqualified Obama to be a natural born citizen. The argument in the graphic clearly disregards the mother by saying Obama was ineligible even if he was born in Hawaii.
Nope. Freedom of Speech Wins was not making the two-citizen parent argument, no matter how often you say otherwise.
He wasn't but he said it came up on Wells website.
BTW, this whole line of argument is just stupid and silly since it is an after-Birther goose chase. Obama can't even prove that he was born in Hawaii let alone argue on the merits of natural born citizenship in all the court cases presented.
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.