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 ...
If he was born in Hawaii he would clearly be a natural born citizen. If he was born in Kenya, like some reports, he may not be. If he gave up his citizenship in Indonesia, he might not be either.
There’s a big difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. Check your facts.
What was Google’s motto again ? Was it “do no evil” ? Oh, the irony of it ...
If he was born in Kenya then Obama certainly would not be eligible. But I would add that there has been no concrete evidence presented to support the claim he was born in Kenya. A lot of rumor, but no fact.
As for Indonesia, if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii then that is irrelevant. Citizenship is a birthright that cannot be taken away from you, not by the government and not by your parents. It cannot be given up by accident, as the Supreme Court has ruled. For Obama to give up his citizenship he would have had to deliberately perform one of the recognized expatriating acts after he reached the age of 18. Obama was back living in the U.S. when he reached that age. There is no record of him taking any actions to relinquish his U.S. citizenship then.
Barack Obama Sr never did. He was a temporary visitor. His life-long allegiance was to Kenya, he was here on behalf of Kenya in order to be trained to be a future leader in Kenya, and he went back to Kenya a few years later, where he had a career in government.
"in the United States ... are there carrying on business"
That is, the Chinese parents had a personal stake in the economic liberty and laws within the US. Which Barack's dad never did - his politics were communist, allied with the USSR. Which, at the time, was our enemy in all practical effect.
"are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China"
Well, now, Obama Sr. was here in what was very close to an official capacity, albeit it was unofficial. His visit as a student was in those attempts to strengthen ties between countries. He was here to be trained in the arts and sciences that he would bring back to Kenya as it became an independent nation.
So, thanks!
That pretty much reads out Obama. Under that precedent Obama would NOT be a natural born citizen. Good work, NS!
I am well aware of that. A natural born citizen is someone born in this country and subject to its laws. If Obama was born in Honolulu then he is a natural born citizen. Regardless of his father's citizenship. The 14th Amendment says so. U.S. law says so. The Supreme Court said so.
Regarding this point:
“Remember, Leo is looking at this through the eyes of the Framer’s view of “Natural Born Citizen” — with the office of unique CONSTITUTIONAL qualification requirements of POTUS. That little Senate Resolution in April/May proves the UNCERTANTY of this issue for McCain (but was intended by the Dems to help Obama, too):”
I’ve read (could be wrong) that this resolution, which did not pass, was put forward by a small group of Dems including Obama, and that Repubs weren’t involved? If anyone knows more, please ping me so I don’t miss it.
We must consider precedents to the term "natural born" only in the context of qualification for President, or similar high, powerful position. There it must be taken in a stricter sense. Why? Because for the Presidency positions the Founders clearly wanted stronger strictures than for regular citizenship.
The legal definition of domicile is where a person has his or her fixed dwelling without present intent of removal. At the time, Obama and his wife were living in Honolulu. They had no set for which they were intending to leave Hawaii. It could have been 10 months or 10 years. Legally their primary residence was there permanent, and only, domicile.
That is, the Chinese parents had a personal stake in the economic liberty and laws within the US. Which Barack's dad never did - his politics were communist, allied with the USSR. Which, at the time, was our enemy in all practical effect.
But not legal effect. Obama was a student. He was engaged in what was then his business.
Well, now, Obama Sr. was here in what was very close to an official capacity, albeit it was unofficial. His visit as a student was in those attempts to strengthen ties between countries. He was here to be trained in the arts and sciences that he would bring back to Kenya as it became an independent nation.
Ah, an unofficial, official capacity. Makes perfect sense. What Obama senior was doing in no way met the definition of a diplomat as the Supreme Court defined it.
I read that the House of Reps is responsible for confirming the eligibility of the winner. To me that means no matter what the investigation yields, the House will say he’s eligible and the electors will go along with that.
If it gets to where the electoral votes are counted it is then in their hands. One Democrat and one Republican must state that they have reason to believe that there is a problem for the count to be in question. Then it would need to be resolved before a count is made.
This is reason to have the Supreme Court take action before that ever takes place.
I would hope that none of this gets that far otherwise there will be a major problem in this country. This will not go away!
A little off the main point, but as they celebrate in Kenya, where is the celebration in Hawaii?? Unless I’ve missed something.
And as Rush says, “where is Obama”?
You are correct that the term “citizen” for purposes of the 14th Amendment has been defined. What has never been defined is “natural born citizen” in the context of Article II.
What Leo is arguing is that “natural born citizen” means “citizen of the United States with no other citizenship status from another sovereign at the time of birth.” I’m not saying that he is correct, but your analysis that the term “natural born citizen” has been defined by the Supreme Court for the purposes of Article II is incorrect.
It's about, as the Framer's were concerned, DIVIDED LOYALTIES of the President!
If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "
The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. To require one legal definition of 'natural born' for candidates for president and a second legal definition of 'natural born' for everyone else creates a two-tiered legal structure with one set of rules for some people and a different set for everyone else. I don't see how that can be possible. 'Natural born' has a single meaning and a single definition. It means the same regardless of who it is applied to. And the definition has been established by law, by Constitution, and by Supreme Court decisions.
Question has been raised, it is beyond reason that 0bama has not provided that which would put the question to rest by now. If he does qualify, if he indeed was born in Hawaii and the Justices certify that all is in order, he is natural-born, great. Now is the time, then, to set the procedures into legislation that will prevent this question from ever arising again, no more Calero RESIDENT ALIEN on any ballot ever. For too long we have operated on the "say so" method, this needs to be corrected.
What is more important than demanding that all persons who stand for office abide by the terms of the Constitution, the very foundation of this nation??
Yes it has, several times. By federal legislation and through Supreme Court decisions. Both have defined what qualifies as natural born citizen as someone born in the U.S. and subject to its laws.
What Leo is arguing is that “natural born citizen” means “citizen of the United States with no other citizenship status from another sovereign at the time of birth.”
And I cannot see anything in the Constitution that supports his interpretation.
...but your analysis that the term “natural born citizen” has been defined by the Supreme Court for the purposes of Article II is incorrect.
Since the Constitution is silent on what the definition of natural born citizen is, then the definition arrived at by Congress and the Supreme Court is the one and only definition. For the purposes of Article II and every other purpose.
Don’t worry about the troll (Non-Sequitur) he will stir it up until you are blue in the face. It could be Obama himself or another illegal alien who sees a great opportunity to p&%@ us off, so just ignore it!
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.