Posted on 03/04/2011 6:57:58 PM PST by Danae
Love bagels...beagles too, legal beagles, not so much! LOL
This entire situation is so tangled it will not be taken up by the courts...they know they would be buried in it for years and he would be GONE by then.
Our best hope is states keeping him from the ballot and therefore his not running again.
i understand your reasoning. Obama will state look Chester A. Arthur became the president. It is racism, everyone is discriminating against because I am black. really turn your palms over, they look white to me.
seriously Leo D’ is right about the State department. Obama will have the following legal documentation as deemed by this article:
Amending the Natural Born Citizen requirement Globalization as the impetus and the obstacle Susan P. Herlihy. J.D Chicago-Kent college of Law, 2005 wrote this article for the Chicago-Kent Law review 2/22/2006 (This is the title, author and so forth)
Here is what this bietch has to write on the first page in the introduction
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United states.
here she writes the following which she quotes from an editorial Time for a Change? Should Concerns Rooted firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify immigrants from serving as President?, Cleveland Plain Dealer Jan 10, 2005 at B6 ( title of article, newspaper, date and section and page)
‘Although these sixty-two words are far from from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
I agree with Leo D, the US Constitution but everybody this article will be utilized by Obama at the Supreme Court Level. Look if he has Kagan and sotomayor in the Court and Thomas is to recused forget it, it is over, he will win and the US Constitution is done with forever.
hewill have the following claims as outlined within the entire article 275 - 300.
Introduction p275-277
I History and Background of the Natural Born Citizen Requirement ( Nothing about Chester A. Arthur )
II Why the Increase in Globalization Pressures For An Amendement to the Natural Born Citizen Requirement p 279
A. The Natural Born citizen requirement is Discriminatory p279-282
B.Natural Born Citizen is Outdated p 282 - 283
C. Place of Birth is Not a Proxy for Loyalty p283 - 284
D. The Natural Born citizen requirement is Undemocratic p284 -286
III Arguments Against A Constitutional Amendment and Why Common American Perceptions of Globalization Will Prevent the Natural Born citizen Requirement From being Abolished p286
A.Reasons to Oppose Abolishing the Natural Born Citizen requirement p. 286 - 287
1. Fear of Change p 287 - 288
2. This Provision Just Does Not Affect That Many people p. 288
3. Fear of Foreigners p289- 291
4. Loyalty p 291 - 293
5. failing to Understand What it Means to Be A natural Born Citizen p 293 - 294
6. Racism and Religious Intolerance p 294 - 295
7. The Signal this Amendment would Send to the Rest of the World p 295 - 296
8. The President as a Symbol Of America p296 - 297
B Common Perceptions about Globalization p 297
1. Americans Do Not Understand Globalization p297 -298
2. America As the World Leader p298
3. Americans Are Not prepared to give up the American Identity in favor of Globalization p 299
4. Globalization As a Threat p 299 - 300
Conclusion Emotions will prevail over reason
Obama’s Gimmicks and trickery 2 years into the presidency, why deem me Unconstitutional Now. delay Tactics, we have seen them more evident with Judge Vinsons Order of march 3, 2011.
This piece of crap has eveything laid out for him to advocate and lecture the bench of why he should able to remain the president.
I am not advocating Obama’s position. Just be prepared for him to be in front of the Supremes and basically I am the president, I am the supreme Law of the Land, the Court does not have Standing to remove a sitting president.
I found this article on the internet, several months ago I sent a copy to Rush Limbaugh and to Glenn Beck. never received a response.
I cannot download it so if someone else can locate it and download I would greatly appreciate it
SCOTUS is trying to avoid this while the cretin is in office. That much we know. It is up to us to leave them NO wiggle room and more or lessforce them (something VERY hard to do) to take the case. That means public pressure and overwhelming evidence. It's all there, what is still lacking is the widespread knowledge of what is going on. If it EVER breaks the mainstream Media, its over for Obama and he knows it. That's why there has been such a dead silence, and or mockery from the press. Once it is CREDIBLE in that manner, the gig is up.
I was born here, as well as my two brothers and sisters, to two British Subjects, in 1958.
My two uncles served in the RAF in WWII.
And, my mother worked for the British Army.
There is no way that I am eligible to be POTUS, as I had dual citizenship at birth.
Hence, BHO is an usurper to the Presidency and should be hauled to jail.
(btw, my parents only became Naturalized in 1991 so they could vote against BJ Clinton.)
Your parents (any naturalized citizen) are more qualified to become POTUS than Obama because they, at least, went through the process of learning about United States and taking an oath.
The naturalization process is one which requires a person to think and understand the concept.
In this example, what you state doesn't apply. e.g.:
Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.
In the case described, the father would have had to serve. The son wouldn't have had to serve because he was never an Italian.
If Obama was born to SAD in Hawaii he is an American citizen. That wouldn't be changed by events in Indonesia when he was a child. Renouncement, etc., isn't a factor. Added that to the discussion just complicates the very simple argument presented here.
I think the point of this article is to show that the US recognizes laws of other nations in regards to citizenship. That means that Obama is British if his father was BO Sr. and British citizenship law at that time was based on jus sanguinis. In that case, Obama would have dual allegiance as far as the US is concerned.
The article addresses the fact that the US has historically recognized laws of other countries that create a dual citizenship scenario.
The courts must decide if that dual allegiance scenario equals not natural born. It seems to simplify the issue.
Rights and allegiences =/= responsiblities.
Why confuse the issue?
Take the published COLB and determine if Obama Jr. was born with dual allegiance based on foreign citizenship laws, which, as the article explains, the US recognizes.
If Obama Jr. is of dual allegiance, ask SCOTUS if dual allegiance precludes natural born citizenship.
I can not reconcile this knowing this (details in my reply to Leo)
About this “dual nationality” thing. How can one reconcile that fact that Congress, in the sister Act to the 14th, came out directly opposed any “claims”, which is just pure conjecture not based in fact, of dual allegiance/citizenship:
CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.
July 27, 1868 (Rights of American citizens in foreign states. Preamble.)
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
(Right of ex- patriation declared)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the Presi-dent shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress
Approved, July 27, 1868 [40th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix to the Congressional Globe pg 561-62]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=083/llcg083.db&recNum=1040
We’re still at that infamous pass of what the definition of “is” is or in our case the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction”. That is the “key” to nationality & allegiance. The US Supreme in 1874 unanimously declared in the holding of the case before the court that it was:
From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright CitizenshipPublished on March 30, 2006 by John C. Eastman Legal Memorandum #18
[T]he majority in that case (1872 The Slaughter-House Cases) correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9]
Although the statement by the majority in Slaughter-House was dicta, the position regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” language advanced there was subsequently adopted as holding by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins.[10]…
Drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the Court continued:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government<.u>, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations[end quote]
So when Gray wrote this deciding opinion in the Elk v Wilkins case just 6 years after the adoption of the 14th & its sister legislation, The Expatriation Act, he was fully aware of what “subject to the jurisdiction” was because it had already been codified in the 1866 civil Rights Act. Also, laws not supposing to bear redundancy, we find the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction”, the Elk court merely had to go back a couple years because the 14th didn’t replace the 1866 Act, it merely ratified it by enjoining it to the US Constitution by the amendment process.
In otherwords, the 1866 Act that was never repealed & is still in force today.
There was absolutely no doubt from the ruling in Elk v Wilkins that children born to any foreign father, regardless whether the father was a diplomat or not, was in the language of the Constitution a foreigner at birth. That is “jus sanguinis”. Also, Gray in the Elk opinion relied in US law but then some 14 yrs later in the WKA decision he had to go back to feudal law to somehow overturn his own holding in the Elk case.
That to me is a real kicker here. Can we find any other cases in US history inwhich a Supreme Court justice overturns his own ruling and thus changes the definition of what “is” is?
Leo, help me out here because I just can not reconcile in my mind that ‘dual citizenship” ever existed in the laws of this nation from the rulings in the cases that rely on US law and not some feudal doctrine of English subjectship that later came down the pike. That as well as the fact that the 14th did not repeal the 1866 Act, it merely strengthened & enforced it per Constitutional Amendment. Ergo, the law of “Redundancy” [Black’s Law 1150 5th Ed) Fed. R. Civil P. 12(f) and “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 should reign heavily in this matter.
Its a great question, I will be looking for that one!
He has posted your post and answered. The law you cite was repealed in 1940.
So I suppose that answeres that question!
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.