Posted on 05/02/2011 8:37:59 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
IMO, this means that without a legal marriage (non-bigamous under HI and Kenya law), Obama would have no allegiance to the UK at birth either under US law or the 1948 BNA which explicitly excludes illegitimate children. Leo is saying that if SADO was legally single and Obama was born on US soil, Obama would be NBC.
Up until this comment, which follows the release of BHO Sr.'s "playboy" activities, Leo has been sensitive to the "reputation" of Obama and jealously guarded the "admission against interest" by Obama in which Obama said that the children of BHO I were "governed by" the 1948 BNA, all the while knowing that the 1948 BNA has an illegitimacy exclusion.
Leo's willingness to put this comment on his blog may have been triggered by the release of BHO I's Immigration records. The records show that US Immigration was so suspicious of the marriage that they recommended an investigation of whether or not the marriage to SADO was a sham marriage, should she ever request immigration preference for her husband. Leo couldn't ignore that even the US government was questioning the Obama-Dunham marriage in 1964 in light of the evidence if a prior legal Kenya marriage and no legal divirce in Kenya.
This admission by Leo places his long crusade to prove that Obama is not NBC at risk. But this loophole, which would allow Obama to be NBC if born in HI, may be why so many in the GOP have stayed away from this issue.
The voting public, particularly independents, might react badly to Obama being forced by partisans to defend his eligibility by proving that is is a "bastard."
Ping...
The RINO’s threw the Constitution out the window when they cut the deal not to contest Obama’s NBC status in exchange for Dems and MSM (NY Times) dropping challenge to McCain.
Elites of both parties want to protect eligibility of marketable candidates (Jindal, Rubio, future Democratic anchor baby nominees) too valuable to be rendered ineligible by “loopholes” (as Obama put it when endorsing Senate Resolution 511). The NBC clause is a “loophole” to these folks.
All this means then is that seeing a certified COLB as is generated by the DOH with the DOH embossed seal is not even good enough...
...i.e., you need the sealed birth record to be opened in court under subpoena.
That is extremely difficult to accomplish...Leo will tell you that...
There is of course the adoption and Indonesian citizenship angle...but that is not an easy one either - you need those passports, college transcripts and financial aid/scholariship records.
So it’s still 2nd and 6 at the 5 yard line.
We are at the 5 yard line because of Debbie Schlussel having the good luck of receiving Selective Service records. Only probblem with those was that they only showed that SOMEBODY altered the record or filed a phony record...i.e., we can’t say it was Obama that did it.
This is and will continue to be a tough one to crack and Obama is doing everything he can to keep it that way.
=8-)
The question has always been:
(a) Was there ever a marriage ceremony uniting Stanley and Barack, Sr.?
Barack was in bigamy. If there had been a marriage ceremony, the fact of bigamy, unknown to Stanley, would automatically annul the marriage. Perhaps to avoid stigmatizing the child as a bastard, she chose divorce rather than annulment when the facts of his Barack, Sr.'s prior arrangements became known to her.
(b) As to rape: Tricky area. The age of consent in Hawaii was 14 years old at the time. Even if he had been charged, the defense could well have been consensuality.
(c) Barack Sr. committed fraud (bigamy), if a marriage ceremony took place. If no marriage ceremony took place, it' possible Obama's Mother committed fraud in obtaining a divorce. In either case, Obama would be a bastard. If this were a question of rape, case law might give the child one citizenship exclusively: American. If it were proven to be fraud, it is a little cloudier. I had originally assumed that Barack Sr. had accepted legal paternity by the terms of the divorce, but that is up the air, as well.
If Obama proves himself a bastard, he is NBC. Next question: "Who exactly is going to make him do that?" IMHO, keeping him off the ballot in one or more States, which is the absolute right of any state AG, would trigger the legal finding of eligibility, or not. That is what we need to continue as a Contitutional Republic.
Leo, Over to you!
The argument is that we know how the investigation would turn out, so we wouldn’t win, but would cause political damage to our side.
What’s the point of raising the issue of his NBC status if your legal conclusion is that he is NBC because of statutory rape?
I admit I hadn’t thought of that, because I’ve been hung up on the biological aspect of NBC, not considering that it would be a legal thing. Thus, I have asked before whether the child of a single mother who doesn’t know the father (such as a sperm donor) could be President under the NBC rule, since he wouldn’t be able to prove “both parents” were NBC.
But logically, if the guy’s father was a sperm donor, there wouldn’t be a “tie” to another country if that father was foreign.
That is what Leo is finally affirming, IMO.
Constitutionalists, IMO, will support this interpretation.
The problem facing Constitutionalists is that Obama’s supposed declaration implying (while not stating) that he WAS a dual citizen of the UK and Kenya at birth creates the appearance of an unconstitutional legal precedent!
This false precedent, that a dual citizen at birth is eligible to be president, must not be allowed to stand and must be contested to the bitter end, even if it means Barry must be declared to be a bastard at the end of the process.
I find it interesting that the GOP has this tendency to nominate candidates for pres who are weak when the Dems run a questionable character.
First, was the campaign of Bob Dole against Clintoon’s second term.
That one was a complete throw away.
Then, we run McCain, who appeared to have some questions about HIS eligibility as well. What, we couldn’t find someone to run who DIDN’T have that problem?
It ALL smells.
As I recall, McCain was chosen for us in the open primaries. Set-up from day one.
Barack Sr. committed fraud (bigamy), if a marriage ceremony took place.
There is a continuing misunderstanding about the law of marriage and divorce. This is an area of legal concepts and rules and essentially none of what you say is correct.
The law varies from state to state. But on these topics, all of the states of which I am aware follow the same rules.
Even if Senior did not disclose the prior marriage to Stanley Ann; or take the even worse facts, he told her he was not married--so that you could find fraud, that would not "automatically" annul the marriage--it would still take a court proceeding and in the modern world, in most states, the proceeding would be to dissolve the marriage ab initio. And, to the essential fact at issue, Obama's origins, it would not eliminate Senior as the father.
And further, there are Eastern Seaboard state cases, I believe New Jersey or Connecticut holding in the case of Moslems who had a wife in a country where multiple marriage was legal, a second marriage in the US would not constitute bigamy. Such a marriage might still be subject to dissolution for fraud if under applicable state law, fraud could be shown but fraud is an elusive concept legally and in most state, a dissolution would be available under the general incompatibility statutes and a court would not be likely to dissolve for fraud. (And thus the marriage would not be dissolved ab initio
If Obama proves himself a bastard, he is NBC.
Whether or not he is legitimate, has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether or not he is a Natural Born Citizen. If he was born in the United States, he is a Natural Born Citizen; if he was born outside the United States, he is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court is going to hold him ineligible because of the citizenship of one of his parents (which is going to be a contested factual question in any case) is living in a dream world.
Oh, BS.
You're trying to take a generalization and turn it into a particular. Does Leo know your misrepresenting what he's said?
The marriage was not 'bigamous' under US law because the other wife was OUTSIDE US jurisdiction. It would have been up to Stanley Ann to state the reasons for the divorce. In fact, under Hawaiian law, she could have gotten an annulment on the grounds of bigamy, but she did not.
She was legally married to O Sr. She petitioned a court for a divorce and was granted it. This makes the marriage a legal fact.
------
If SADO was "raped" Obama is NBC)
IF frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped either...so what was your point, again?
There is no moral problem facing Constitutionalists, although there are legal implications for members of the military that take their oath of office seriously. [Or maybe the military has become “just another federal job” to too many.] The problem (whether Obama declared himself to have dual citizenship (sorry, not allowed by U.S. law), whether he is a bastard) is a problem for the Democrat Party to face. The fact that they won’t do either declares them (again) to prefer destroying the Constitution as long as doing so puts them in power.
And if the R’s do the same thing with their future candidate, they will have declared the same of themselves.
So-called dual citizenship means, by definition, that the person has divided loyalties. The coutry deserves better in a chief executive. I fully stand with you in stating that Obama’s false premise must not go unchallenged. So where is the lawyer with the cajones to do it?
It seems you are saying that our problem is that we won’t pursue losing court cases where we know we are wrong and it will hurt us politically.
I don’t see how that is a “problem”. I don’t expect a conservative to push a known false legal argument.
As it happens, there was supposed to be a hearing this AM with Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz getting 10 minutes apiece before the 9th Circuit in CA to argue that their “birther” case be remanded back to Judge Carter for a possible hearing on the merits.
“The marriage was not ‘bigamous’ under US law because the other wife was OUTSIDE US jurisdiction. It would have been up to Stanley Ann to state the reasons for the divorce. In fact, under Hawaiian law, she could have gotten an annulment on the grounds of bigamy, but she did not.
“She was legally married to O Sr. She petitioned a court for a divorce and was granted it. This makes the marriage a legal fact.”
Some FReepers have maintained that it doesn't matter whether Barry's parents were married, it only matters that THE FATHER IS NOT A US CITIZEN. They claim that NBC requires TWO US citizen parents.
My point is that Leo Donofrio is making a general statement that in particular DOES apply to Barry, which is that Barry CAN be NBC with a single US citizen mom, if she happened to be raped EVEN BY A NON-CITIZEN RAPIST.
Obviously, IMO, by extension, Barry CAN be NBC with a single US citizen mom who gets knocked-up by a UK subject Kenyan lothario!
The only change needed to apply Leo's general construction to the specific construction which applies to Barry is to substitute the term “knocked-up” for the term “raped”.
Whether raped or knocked-up, SADO would have been a single mom and Leo Donofrio has now clearly stated that a single mom CAN pass unitary NBC status to her son EVEN IF the sperm donor was a NON-CITIZEN.
I copied my comment #8 to Leo's blog today, and I have posted both here and on Leo's blog the illegitimacy exclusion clause in the 1948 BNA and also the clauses in the 1902 Kenya Marriage Act which prevent mix and match marriages between tribal, Muslim and statutory types. Leo has refused to post all of my comments discussing the implications of an illegitimate birth for Barry.
I am not an attorney of any kind, but my understanding is that sovereign nations fully recognize the marriages and divorces of other sovereign nations. My own mother's US marriage to my father was ended by a fly-in Mexican divorce, back in 1969 before no-fault divorce was available! Her US marriage was honored by Mexico and her divorce was honored in the US.
When a person swears that they are not presently married to obtain a marriage license in a US state, it does not mean you are not presently married in a US state, it means married anywhere.
Look at the notes by US Immigration officials regarding BHO Sr. and his allegedly “polygamous” marriages and “verbal” divorce. The officials in 1961 clearly suspected that BHO I was making a sham claim of divorce and that his US marriages were illegal bigamous marriages and/or sham marriages to gain an advantage in extending his visa.
CF Websters "Murky," "Grey Area," "Conundrum." Be interesting to see how our British legal cousins handle this, as it must come up every day in a country overrun with Worthy Oriental Gentlemen.
thanks!
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.