Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
It's more of a "CYA and take the fifth" and/or lawyer up kind of approach you'd expect from a bunch of lawyers who know the potential penalties for not doing their job or worse.
Yep. In order to expose fraud that has taken place, they would have to call themselves out and admit their (at the least, tacit) complicity in the crime. This they will not do.
All of the potential motivations you cited are eminently plausible. If I were to say which factor were key in "Obama" and his handlers' success in their theft of the presidency, it was/is the racial aspect. For a whole host of reasons, nobody, and I mean NOBODY in a position to actually do anything about it wants to be responsible for discrediting/derailing America's First Black PresidentTM. It would unfortunately appear the guy is Too Black to Fail.
This post by fellow FReeper Sourcery is a well written and reasoned piece on Natural Born Citizenship:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts
Recommended.
As I suspected, everything you’re saying is based upon your own interpretation and the application of your own filters. No one else believes you.
Hawaii has confirmed the following:
“A birth certificate is on file with the Dept of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Supported by the following Hawaii statute:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
It really is that simple.
All Hawaii did was to cover their behind with a metaphorical definition that they did not have to prove.
I cannot seriously believe anyone is still pigheaded to be under the hypnosis of the fallacy that Obama was born in Hawaii, not with all the evidence to the contrary.
Yeah Hawaii has a document, a forgery. planted and worshipped by the still occurring obots who are like a parade of zombies stuck on treadmills.
Your problem is that there isn’t any evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Given that gaping lack, a verification from Hawaii is all any court is going look at.
Lots of evidence of him being born in Mombasa, problem is too many provacateurs seeking it out so as to erase, whitewash or to lead a false trail.
There’s no evidence he was born in Kenya.
Born in 1930, he would have been at that "impressionable age" during his time with the Nazis.
It would be interesting to know where he was in coming to terms with his father, his mother, his faith, and the state of the world when it all happened and he got caught up into it.
That stuff and time of life is hard enough without adding a Nazi flavored potential Stockholm Syndrome, plus their goal of world domination into his malleable pubescent psyche.
Listening to him talk about it, I think his thoughts about that time are fairly creepy, but rational and fairly well adjusted. He's become wealthy and successful, and to some, a self-realized man.
None the less...I can't help but wonder, if at some level he isn't seeking personal revenge on the people who beat his captors/friends from, perhaps, the most exciting time in his life. When it comes to loyalty? He's loyal to himself and what he's building.
He's not a young man. If he has such an agenda, and it looks that way from here, I think he'd like to see it through. Our lemming run for the edge has been picking up speed. He and we likely won't have to wait much longer.
I guess now I can understand why few of the radio personalities have touched this or let callers talk about it, given the money and power and fear that can be brought to bear against them, and against those who give them a microphone. Same for politicians.
Or, perhaps, they're waiting for the right time, when it's so bad and so obvious, that the low information and the apathetic are finally paying attention enough to understand what's been done.
It's a/the hill to die for, but maybe they're waiting to see if they'll be charging up that hill alone or leading an army. Maybe that's what some of these posters are doing here, gauging support.
To them, I say lead and your all volunteer, self-supplied army that has been ready, willing and able and is tired of waiting will take that hill with you. Time to be George Washington.
If we can agree on that then
My opinion of Orly Taitz's competence is a closely guarded secret. I've never told anyone.
The First Congress made it a priority to explicitly STATE that such children born US citizens abroad were ALSO natural born citizens, and hence eligible to the Presidency.
Yes, they are natural-born citizens, but they are such by statute. According to the State Department's interpretation of the law, statutory NBCs may not necessarily be NBCs for Constitutional purposes. They are not automatically eligible to the presidency.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for PresidencyI believe that SCOTUS would rule in favor of their eligibility.(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d.(Skip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Classic stuff. I hope we survive it and can fully suss it out and write it down. What a story! Epic.
But, it's real and it's happening on our watch, to us, the ones who grew up learning about our nation's founding, history and heroes, listening to our parents' and grandparents' war stories and their tales of valor when they were our age and saved the world against evil, all while we grew up, getting fat and lazy and enjoying the peace and fruits of their sacrifices.
Unless we get busy, history won't be kind to us, no matter who writes it.
Prodigal children, it's time to come home...while there's still a home to come home to.
Oh great and powerful one, let Spaulding behold what thou has to offer! (Heh.)
Jeff Winston’s postings reveal a mind which works much like the liberal/progressive mind, unable to even see the fallacious dichotomy it is presenting, just like little barry bastard boy’s mind works.
The issue is not whether men like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were made naturalized citizens of France once they became prominent men, it is what the current sonofabitch installed int he White Hut has as his birth origin(s). Jeff Winston is playing at diversion, in service to his pResident. Jeff Winston is a liar and a fraud, kind of like his little barry bastard boy pResident!
I do too, which is why I often say things like, "Ted Cruz is almost certainly a natural born citizen (in the Constitutional sense) as well."
Where did you study Constitutional Law and when did you get your degree?
What you really mean is: "Our Founding Fathers are liars and frauds, kind of like their little barry bastard boy pResident!"
Let's be honest here about who you, MHGinTN, are really opposing.
It's not me.
This isn't MY doctrine.
It is the doctrine of our FOUNDING FATHERS, of all of our early legal experts, and of essentially every real legal authority since then.
Here. Let's see what such people (whom you obviously hate, because you certainly act like you hate them) have to say on the matter: French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
Equates natural born citizen with born citizen. And given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli and jus sanguinis here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
French translation by a friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, 1826:
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been MADE a natural born citizen of Maryland. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.)
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish books on the Constitution:
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required? Aside from David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.
For the second time. Cite your credentials pertaining to your knowledge on constitutional law compared to constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus, who is a expert on natural law and the true meaning of a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen.
Herb Titus credentials:
Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
When was Obama born, according to what Hawaii verified on that stand-alone verification document?
Oh, never mind. You’re a waste of time. If you wouldn’t process what I said the first 49 times, why should I expect that you will the 50th time? You won’t answer questions; you won’t engage with actual content. You’re an utter waste of time.
Did that actually happen?
I have cited historical and legal authority after historical and legal authority, ALL of chose credentials far exceed those of Mr. Titus. You don't contest any of those, because you can't.
But you spit on those Founding Fathers and other experts by ignoring THEIR credentials, and demanding mine.
Neither can you argue that Herb Titus makes any argument at all, because he doesn't. He presents NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. He gives NOTHING, except HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION. And he bases that opinion on NOTHING AT ALL, except for HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
Here are the AUTHORITIES I have cited, and THEIR CREDENTIALS:
Philip Mazzei
CREDENTIALS: CLOSE, lifelong personal friend and next door neighbor of Thomas Jefferson. Author of a 4-volume work, The History and Politics of the United States of America.
James Madison
CREDENTIALS: Generally recognized as the Father of Our Constitution. United States President. Founder and Framer.
The First Congress
CREDENTIALS: Made up of the men who helped found our nation, including James Madison.
Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld
CREDENTIALS: Personal friend and translator for Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, with whom he co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America. French nobleman and politician.
Zephaniah Swift
CREDENTIALS: Judge, lawyer, politician and US Representative. Supreme Court Justice for Connecticut. Author of America's first legal treatise, which was subscribed to by several US Presidents and half of the United States Supreme Court.
Alexander Hamilton
CREDENTIALS: Founding Father, chief author of The Federalist, one of our most influential Framers and quite possibly the man without whom our Constitution would not have been adopted.
St. George Tucker
CREDENTIALS: Early Professor of Law at our nation's first law school. Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, author of "Tucker's Blackstone," the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century.
The Marquis de Lafayette
CREDENTIALS: American Revolutionary War hero and General under George Washington, without whose help we might not have won the war. Known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds." Made a "natural born citizen" by act of the legislature of Maryland. Personal friend of our first six Presidents.
Chancellor James Kent
CREDENTIALS: New York Supreme Court Justice, first Professor of Law at Columbia, and author of the highly-respected 4-volume Commentaries on American Law.
William Rawle
CREDENTIALS: United States District Attorney for the State of Pennyslvania, founder of our nation's oldest law firm, and colleague of both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, with whom he met regularly to discuss politics and law. Present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention.
Justice Joseph Story
CREDENTIALS: United States Supreme Court Justice and author of the magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those, sir, are my credentials.
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.