Posted on 12/15/2008 10:48:10 AM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve president because of his citizenship.
The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.
Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.
He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
“What I’ll be doing is working with the state that I’m in to see about getting a law passed in regards to vetting candidates so that we don’t go through this again “
>>>>>>...............
LOL you really don’t get it do you.
This is the first election process that was managed by the
NWO elites to limit choice and put in place an obviously unqualified candidate a blatant show of their POWER.
The message to SCOTUS and all the rest in politics is
they are the new masters of our Nation.
The next move will be to eliminate all opposition via
fairness doc and shutting down the net sites such as FR.
Orwell was right and just a little early in his predictions.
curiosity:”I see. So the short form is good enough for the state department to issue a passport, but it is not good enough for you.”
From what I understand, the state department has no interest in distinguishing whether a person is natural-born or naturalized citizen. For purposes of getting a US passport, either is acceptable. The state department will accept this certification because Hawaii accepts Obama as a citizen - it has nothing to do with Obama’s natural-born status...
You’re stating things that are not going to happen. I know it’s the “sort of rhetoric” that a lot of people like to use, but it bears nothing on reality of the political situation.
If people want to pass such a law vetting candidates, then they will be able to do it. I know of several states where this sort of thing could pass, once you get a few legislators on board to propose the thing in the first place. Of course, it takes a bit of political footwork to get it done, but it’s easily do-able.
The scenario that you’re talking about is for novels and the type of rhetoric that some people love to engage in. It won’t happen in real life, right here where we are at, in this country.
As far as Orwell is concerned, I know he’s a favorite of the dire circumstances that we’re “in for” — in the future, but that was a novel... LOL...
The *real story* — if you want to *really know* what is going to happen, is told to us in the Bible. Now those things, which will be happening prior to the return of Jesus Christ *will be happening* and they are not fictional statements but true statement from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, letting us know exactly what the future brings for all of us.
One of those things that we’re absolutely sure of, for the future of the United States — is that there is judgement from God, that is coming due, for the sins of the nation. I would be getting ready for that one...
How does your argument justify fascism? Taking over banks... including SOLVENT banks, such as is Wells Fargo; Conspiring with US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to threaten and “confine” the directors of banking institutions to the Treasury Building, until they agreed to capitulate and surrender their banks to the government (that approaches the line of kidnapping, it is extortion… and one might argue a violation of RICO; Having the US Treasury Sec print 1 trillion dollars for “distribution” without transparency or accountability; taking over the nations auto industry, and setting it up for government-mandated “engineering” (same garbage as CAFÉ standards) … when 90 percent of the industry’s “problem” is government interference in the first place; ETC, ETC, ETC.
These acts constitute FASCISM in plain English. Do not lower yourself, or insult my intelligence, by acting as an apologist for such asinine policy. President G.W. Bush has spent tax-payer dollars like some horny sailor in a Thailand brothel… AND HE HAS ENGAGED IN SUCH SPENDING ON FAR MORE THAN THE W.O.T.
My accusation stands… If the “shoe” hits, then wear it!
“Even if that’s true, she could have easily had him naturalized”
(In a patient tone)
How then could O be ‘natural born’ as required by the Constitution if his mother made him only a citizen by statute?
“if I say ‘not my president’, I am supported by the Constitution.
Best post here!!
“The government you get and deserve is the one you elected.”
So, if our asinine two-party system gives me the “Hobson’s Choice” of idiot ‘A’ or idiot ‘B’... that is MY fault?
If the FUBAR primary denies me a voice, where I have no opportunity to express my “vote” at the ballot box, because my “choice” was already made for me before my state primary was held... then, I “get the government I elected”...
Well pally, in Chicago lingo… BULL SH*T!
Bet on it.
And he will take a page from Bloomberg and Mugabe on term limits and will remain in office for ever and ever like any good socialist man of the peeple. This republic is dead, start learning spanish and get used to socialism and one world government and spoon fed government controlled information.
I think that because if there was any question about his eligibilty, then I think at least one of the justices would step up and let their concern be known.
I can see parents of a baby born in another country wanting to have him be a US citizen. Of course they weren't thinking of him being president. They would take adavantage of being in Hawaii to make that hapen.
“...some required both parents to be subjects/citizens if not born in the country. But few granted, or grant today, that status to people merely born in the country, but of alien parents. But England did, and the US does.”
WRONG. READ the ENTIRE post! Reading comprehension is a great thing. NOWHERE in US Statutory Law will you find a proclamation that unites “natural born” to “citizen” where the individual is NOT born ON United States sovereign soil. It cannot be legitimately done.
There is a difference between native born on US soil to US citizens, and born on foreign soil to US citizens. Statutory law recognizes this distinction, AND for good reason has NEVER EFFECTED a change to what DEFINES “natural born.” The US Constition MUST be ammended to effect such a change.
Statutory Law can make anyone a “citizen” BY circumstance of birth, when specific criteria are met; BUT Statutory Law CANNOT make an individual a “natural born citizen,” to wit: born ON United States sovereign soil AT birth, if, in fact, that person is not so born.
The Panama Canal Zone was not sovereign US soil… it was LEASED by Panama to the United States, not ceded to the United States. If not U.S. sovereign soil, then not “natural born,” period.
Don’t like it? Change the Constitution.
I was writing of the COLB not indicating the attending physician. At least NE did not give the Trojan horse of Islam all our electoral votes. Only the nitwits in Douglas County were such mindless fools. May the Missouri River overflow its banks.
I am not sure I agree. If it is not public, how do you know the requirements are being properly vetted? You realize what would happen? The panel would be stacked with liberals, Democrats, and/or RINOs who would get suddenly lenient on candidates they prefer and would be superlegally strict with those they don't. The only way to be sure that the rules are being enforced is if the records are available to all.
He wouldn't be. What's your point?
This isn't hard. The certification state, very clearly, that Obama was born in Hawaii. The state department accepts that.
If someone is not a natural born citizen of the United States, the state department requires proof of naturalization; a birth certificate is not sufficient in that case.
There are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized.
curiosity:”There are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized.”
IMHO, this is the crux of the entire dispute. From what I have seen on the issue, there appears to be alot of grey areas in between “natural born” and naturalized citizens. As in any legal claim, the devil is in the details. Perhaps all US citizens can fit into one of these categories but distinguishing some between the two gets quite complicated.
My main point is that the State Department does not truly care which sort of citizen you may be, they merely want affirmation that you are one or the other. I would suggest that the State Department has a much lower standard than that required to qualify for President of the US. The means by which they determine citizenship should not be extrapolated to the POTUS.
For example, Hawaii was admitted into the Union on August 18, 1959. So if Obama was born just two years earlier, would he still have been a natural-born citizen? How was citizenship of Hawaiian residents determined upon gaining state-hood? I assume not all current residents were citizens let alone natural-born (if any).
Things do get a bit complicated and are not near as simplistic as you may wish them to be...
I am beginning to wonder who has standing? If the CIC is in command of all US Military, then surely they , the military,or anyone in the military, has standing in a damn court. If not, then the CIC is not the CIC and is not in the chain of command, and; he/she is not eligible to fly on AF one. Also, if true, the CIC has no right to a military courtesy of any kind, if true.
If the above is true, them Onama is not to be allowed on any military base/fort etc. He has no authority to send a man or women to war or appoint an officer. He damn sure has no military ID card.
No, it's not complicated, and there are no grey areas. To be naturalized means you have to go through the naturalization process and take the oath. To be natural born citizen means you were a citizen at birth.
A state document that certifies birth in the united states proves you are a natural born citizen. Period. End of story.
My main point is that the State Department does not truly care which sort of citizen you may be, they merely want affirmation that you are one or the other.
True, but your point is irrelevant. A birth certificate indicates a US birth, which means you are natural born. A naturalization document proves you were naturalized.
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.