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 ...
Wouldn’t that be sweet?
Birthers & Indiana
“Most Americans believe that what the Framers set forth in our Constitution means what it says...”
From the Indiana Court:
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ‘ligealty’, ‘obedience’, ‘faith’, or ‘power-of the king’. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, - as expressed in the maxim, “Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem”, - and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as ‘Calvins Case’, or the ‘Case of the Postnati’, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere.
They then give a half dozen citation, one of which they quote:
“Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Cockb. Nat. 7.”
These were part of common law at the time the Constitution was passed, and thus part of knowing what was meant.
The Indiana Court goes on:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Now, if you want to know why birthers get their butts handed to them in Court, the Court goes on to explain:
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
In other words, you cannot build a court case out of random writings. You need to look at the law in effect at the time, and as decided in court cases during the tears since.
I think there’s a *much* greater resemblance between the usurper and X than with Obama Sr.
Blue line mapper,
I wouldn’t hang my hat on anything an “African” said....most are died in the wool communists, and they do not have the truth in them...LOLOLOLOL
Wouldn’t make a difference anyway if Barack Sr is his father.......can have a foreign father and be NBC....just saying that foreign birth would just be the icing on the cake.....LOLOLOLOL
I can answer that one - because it's illegal due to the HIPAA law, and any hospital claiming that would violate HIPAA and be subject to a whopping big fine.
>>”Heh heh heh, I just luv that . . .
It must just put knots in bammies purty pink panties.”<<
You’ll like this, I think:
What Good can A Handgun Do Against an Army...?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2312894/posts?page=242
The Founders did NOT use Vittal’s as a Bible. They used Blackstone more often than Vittal, since Blackstone was more authoritative.
Common law at the time included the Case of the Post-nati:
Also, see here:
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/birthers-the-original-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
If he is correct, Vittal’s didn’t mention NBC until 1797.
There is debate as to the use of the “Law of Nations” - and Vattel’s definition of a “natural born citizen” amongst the Founding Fathers. Although, I personally do agree that they probably did use that definition ...
For this debate, I wanted to exclude that argument from the table. I also give Obama a Mulligan as to whether he was born on US soil [for the sake of argument, I assume that he was].
So, assuming that the Founding Fathers DID NOT use Vattel and assuming Obama WAS born on US soil - is he a “natural born citizen” ???
Not according to prevailing English Law in 1787 - when the Constitution was written. English Law dictated two [2] conditions - birth within the realm [subject to the exceptions contained in the British Nationality Act of 1730] AND permanent, solitary allegiance to the sovreign.
There was NOT MUCH “American Statute Law” in place at the time. When the separation from Great Britain was complete, ALMOST ALL of the law used in the United States was British Law [except that which we disagreed with].
The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained either at English Law Schools, American Universities [which taught English Law], or studied under established attornies [who, themselves, were trained at English or American Universities that taught English Law].
Since the Constitution has not been amended to modify the definition of “natural born citizen”, we must necessarily use the definition that was in place at the time that the Constitution was written.
You betch er ass it does.. He knows that if he tries anything there will be a gun under every blade of grass... I think it was Yamamoto who said that is why he would not invade the USA.
I respectfully disagree.
Show me any statute in the United States Code that defines "natural born citizen" - you can't because it isn't there ...
Hawaii cannot supercede the Constitution ...
OMG!!!!
.
You know she has to know and she could bring it down to her own benefit IF she hadn’t signed off on 2 different certificatons on ZERO’s eligibility.
It’s a good thing George Washington and the founding fathers weren’t waiting on “cooler heads to prevail”.
That sir, is the PROBLEM. Ignoring it doesn’t make it better or make it go away.
We are supposedly a country of laws, not men, so saying “Oh, he can’t be removed, the blacks would riot” doesn’t cut it. If we learned anything from the Hitler debacle, it should have been that we can’t let anyone be above the law and able to rule by fiat.
If any state [such as AZ might] passes a presidential candidate eligibility law - Obama could be in a world of sh*t.
He would have to prove that he was born in the US AND that he was natural born. Since the term natural born has never been defined by the judiciary, Obama could do one of three [3] things:
1. Sue in court - this would probably be immediately taken up by SCOTUS under original jurisdiction, due to the urgency of the situation and any ruling in the lower courts would surely be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
If Obama won at SCOTUS - he would be NBC. if he lost - he would be out, and would be removed from office [presumably by impeachment].
2. He could elect NOT to run in states that had the eligibility laws, bypassing the requirement to prove his status - but he would automatically lose electoral votes [in case he would have won there]. His NOT running in those states would also place doubt in the minds of voters in states that did not require him to show proof. This could cost him BIG TIME in swing states.
3. He could elect NOT to run in 2012 - which would NOT require him to prove anything ... but he would no longer be POTUS.
Pan_Yan showed me a youtube clip the other night where Justice Thomas was testifying before Congress. When the eligibility question was raised, in a lighthearted manner, Justice Thomas laughingly said that the Supreme Court is evading the issue.
And that’s the simple truth in a nutshell. They don’t want to touch this until they absolutely have to.
So long as the demoncrats hold the House and Senate, Barry could walk into the presser and murder Helen Thomas before the TV audience aqnd the demoncrats would not remove him. The only way to get the Republic back off life support is to smash the wicked democrats so they cannot regain power in our life time.
Pardownay moi ... but under Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted that:
" ... It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is ...".
The Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitution.
I don’t play golf.....Whats a Mulligan? ....LOLOLOLOL
Seems like you want to take all the most damning evidence off the table.... is that you Russ with one hand tied behind your back? LOLOLOLOL
I don’t believe that most of the Founders were lawyers....most seemed to be well read small businessmen and farmers...... Locke, Vittal, Blackstones, and others were in their libraries......
Question: If you were founding a new Nation, on a Republic model, would you use the Laws of the Monarchy you just rebelled and successfully broke away from?.......hhhhmmmmm..........I think I would be tempted to use something other than what was previously imposed on me, even if familiar, and try out something new.....maybe the well read and understood Law of Nations.....ooops I forgot one hand behind....LOLOLOLOLOL Ever consider that Blackstones was used a model for what not to do?
Yes, the Constitution and other laws was/were the start of American Statute law, we did not go the Common Law route...
No Obama is not an NBC... the letters and writtings concurrant with the writting of the Constitution indicate their concern with having a divided loyality President, something very common with the monarchies of Europe....It makes no sense that they wanted anything other than an “American Born and American Bred” for President.....
Tell me what requirements would you have written into the Constitution have you been alive then? and why?
According to WND, the grandparents rented that house from the owners and lived there in 1961. One can speculate as to whether or not Stanley Ann lived with them when 0bama was born, but the Polk directory does show them inhabiting the house.
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.