Posted on 02/13/2009 2:41:18 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I’m saving this so I can get into it later,unreal.
Thank goodness for those two paragraph breaks!
Not according to stare decisis rulings on this matter, when one of your parent’s is not a US citizen. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
“’At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
He could very well be a naturalizied citizen, or an illegal alien.
sorry about that just go to the link and I will fix later
The biological father, or just the sperm donor, depending on circumstances. From what we know BHO Sr, was never a Dad, just the sperm donor.
Let's look at what else Judge Gray wrote. Bearing in mind that the plaintiff was born in the U.S. of parents neither of which were U.S. citizens. As to the types of citizenship, Justice Gray said:
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."
So that's two types of citizenship, not three. And this is certainly in keeping with the Constitution which also recognizes only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. Obviously citizen by birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.
And does Obama's parentage negate his being a citizen at birth? No. In the Ark case the court ruled:
"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."
If Obama was born in Hawaii then his father could be from Mars and his mother from Venus and he'd still be eligible to be president.
Nope. That's the way Obama is attempting to get out this. His lawyers are now saying that nobody had a legal duty to demand proof of NBC. So Obama doesn't have to prove a dang thing.
Thanks, Davey. What happened!!?
See #80; copy into word and reformat for easier reading.
Here’s the link:
“If Obama was born in Hawaii then his father could be from Mars and his mother from Venus and he’d still be eligible to be president.”
Not if his father’s Martian citizenship status granted Hussein Martian citizenship at birth. We are also still trying to find out if he was born in Kenya, but he is stonewalling the documents that might establish that.
Leo Donofrio clearly explains on his website all the considerations in and implications of Wong Kim Ark. You’ve misrepresented the implications of the decision.
Donofrio’s is the clearest explanation, but there are many others that share his view.
The Social Security Administration recognizes three types of citizenship. Their paperwork includes the following choices:
- Citizen born inside the U.S.
- Citizen born outside the U.S.
- Naturalized citizen
Yep.
LLS
His first year at Oxy he lived in the dorms but according to an article on FR last week, the second year he was at Oxy he lived off campus.
fixed it lucy told ADM to remove
No, they are not. Amendment 14 defines two paths to US citizenship, but NOWHERE in this Amendment will you find the term, "natural born citizen." Amendment 14 does not in any way affect the usage or meaning of the term, "natural born citizen," in Article II.
"Natural born citizen," is a requirement, of Article II and is not a class of citizen affirmed by Amendment 14, nor has it ever been. The term has always been interpreted to mean a child born on US Soil of two US citizens, which means Obama is not eligible.
Hopefully one of these days we will all get to see the live birth certificate of BHO. Pray for that day although I know that Biden would be another loser.
Ah, there’s no way of reasoning with unreasonable people.
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.