Posted on 11/20/2008 8:10:27 PM PST by Frantzie
Posted: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:20 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:31 pm US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.
We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogtext.org ...
Wrong. You are talking about United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The child is a citizen not a natural born citizen.
Looks like non-sequitur has found another thread to troll. Your bs is not going to work here either. In fact it’s getting weaker by the moment.
Ciao,
Google will become Obama’s NSA. Yahoo and Google both collaborated with the ChiComs to turn over and rat out Chinese people who were critical of the ChiCom govt.
Obviously you never read the Court's decision.
Not by anything you've posted. Talk about BS.
What most people are cluless about in the 1950s and maybe 1960s they had target shooting in NYC schools. Children walked too school with little rifles and I think they were 22’s not BB guns.
I think you failed to read it.
“Some things are just too toxic.”
I think you’re right.
“But seriously, Leo didn’t even bring up the case until Oct. 27 or so, just a few days before the election. And his observation was “there it was — right out there in the open.””
That is true, but hadn’t he already taken the suit through the Courts of NJ prior to Oct.27th? I believe the SC kind of keeps an eye on what is progressing through the Supreme Courts of the States. What do you think?
Thanks.
“Do a test that i just did:
- Google “obama birth certificate” - you get 1,100,000 references
- Yahoo the same phrase - you get 10,300,000 references
Another difference? With the google lookups, you get things like factcheck, etc. - in other words the MSM version. On Yahoo, things like world net daily.
I have 17 websites (ebay) that I run as a part-time business. It is WIDELY accepted that Google has a much better search engine than all the other search engines combined. So how is it that Yahoo has 10 times the number of google searches for the same phrase? Don’t forget, Google was also a major contributor to the chosen one.
How deep does this conspiracy go?”
Well, I actually meant search the Free Republic site; but since you did what you did, it’s hard to say isn’t it?
I think not.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Donofrio's claim is that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not a U.S. citizen. In the Ark decision, the Court makes it clear that the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant, that it is the 14th Amendment and the provisions contained in it that is the key. To claim otherwise is idiotic, as Justice Gray wrote. "To hold that the fourteenth amn dment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." Stop and think of that. If Donofrio is right then Giuliani was most likely ineligible to run for president. He's second generation Italian immigrant. Unless it can be shown that his grandparents on both sides have become naturalized citizens before Giuliani's parents were born then one or both were not U.S. citizens. And unless you can show where Giuliani's parents went through the naturalization process before Rudy was born, then according to Donofrio Rudy is ineligible. So it is with the decendent of almost any immigrant.
Sorry newbie, but if you'll read Article II closely, you'll see that it makes provision for those who were born under British rule before we were independent.
Good summary on that case here: "Natural born citizen" as presidential qualification
.... The current effective federal statute, Title 8, Section 1401 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+8USC1401), first passed by Congress on June 27, 1952 and last amended on October 25, 1994, of the U.S. Code provides details on the circumstances under which persons are legally recognized by the United States to be "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".
Some legal experts interpret "natural-born citizen" to mean a "citizen at birth." Under one such interpretation, anyone who is duly recognized as a "citizen at birth" persuant to the requirements of Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code would be considered eligible for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.
However, this statutory argument is weakened by the following considerations:
Congress probably did not intend to address presidential qualifications in the statute codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1401, because the law actually passed by Congress does not purport to relate to the "natural born Citizen" qualification for president under Article II; and Even assuming that it was the intent of Congress to define the constitutional qualification "natural born Citizen," an enactment by Congress would be insufficient to change the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(which held that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is thereby automatically a citizen) has been viewed by some legal scholars as indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens, does not constitute a "natural born" citizen. Likewise, Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663 (1927) recites that "under the common law which applied in his country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens but were aliens."
The only way for this issue to be conclusively determined would be for the United States Supreme Court to decide this precise question in an actual case. This means that someone who was born abroad, but who held U.S. citizenship from birth through a parent, would have to run for the presidency and be challenged, and then the case would have to make its way to the Supreme Court for a decision.
“What most people are cluless about in the 1950s and maybe 1960s they had target shooting in NYC schools. Children walked too school with little rifles and I think they were 22’s not BB guns.”
We still have Shooters Clubs in some Alaska schools and some darn good shots too, I might add. :)
I think what you are missing is the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. Leo is not arguing that Obama, if born in Hawaii, is not a citizen. Rather, he is arguing that because he was also a citizen of Great Britain, that he is not a “natural born” citizen, and thus cannot serve as President.
And that question has already been answered. As the Supreme Court found in 1898, children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of their race, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. The question was summed up in the closing paragraph: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Substitute Kenya for China, and you still find that the court ruled Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Don’t bother with non-sequitur (which by definition means “a logical fallacy”). He / she is trolling on every Obama thread on FR he can find trying to pass the same weak $#!t.
Probably a nice person, just mis-guided.
Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 5:
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.