Posted on 04/20/2010 1:35:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania to two US citizens. On December 15, 2008 365 Electors for Vice President of the United States, chosen as directed by the Legislatures of the several states, cast ballots for Mr. Biden to become Vice President-elect. These votes were counted in a special Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2009, without objection. Vice President-elect Biden took the oath of office at 11:58am on January 20, 2009 and became the legal and Constitutional Vice-President.
How do you claim he could be disqualified from that office?
Please refer to the US Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (3 USC Chapter 1 s15 1887), and don't make up any nonsense about "tickets" or "parties" or any other extra-constitutional nonsense.
Siiigh.
The Short Form (AKA Certification of Live Birth, in Hawaii) is a mere abstract, generated when one is requested. It's not something that is "issued" and kept on file. The Long Form, aka Certificate of Live Birth (in Hawaii).
However there are more ways to get a "long form" than being born in a hospital in Hawaii. For a "home birth", the same long form is used, but instead of a doctor's signature, you'd have a "witness", and that's all it really takes. You take the form to the Vital Statistics office, they file it, and a birth announcement appears in the paper. You can also file for a "delayed certificate" if it's been over a year since the child was born. A totatly separate certificate, The Certification of Hawaiian Birth, once existed. It would generate the same "short form" as a legitimate, or fraudulently filed, Long Form birth Certificate. Also if the parents have been resident in Hawaii for some period, one year IIRC, they could file for a regular certificate even though the child was not born in Hawaii.
All "orignal birth records" will produce the same "abstract"/CoLB/Short Form. Both the "home birth" and the "parents resident in Hawaii" are or were (they've tightened up on both) ripe for fraud.
But in the end, it doesn't matter where he was born. He father was not then, or ever, a US Citizen, and that means he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.
Savage just brought up the BC. God bless him. He is a brave soul and will be on the right side of history before all is said and done. Still talking about itm. Tune in now.
Interpreting the US Constitution is the Supreme Court's job. Determining the precise definition of NBC certainly IS within their jurisdiction.
...by refusing to take a case in Dec 2008, they made their position clear - there are at least 6 justices who will not support birther arguments about NBC requiring 2 American parents.
You're reading something into the rejection of that case that is nowhere on record. They did NOT make their position clear. They simply rejected that case.
Justice Ginsburg has not argued anywhere that I’ve found that a NBC is required to have two American parents.
I seriously doubt that a well-known writer like JB Williams would claim that Justice Ginsberg made a statement that she didn't make. I suggest that you challenge him to show proof, if you doubt him. He's easy to contact, and will probably respond to you.
But there are other Supreme Court Justices who've gone on record with opinions regarding NBC. Here's an excerpt from a thread on that very subject:
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor.
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
...we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Chief Justice Fuller Opinion Natural Born Citizen (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
I don’t give a rat’s rear end what birthers call me...
Good for you, because if you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, you're going to called a duck around here.
I have no idea what passport he used, but PLEASE do not repeat the falsehood that US passport holders were restricted in any way from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 (or any other time from 1947-2010), because it's not true.
Heh heh heh, I just luv that . . .
It must just put knots in bammies purty pink panties.
I would suspect Boehner will be the majority leader next year when the Republicans win back Congress later this year since as of now he is their minority leader, and he is 2nd in line to the presidency after the VP.
Don’t know what a COLB is.
The photo in the article points out perfectly 0bozo’s total contempt & disdain & mockery for those who are questioning his constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. This has got to be the greatest political scam & hoax in the entire recorded history of civilization. What a RAT bastard that commie pig 0bozo is!!!
The best course of action is to educate and continue to educate as many people as possible about the illegal in the White House. That will build up pressure from the grassroots and light a fire under the courts, and Congress and those who want to be in Congresss to do their duty under the Constitution.
“Right...( sigh!)..The next time I need my drivers license renewed I’ll show them an Internet print out of a newspaper microfilm birth announcement. Yeah! That should do it.”
I don’t think that is the point of the newspaper announcements. I know no member of my family ever called in any of my children’s births.
I didn’t say that because I know it is not true. He could have gone there, if he had been able to obtain a visa, with a US passport; if he had had one. But he didn’t have a US passport until he became a senator, I think an Illinois senator. So, since he didn’t have a US passport, it must have been from another country; they wouldn’t have let him in to Pakistan and Indonesia - and IIRC he may have visited Hyderabad, India - without a passport of some kind or another.
“They don’t need a reason to riot. Witness Kansas City and Pennsylvania.”
Easy on the whole KC riot thing newby. That whole thing was really overblown. I live in the area, I’m white, and it is Spring and school is almost out. KC Plaza security has had some internal issues lately.
Native Born is NOT good enough for constitutional eligibility, or have you never taken the time to read up on this subject?
No I have NOT read up on it. But if you are born in the USof A you are entitled to citizenship. Last I looked, Hawaii was a state in ‘61.
I don't doubt it (too much), but that still doesn't prove a place of birth when one isn't actually listed in the announcement.
--------------------------------------------
Furthermore, they don't list him by name. Moreover, the address listed in those "announcements" is that of Stanley Ann Dunham's parents!
Try going down to the courthouse and undoing the facts listed on divorce papers on file in the state of Hawaii in a 1960's action in which both parties are now deceased. Then speak to me about "silly".
I am hopelessly brainless.
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.