Posted on 02/13/2011 3:34:00 PM PST by NoLibZone
Which is fortunate since he has none. The denial of standing isn't something to celebrate. And it's lazy crutch. They teach that in law school:
"Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court --, the requirements for standing are tightened."
These issues make this theory highly implausible.
Article 2.
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.
(2)Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.
Which is fortunate since he has none. The denial of standing isn’t something to celebrate. And it’s lazy crutch. They teach that in law school:
“Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case—or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court —, the requirements for standing are tightened.”
link to source
Judges don’t like to be reversed on appeal and the very first thing that any defendant’s attorney submits in any civil lawsuit is a motion to dismiss. That’s law school 101.
Not one Obama eligibility lawsuit has been reversed on appeal and ordered to grant standing to any plaintiff.
Finally, not every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed on Article III standing grounds. Some have been dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Meaning the Courts have no jurisdiction to reverse the outcome of a national election.
lmao @ the troll that couldn’t answer the question.
You are correct. If his mother were old enough to pass citizenship, he would be a US citizen. That is not the same as a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen must have 2 citizen parents.
You are correct. If his mother were old enough to pass citizenship, he would be a US citizen. That is not the same as a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen must have 2 citizen parents.
>The intent of the Founders is clear: they wanted an American born and bred to occupy the highest office of the land. Until Obama, this wasn’t much in dispute. Now his apologists claim any foreign national can find an underage American and spawn a child that fulfills the Constitutional requirements. PC has brought us to a very bad place.<
Yes they did. It was clear that they wanted no one to be in such a position, equal to the other branches of government by themselves to have any loyalty to another nation.
It was such a problem, they had to grant themselves waivers of a sort to have presidents for the first few years since they understood that no one could actually fulfill that requirement by that time.
This is the argument at it’s base. If anyone could have been conferred a natural born citizen, by the mere presence of being born on American soil. why the waiver for so many presidents? Simply because it would take more than one generation to produce a Natural born citizen by definition.
It may have been PC, but just as guilty is the lack of education and forgetting the importance of these reasons. Certainly Obama and his decisions such as siding with the Muslim brotherhood (no doubt because of his Muslim upbringing) to be part of Egypt’s new leaders is a clear example of WHY this was such an important idea even today.
If there are no records, then how can anyone ever prove that 0bama held American citizenship?
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Minor v Happersett never approached the question of native born Vs natural born. It was not the question nor was it part of the answer.
The question was about women voting. It declared women citizens jsut as men based upon where they were born.
‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.’
It never approached the question of what natural born citizen was or is, anymore than a native citizen. The intent of the court was to define who had the right to vote. Not who had the ability to hold the highest office in the land
Nope. Just his mother is enough.
My beef is that I believe he was born in Kenya and even if his mother had returned to the US she still failed other rules.
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:
1.The person's parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[7]
“Certainly Obama and his decisions such as siding with the Muslim brotherhood (no doubt because of his Muslim upbringing) to be part of Egypt’s new leaders is a clear example of WHY this was such an important idea even today.”
Yes, we are living through the nightmare/horror of exactly what the Founders intended to spare us. Obama is a foreigner in every sense of the word. Anybody who’s watched him, read his writings and studied his associations and still thinks he even nominally likes traditional America is either blind or mentally challenged. This man despises the very concept of this country as founded.
One of the very few honest things he ever said was that he would fundamentally change the US. He also promised to destroy the coal industry and jack energy prices through the roof. Most things he said were lies, but here and there the truth broke through.
I didn't know this.
It's not a proven fact, just a conclusion somebody jumped to.
FMD did follow the Communist Party line in his journalism and presumably was a party member, but not everyone in the party was a spy who reported to Soviet handlers. Those whom the FBI called subversives were more likely to be agents of influence who spread communist ideas and promoted the party lines as actual spies.
There were 80,000 members in the CPUSA at its high point in 1944. The USSR didn't need that many spies and wanted them to be as professional as possible. If every spy were in the party and every party member were a spy it would have been easy to break the spy rings.
I wonder where she hid those records, since the Governor of that same state has been unable to provide them to us. Her testimony is worthless.
No US Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II natural born Citizen.
I wonder where she hid those records, since the Governor of that same state has been unable to provide them to us. Her testimony is worthless.
No US Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II natural born Citizen.
In my humble opinion, there is one overriding, serious Constitutional issue that I wish the current High Court would address with a definitive, precedent setting opinion: is there any difference between an Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 “natural born citizen” and a 14th Amendment & US Code TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, Section 1401 “Citizen of the United States-at-birth.?”
If the Supremes could resolve that question, I’d be happy.
Would you be so kind as to cite your references on this statement? Or is this your personal opinion?
WKA didn’t outright declare it, but their reasoning ends up there. It would have been better if the Supreme Court had taken the case offered in Dec 2008 and made a formal, official ruling NLT 20 Jan 2009.
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.