Posted on 08/14/2009 4:20:53 PM PDT by South40
Orly Taitz, the Mission Viejo lawyer trying to get Barack Obama thrown out of office, says she's had enough of two of her clients in the case and will continue without them.
Whoa, say the two.
"This is our case," said Buena Park Pastor Wiley Drake, one of the two plaintiffs Taitz has unilaterally tried to have removed from the case.
The lawsuit challenges Obama's birthplace and his legitimacy as president. The latest chapter in the drama started when Drake and Markham G. Robinson notified Taitz that they were replacing her as counsel. Taitz continues to represent 40 other plaintiffs in the federal case filed in Santa Ana.
Drake complained that Taitz's paperwork errors have delayed proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
That law requires only that A parent (just one with no regard to gender) be a US citizen and that that parent resided in the USA or its territories for a period of ONE year prior to the birth. There is no restriction on the parent's age or gender.
That is the law at the time and the only one that matters. That is the fact. The rest is wishful thinking.
No, you told me what you thought it said. If you 'quoted' it, the Chapter and section numbers would have appeared in your post, yet they do not.
-----
You won't because it will burst your bubble.
Arrogance on your part won't support your claims.
-----
citing a US Statute from 1885 that has been superceded as a governing law in 1961
Assumption of fact.
-----
is akin to trying to close up Jack Daniels because we once had laws prohibiting what they do.
An attempt at deflection from the subject at hand. You STILL provide no evidence.
-----
The FACT is that the term 'natural-born' appears in the Constitution, but it does NOT appear anywhere in the US Codes.
If it did, you would have no problem posting a link to it....but you're all hat and no cattle.
________________________________________
Not assumption of fact, statement of fact. The entire list of statutes that you cited from 1885 had been replaced by the USC.
The INA of 1952 is the governing law for Hawaiin births in 1961. The only reason that you will not take the time to read the law is because it punctures your balloon.
No, the reason I don't take time to read it is that I am neither obligated nor responsible for spending MY time doing YOUR homework.
It was YOUR assertion, so it is up to YOU to provide the information to back it up.... or you can just continue to look like a totally clueless blowhard.
The choice is yours.
“The controversy was quite real, and derived from very real Constitutional questions, regardless of your opinion of an attorney. Belli, like Hollander after him (McCain), and the whole menagerie with Obama, met with a response of no standing.
***********************
It would have been absolutely improper for the court to have said, in essence, “Melvin Belli’s opinion is good enough for us. Sorry, Mr. Goldwater, you’re off the ballot.” That would be a perfect case of “legislating from the bench”, something conservatives are supposed to be leery of. Do you really want the judiciary endlessly involved in political in-fighting, removing people from the ballot, based on someone’s opinion, with no basis in the constitution, statute law, or case law?
A Constitutional basis is the point, Redwood Bob. If the man wasn’t born in a State, then his status wasn’t clearly within the Constitutional requirement.
If I’m not mistaken, you’ve represented yourself to be an attorney, here on FR, at one point. Do you not agree, then, that the letter of the law must be upheld?
For the Wikipedia task force on American law, see WP:Hornbook The law of the United States is the United States Constitution, as well as constitutional acts of Congress, and constitutional treaties ratified by Congress. The Constitution forms the basis for federal laws under the federal constitution in the United States; it circumscribes the boundaries of the jurisdiction of federal law along with the laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[1] In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and is subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(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.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;
c. The Constitution does not define natural born. The Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. 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
______________________________________________
Nor does it necessarily imply that they are not, rendering it not only "not included in modern nationality statutes." but irrelevant if it were.
The bottom line is that INA 1952 defines anyone born in obam's circumstances as having citizenship at birth. That is the law that courts will take into account and that makes the issue moot, unless proof (not speculation) is provided to show that he was born anywhere outside the US and its territories.
This is not, as some here have tried to call it, a defense of obam. It is a statement of fact, a truth. As things stand now, absent other proof, this issue is a non-starter. Making it a cornerstone of FR's public face renders the serious business discussed here more trivial. It is that to which I and other freepers object.
There should be a forum for unsubstantiated bama theories....we could include the old 'Paul is dead' nonsense too.
You can lead the unsubstantiated citizen at birth = natural born citizen crowd. As for me I'll stick with my knowledge and knowledge of those far more educated and prepared than I am. What you are saying is a child born in the US to two illegal alien parents is a Natural Born Citizen and can be President of the US. I think not, and if so it needs to be changed as it is idiotic.
_________________________________________
Oh? Exactly where did I say that? (here's a hint - I didn't)
What I did say is that under the pertinent law in 1961, which was INA of 1952, anybody born in Hawaii in that year who had A parent (not both parents or the father) who was a US citizen (with no restriction on age) which parent resided in the USA or its territories for the year prior to the birth was conferred US citizenship at birth.
That was the law at that time. It is the only law that counts. Today's law matters not. Any prior laws matter not. Any event is bound by the law extant at the time of the event.
The bottom line is that INA 1952 defines anyone born in obam's circumstances as having citizenship at birth. That is the law that courts will take into account and that makes the issue moot, unless proof (not speculation) is provided to show that he was born anywhere outside the US and its territories.
and
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 is law within the USC that set the standard for 'natural born citizen' in 1961. That law, the only one that matters at all (at least in the real world), states that the child of a citizen parent(note singular) born in a US possession (including Hawaii before statehood) would receive citizenship at birth if the parent (again note singular) resided in the US or its possessions for one year prior to the birth.
I have already pointed out to you that there is a difference between statutes and Constitutional law, and that Natural born citizen is nowhere to be found in the I&N Act of 1952. You avoid the issue by pointing back to the statute which does not concern Natural Born Citizens.
Using the law (in dicta)in place in 1961 as determinative of NBC as you propose, a child born of two illegal aliens is a NBC and eligible to be President. Going one step further according to your "thinking" a Foundling of unknown parentage would also be a NBC. I will give you a little advice, a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing. You are ignoring everything that contradicts your "conclusion"
SHOW ME WHERE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS IN THE IMMIGRATION and NATIONALITY ACT of 1952. EXPLAIN TO ME THE STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS ON ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.
For your edification the "Courts" will look at the CONSTITUTION, the specific articles, the history and the intent of those who drafted it, along with any amendments to it. They can even look at statutes, common law and law in other countries, but a statute does not determine what the Constitution means. THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE CHANGED NOR DEFINED BY A STATUTE or RESOLUTION. Words can have different meanings depending on jurisdiction and usage, civil, criminal, administrative, Constitutional etc.
The fact is this issue needs to be decided by the US Supreme Court, not you and not me. We can present our arguments and opionions but that is all we are doing.
look around you might be enlightened:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
and here:
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
regards rs
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an attorney. Nor have I ever claimed to have been one. I do go a long way back. I was part of the crowd that packed Dodger Stadium in 1964 to hear Barry Goldwater. Great speech BTW, I wish I could get a copy of the audio. Nobody, I mean nobody, took Belli’s lawsuit against Goldwater as being in any way intellectually serious, merely a cheap form of legal harassment. It tells you a lot that Belli couldn’t get anyone in the judiciary, which wasn’t exactly packed with Goldwater supporters, to hear his lawsuit.
By actual practice, +natural-born” means “citizen-at-birth” at no court is ever going to change that. If Bobby Jindal ever runs for POTUS, anyone is perfectly free to argue that he is disqualified by his ancestry, so don’t vote for him. I doubt that very many would listen, though.
Anyone is also free to argue for an amendment to COTUS restricting eligibility to “native-born, of two U.S. citizens.” Let us know when the first congrescritter signs on, or the first state legislature passes a bill for a ConCon to take up the amendment.
What actual practice is there, pertaining specifically to natural born citizenship, Redwood Bob? There is none.
The term only has significance for eligibility to the office of President. Otherwise, there is no distinction between the natural born and any other sort of citizen. And, that distinction is made by the Constitution and only the Constitution, Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S..
“What actual practice is there, pertaining specifically to natural born citizenship, Redwood Bob?”
*********************
The actual practice is that serious candiates Barry Goldwater, George Romney (born in Mexico of American parents), Lowell Weicker (born in Paris of American parents), John McCain (born Canal Zone of American parents) all ran for POTUS and were either legally unchallenged or the challenges were quickly circular-filed. Plus Chester Alan Arthur (elected as VPOTUS, but same qualifications as POTUS) and Obama.
The only way to change this is by amendment to COTUS. We can argue this over beers if you like, but it’s not going to change anything at all. I’d rather argue over who was the greatest pitcher of all time - no less productive and lots more fun.
BTW, it’s Sandy Koufax.
The law, once broken, or even suspected of having been, is summarily revoked by whom? Were any of these men that you named, elected President? No, none of them were.
You have no actual practice. At best, you have a rather slatternly interpretation of ignorance of the law, sloth or both.
Interesting, that you chose the words “serious candidates.” Certainly Roger Calero was booted off the ballot, numerous times for ineligibility, as recently as 2008. So, clearly, the requirement is still enforced. Selectively enforced, but enforced.
Is selective enforcement of the law, legal?
_____________________________________________
re:A, You are atributing things to me which I did not say. I spoke directly and solely about what the law stated about the child of A citizen born in Hawaii.
Re: B, ditto.
Re; C, You are right in part, I am ignoring other's speculation that has no basis in fact.
“Interesting, that you chose the words serious candidates. Certainly Roger Calero was booted off the ballot, numerous times for ineligibility, as recently as 2008. So, clearly, the requirement is still enforced. Selectively enforced, but enforced.”
**********************
Several states would not put Calero on the ballot because he is a naturalized citizen of the U.S. By definition, that means he is not a citizen-at-birth. That has nothing to do with the fact that, by actual practice, “citizen-at-birth” = “natural-born”. In other states, no one challenged his status on the ballot with a lawsuit, probably because it would be a waste of time and money, since his party would just have put another candidate on the ballot, who would have gotten the same number of votes.
Again, you can shout “natural-born = native-born of two U.S. citizens” from the rooftops all you like, but that isn’t going to change anything. If you’re serious about this, you need to amend COTUS.
So opinion would have it. But there is no law or court decision or clause in the Constitution that supports that claim.
Wisely staying the hell out of all this Birther lunacy?
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.