'Sanctions' sought in President's Eligibility case

WorldNet Daily ^ | Feb. 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[SvenMagnussen]

A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state's electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established. Since his inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of Obama's records.

[little jeremiah]

I guess the moral of the story is “not everything you read is true”!

[BonRad]

“Many of the SAME Framers (especially Washington) who were present to sign the Constitution in 1787, were also present for BOTH the 1790 & 1795 Immigration Acts. They KNEW what NBC stood for, tried to expand it to include soldiers’ children born overseas in 1790, and felt later it was unnecessary to do so in the 1795 Immigration Act.”

BP2- you must know that Donofrio interpreted this to mean that the 1790 NBC distinction (interesting you use the word “tired”) being dropped only five years later in near identical context meant for the implicit (Donofrio might even say explicit) elimination of the distinction. This was a one point in his dismissal of McCain being ineligible. I don’t want to expand the circle but this needs to be stated whenever 1790 & 1795 come up. Why would they ( the same men) have NOT REPEATED the pioneering clarification?

[Chief Engineer]

LOL got that right and as I look for inaccuracies I find more and more, some based on Jr’s fairytale. We know he doesn’t pay attention to history and it screwed him up!

[BonRad]

sorry, my requisite typo- interesting you use the word “tried”-

(have change keyboards and THIS used one is no good either)

[April Lexington]

Many of the Sturmabteilung suffered misfortune as folks in the “hood” began to understand what was happening. Watch out ACORN. We know who you are and where you live...

[STARWISE]

Have you come across any evidence that BHO and Ayers
knew each other in NYC?

[Chief Engineer]

Not a bit of evidence they ever knew each other in NYC.

[little jeremiah]

As in “no evidence that they knew each other” or “evidence that they didn’t know each other”?

[Michael Michael]

Many of the SAME Framers (especially Washington) who were present to sign the Constitution in 1787, were also present for BOTH the 1790 & 1795 Immigration Acts. They KNEW what NBC stood for, tried to expand it to include soldiers’ children born overseas in 1790, and felt later it was unnecessary to do so in the 1795 Immigration Act.

Yeah? Are you sure it was done because they felt it was unnecessary to explicitly say "natural born citizen?"

Or was it changed because some bright boy in Congress stood up and said "Hey, wait a minute! We don't have the power to define who is a citizen, natural born or otherwise. That is a power left exclusively to the states. We only have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

It's worth noting that in 1790, the Tenth Amendment had not yet been ratified. That wouldn't happen until December, 1791.

So we have in 1790, a naturalization act which declares children born overseas to parents who are US citizens, "natural born citizens." In 1791, the Tenth Amendment is ratified. Then, in 1795, a new naturalization act is passed, only this time it declares children born overseas to parents who are US citizens, simply "citizens" of the United States.

BP2 is arguing that even though they simply said "citizens," those children were in fact "natural born citizens."

However in order for that argument to hold any water, a child born outside the US to parents who were not US citizens and had never even been to the US before the child was born, could also become a "natural born citizen."

Please note the following from the 1795 Act:

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

So, according to BP2's argument, if Obama's father had married a Kenyan woman instead of Dunham, given birth to Obama in Kenya, then the two immigrated to the United States with Obama and become naturalized citizens before Obama turned 21, that would have made Obama a "natural born citizen" under the 1795 Act.

[Michael Michael]

Oh, and by the way, would any defender of the Tenth Amendment care to step up and show where the Constitution gave Congress any power to define citizenship, beyond establishing a uniform rule of naturalization?

Because if the Constitution does not give them that power, then any laws passed by Congress deeming someone born outside the US to citizen parents to be a citizen of the United States could only make that person a citizen of the United States by way of naturalization, and hence that person would not be considered in any way to be a “natural born citizen” which if it means anything, it means a citizen who is not a citizen by way of naturalization.

[Beckwith]

Obama has no rules and doesn’t play straight — never did.

Alinsky 101.

[Non-Sequitur]

Non-Seq, I'll accept your lack of an intelligence response on the usage of "HE" in the Constitution as a sign that you've hit the limits of your DNC-issued talking points today... LOL

I doubt you would recognize an intelligent response to anything if it bit you in the butt. But I will point out that your claims about the Constitution forbidding women from office because of the use of 'he' are about as logical as your claim that natural born citizen applies only to those born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. So you are at least consistent.

[Piquaboy]

The Rats do not care what the hell we do. They shoved that sorry POS down our throats just as they did the Porkulus Bill and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. They are not going to pay any attention to what us Peons want them to do.

[Smokin' Joe]

The Social Security Administration recognizes three types of citizenship.

Maybe so, but there is no Constitutional authorization for the Social Security Administration, so I am not inclined to use them as a source for the purposes of the issue at hand.

[Frantzie]

Gary Kreep did not ask for the application? I wonder why? What could be in his records. My guess is his grades will be c,d,f’s. The key would be application showing he was a foreign student. Assuming he was a foreign student will it be enough for SCOTUS to hear a case?

This nightmare is getting worse by the day.

I am think Orly may have a good shot with the TN state reps. Wealthy Repubs and conservatives need to be putting up more money for these efforts.

[Frantzie]

Do we have any idea if Mr. Kreep will be sucessful? Can O’s attorneys try to get the case sealed? Would the info become public knowledge?

I think Berg realizes that until some of the public starts to understand what is going on it will be tough to make progress. I thnk this Oxy case might allow the talk radio folks to break covert and bring it out.

Clinton saying he is for the fairness doctrine shows he will follow O to hell too. I loathe Bill but though he might not be as evil as the one.

[BuckeyeTexan]

there is no Constitutional authorization for the Social Security Administration

Well you got me there. Dang.

[justiceseeker93]

One of the aspects of this Keyes case which may have a great impact on the 2012 election is that the plaintiffs are asking the California Superior Court to compel the CA secretary of state to vet the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates in the future. Obviously, if this relief is granted, O would likely have to commit fraud to get on the CA ballot in 2012. No wonder his crew is showing signs of grave concern.

[STARWISE]

Thank you.

[BP2]

Please note the following from the 1795 Act:

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

Yes, good find -- /sarc. Note: it does allow that for "Citizens", not "Natural Born Citizens". Folks keep confusing and intermingling the two terms as if they are the same; they aren't as I'll show below.

Furthermore, those same folks are operating under the assumption that the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as it applies to the body of the Constitution can be rectified/altered as can “Citizen” by Congress alone, certainly via any Immigration Act. THERE’S PLENTY OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.

Let's see, there are SOME Constitutional "modifications" Congress has authorized itself the power to enact without state consent:

13th Amendment (Abolition of slavery), 1865:
Section 2. "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
NOTE: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU’LL FIND SUCH LANGUAGE - "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" - IN THE CONSTITUTION OR AMENDMENTS.

14th Amendment (Citizenship, etc), 1868:
Section 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

15th Amendment (Suffrage), 1870:
Section 2. "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

16 Amendment (Income Tax), 1913:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

17th Amendment (Direct election to the United States Senate), 1913:
NONE
NOTE: The selection of vacancies are granted to the states.

18th Amendment, (Prohibition) 1919:
Section 2. "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
NOTE: EVEN THOUGH THIS SECTION IS PRESENT TO ALLOW FOR CONGRESS TO HAVE THE RIGHT FOR "ENFORCE" “BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION”, THE 18TH AMENDMENT IS REPEALED BY THE 21ST AMENDMENT.

19th Amendment, (Women’s Sufferage), 1920:
Section 2: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

20th Amendment, (”Lame Duck Amendment”), 1933:
Section 3: “... and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition), 1933:
NONE

22nd Amendment (Limits the president to two terms), 1953:
Section 1. “…But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION.

23rd Amendment (Representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College), 1961:
Section 2: "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

24th Amendment (Poll Taxes), 1964:
Section 2. "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

25th Amendment (Presidential Succession), 1967:
Section 4. "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide…”

26th Amendment (Voting Age to 18), 1971:
Section 2. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

27th Amendment (Variance of congressional compensation), 1992:
NONE
Here’s the Amendment: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
NOTE: Ironically, it was first ratified by Maryland in December 19, 1789, but not ratified by all of the states at the time. It was “rediscovered “ in 1982 by University of Texas student Gregory Watson. BTW, Tom Foley, the Democratic Speaker at the time fought this -- where is he now?

SO, you see, Congress CAN modify certain things itself (for example, "Citizen") if it gives itself the RIGHT to do so, and is granted that power by the states in the course of Constitutional Amendment. It has NOT given itself the right to modify “Natural Born Citizen”. How do I know this?

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, dealing with, among other things, "Citizenship". As I’ve said before here, Congress has tried to modify the Natural Born Citizen clause 26 times since the 1870s. Those proposals have failed to get out of Committee EVERY SINGLE TIME. I’ve done my own research on this, but check out Dec. 2, 2004, of USA TODAY for the abbreviated version, Should the Constitution be amended for Arnold?

So again, the members of Congress who have supported such a measure to modify the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, most recently by Kennedy in 2000, must obviously think there’s something to NBC, especially something they cannot codify on their own, most certainly via an Immigration Act ...