Posted on 11/20/2008 11:46:54 PM PST by STARWISE
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review.
This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
There were many claims in Berg’s suit, which would not have been settled by an authentic B.C. proving Hawaiian birth.
The reason the ‘rats/Hussein’s CAIR legal team moved for dismissal of the Berg suit for lack of standing was because they could. And it worked, as far as that suit went. Saved them the hassle of actually having to defend against the suit on its merits, assuming they could theoretically do that.
Why should they go through all the motions of defending all the claims of Berg if they could just have it thrown out? You would have done the same in their position.
Even if Hussein has an original, long-form vault copy of his birth certificate proving he was indeed born in Honolulu, there are all sorts of ancillary issues related to dual/lost citizenship that have to be adjudicated. So simply obtaining dismissal was the simplest and most effective way for them to hold us off at that juncture.
Of course it leaves all kinds of questions unanswered, and we are seeing the issues linger and grow more pressing, thankfully.
There are legal precedents that may allow Hussein to get around all that childhood dual citizenship/lost US citizenship stuff, but until he presents his original long-form B.C. we don’t even know for sure if he can surmount the biggest question of where he was really born.
FRAUD
You make sense.
What remains a glaring thorn in my craw, and in the craws of so many others, is that Hussein is exactly the type of person that the Founders wanted to prevent from ascending to the presidency—someone with painfully apparent, divided loyalties to foreign nations.
That stark reality, if borne out by the facts, is what the SCOTUS should really consider.
She’s a woman, so she’d be sworn into the office regardless of what the Constitution says because the diversity gestapo has to make sure that we get a woman President now that we’ve gotten a black one. And so on for Hispanic, Asian, etc. The Constitution/rule of law means nothing; the important thing is diversity!
As if a bunch of hackers can influence the course of events by sabotaging his site. typical thug mentality. The left has gotten so low-class and mob-like. I cannot believe so many people were stupid enough to follow their rhetoric and ignore thinking and logic. Once the libs got a strangehold on education through the unions, we’ve been doomed.
You’re right; we don’t elect someone for President—we actually vote for state electors who are pledged to that someone.
But those electors aren’t necessarily, absolutely certain to elect the person to whom they are pledged.
BINGO
I found this, from a law web site.
Natural born is from British common law.
It means the child can and must inheret citizenship from his Father.
If seems law is followed, as intended, Obama is out, with good reason !
Here it is:
The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”(40)
This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)
A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46
That is correct and this is about many issues with Obama’s Citizenship. Many believe even if he had been born in the USA, he lost his citizenship when he became a citizen of Indonesia due to the fact Indonesia does not allow duel citizenship and once Obama returned to the grandmother she never took him to have his citzenship reinstated.
This is long, this is complicated, but no one will make me believe the Clintons along with the Democrats pushed this man knowing he wasn’t a citizen.
In my ever so humble opinion, if per say we are correct, and Obama is “NOT” an American citizen, the Democrats have created a “coupe D’etat”. Furthermore, unless SCOTUS takes a Constitutional stand and rule that the Constitution states that only Natural born Citizens can be president, and tell Obama adios, America loses, because the usurpation of the Constitution has taken place without one shot fired.
“In my ever so humble opinion, if per say we are correct, and Obama is “NOT” an American citizen, the Democrats have created a “coupe D’etat”. Furthermore, unless SCOTUS takes a Constitutional stand and rule that the Constitution states that only Natural born Citizens can be president, and tell Obama adios, America loses, because the usurpation of the Constitution has taken place without one shot fired.”
By a constitutional lawyer! He has zero respect for American or its constitution.
“Natural born is from British common law.
It means the child can and must inheret citizenship from his Father...”
Thanks for posting this reference. So if I read this correctly, if a person has two parents that are U.S. Citizens at the time of their birth, they could be born anywhere in the world, and still be a natural born citizen. Hence, McCain would be a natural born citizen.
If a person had a father who was not a U.S. Citizen they would not be considered a natural born U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama would not be a natural born citizen.
Check your freepmail!
You said:
“I take my lead in this issue from the Founders’ statements in the Declaration of Independence.
They had to go beyond what was “allowed” to secure the blessings of liberty for us all. So may we.”
____________________________________________
I agree with you.
If this issue is swept under the rug or we are TOLD LIES about the intent of the Constitution, or shown a Forgery or NOT shown pertinent documents but TOLD what they say, then the legitimacy of our government exists no more.
At this time I am fearful that the SCOTUS or any other government agency will try to make this all go away and not follow the Constitution.
I am NOT afraid of the fight needed to win back the USA from the hands of lying thieves.
It’s just that I never thought that our nation would sink to this level and just let some young, arrogant, up-start, lying, muslim, thief come in and speak about nothing but sway the masses.
I always believed our government or court system would step in and do their job. I guess I was wrong.
I have learned it is MY JOB as a citizen of the US to stand with others and fight to, as you say, secure the blessings of liberty for us all.
I will remain alert and vigilant for the time when I am needed.
Now THAT is interesting.
Please post the link of which legal site this comes from.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
On Friday, the department revealed that Obama's passport file was improperly accessed three times this year, and the security of passport files of the two other major presidential candidates -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain -- had also been breached. CNN
Sounds like the Obama brownshirts are hard at work. BTW...I missed most of Rush yesterday and the day before but was going to try and listen this weekend on my 24/7 account. Will let you know if I hear him mentioned Donofrio and the case. Thanks for the ping.
Perhaps now we know why Obama’s little resolution 511 tried to slip this little statement in:
“Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
This is getting more interesting by the day.
Also, by Howard Dean resigning it would enable him to plea bargain and to testify against the DNC/Obama. This would keep him from facing felony charges and keep his license to practice medicine.
Thank you so much for finding this forgotten issue so clearly tied to the hidden records, travel, and identity.
Could you please start a thread with this and include BC or COLB as the keywords?
Smart move, the way these crooked judges and prosecutors work these days. New Jersey is among the worst—although there’s a lot of competition everywhere.
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.