Posted on 01/01/2010 6:27:46 AM PST by USALiberty
Folks, I often wondered what possessed Judge Carter in California to tell the world “he wanted to try this case on its merits” and then do a sudden 180 by dismissing the case with prejudice? Does the word “arrogance” come to mind? Did the justice system in California just reach the bottom of the barrel? The performance of Judge Carter was totally disgusting to watch.. Oh, and this whoop-ti-do you heard from folks that Carter would do the right thing because he is an EX-Marine.. what happened? Did honor and his oath get flushed on the way to the bench?
I went back and read some of Carter’s words and was stunned by his lack of knowledge of the Constitution or even a basic understanding of what is really going on here.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
Nobody here have challenged this!
In retrospect I think that this conversation between us should go into the F.R. "Hall of Shame" as evidence of crass Birther foolishness.
Your superb spin-machine (Alinsky) and as the superb usurper "After-Birther" member of his distraction brigade, definitely earns you that place in the F.R. "Hall of Fame/Shame!!
I agree, it is total foolishness to even engage in conversation with an "After-Birther" which normally is discarded or grind up for cosmetic purposes.....End of conversation!!!
“The Republic of Vanuatu could pass a law declaring every member of FR its citizens, and that would not mean we “relinquish” our original citizenships.”
Though I would so move there every winter.
What leads you to that conclusion?
Piss Off! I have no time for the likes of you and your 5th colummn foolishness.
I respect all the attorneys who are trying to get to the truth, but especially follow the work of Leo and Steve as I believe they are taking the steps that will finally get the truth out in the open. And they will uphold the laws of our land and the constitution every step of the way. God Bless them!
But we always have time to question Birther Boobiness.
Except you in reply 72.
I agree, it is total foolishness to even engage in conversation with an "After-Birther" which normally is discarded or grind up for cosmetic purposes.....End of conversation!!!
But it's so much fun when you do. Birther conspiracy theories give a whole new meaning to the term 'zany'.
If you're referring to this post:
" I think that’s one thing people fail to grasp. The Republic of Vanuatu could pass a law declaring every member of FR its citizens, and that would not mean we “relinquish” our original citizenships.
"No, but it would mean you relinquish your original citizenship if you subsequently apply for a Vanatuan passport."
I would think it's obvious. The Republic of Vanauatu could pass a law declaring every member of FR its citizens, and it would have no effect unless and until you decided to take action upon that declaration and apply for a Vanuatan passport. Your action (and their acceptance of your application) would be a de facto renunciation of your US citizenship under the sections of the USC already quoted.
But what does US law say as opposed to how we might think things ought to be?
"Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA); 2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);"
The acceptance of a Vanuatuan passport woluld be prima facie evidence for the relinquishment of US citizenship, in that you'd have to perform one of the other of these two conditions (most likely the second, as Vanuatu would already have naturalized you with your permission). The application for the Vanuatuan passport would show a positive intention to relinquish US citizenship.
Grow up.
"Swearing in" does not make one President. You have to be qualified, win the majority of the electoral vote, take the oath, and wait until noon on January 20th following the elections. If you don't satisfy all of the above, you aren't President.
The Constitution doesn't even require a "swearing in" ceremony, let alone say who shall conduct it. I could take the oath right now, by writing it out on the back of old pin-up calender, and signing it. Would that make me President? I don't think so.
Yes, the occupant of the oval office is entitled to due process, but only a President, or other legitimate office holder, can be impeached.
Not arbitrarily, if he/she expected to be upheld by higher courts. But the eligibilty criteria are pretty black and white, and very few in number. If Bush did not satisfy one of those, then yes, a judge could and should, have ruled him ineligible. But of course Bush does meet the criteria. He was born in the US of US citizen parents. He was 35 or older and had lived in the US for 14 years. What basis would there have been for ruling him ineligible?
It was the Congress’ job and the State Board of Elections jobs to examine Obama’s constitutional qualifications.
And where is that written in the Constitution? The Constitution lays out the eligibility requirements. It does not say who is to enforce them. The answer is supposed to be "everyone". But as usually when something is everyone's job, no one did it.
That doesn't make an inligible person suddenly eligible.
He could also have traveled on a Kenyan passport, since Kenyan British Subjects became Kenyan citizens upon independence of Kenya from the UK.
No you must follow both. The other country may consider you their citizen, but that does not affect what the US considers you to be. Each country is sovereign. Yes you must obey the foreign laws, even if you are just visiting, but in general that means nothing under US laws.
Put another way, it doesn't matter what citizneship status Kenya, Indonesia, or the UK considered BHO to have at birth. Since his father was not a US citizen, he can at best be a native or birth citizen, not a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born. Under US law, other countries laws be damned, if he not born in the US, then due to his mother's lack of US residence for 5 years after her 14th birthday at the time he was born, he wasn't born a US citizen at all. If his parents were not legally married, then he probably was, again under US law.
Don't think so. The Constitution clearly states that the outgoing President's term ends at noon on January 20th. Unfortunately, my read of the Constitution, including the relevant amendments, indicates that Joe Biden would *act* as President, until a President shall have qualified. But due to the rules on who can qualify, I think it would be John McCain, since he is the only one to get any electoral votes for President, other than Obama.
That might not have been the "intended" result of the appropriate amendments, but it is what I believe the effect of them would be, if enforced as written.
There is nothing about his actual qualifications in Judge Carter's ruling. It never got that far.
Have you ever lived in a foreign country???
When and how would he have gotten one?
Wrong Of course it does. See Article II Section 1. The last paragraph even specifies the words of the oath. I sense that you may not be credible talking about the US Constitution if you do not know that...
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.