Posted on 07/28/2009 9:43:04 AM PDT by MindBender26
Behind the scenes, at many military bases across the country and around the world, a not-too quiet challenge is developing against Barack Obama and his questionable qualifications to be President of the United States.
Most FReepers are familiar with the ongoing civil litigation against Obama. Plaintiffs claim he is not constitutionally qualified to be president because he does not meet the legal description of a “natural-born citizen.”
Obama’s lawyers have never entered pleadings on the MERITS of the plaintiffs’ cases. They oppose the plaintiffs’ suits on the issue of “standing.” They claim the plaintiff’s do not have a right to sue. Generally, that “standing” claim is well-founded. Giving every citizen the right to sue the president would be a nightmare. Can you imagine George Bush defending 10,000,000 individual suits by Dems over the war in Iraq?
But recently, one plaintiff had a strong chance of being given “standing to sue.” The plaintiff was an Army Reserve Major, Stefan Frederick Cook, from the Tampa area. His call-up to active duty positioned him as a person who could demonstrate the likelihood of real damages if Obama was not a legally-elected president. Cook could be killed, wounded or even charged as a war criminal if Obama was not legally the president.
He sued, claiming Obama was not legally qualified to be President, not legally qualified to order him to do anything.
The judge was set to begin preliminary hearings when the government lawyers dropped a legal bomb. They canceled Maj. Cook’s orders for the obvious purpose of denying him standing. With Major Cook longer on activation orders, the case was moot and was dismissed by the judge.
This hugely significant legal surrender by the government was noticed by every lawyer in the country watching this issue. It also immediately became an enormous topic of conversation in every barracks in America. If Obama was willing to cancel one soldier’s deployment orders because of a court challenge to his right to be president, what would he do the next time someone raised the issue?
As a result, service members and lawyers began action immediately. It is believed that as many as 100 lawyers are preparing to file litigation such as Maj. Cook’s. This litigation would be in many courts across the country and put a huge strain on the Obama-DNC legal team. Do they cancel 100 sets of orders this week, only to face 1000 suits next week?
Even worse, sources close to some of the potential litigants tell me that at least four lawyers, including one very well known conservative Vietnam veteran-lawyer, are seeking enough clients so they can petition the court for the establishment of a Class of Plaintiffs in a proposed class action case. If that happens, then every military service member on orders for SWA would be covered.
At that point, Obama has no viable legal option. He has proven himself unwilling to try the case on its merits, and willing to cancel orders to avoid having to face discovery. How can he be POTUS and CINC if he cannot issue orders to the military he claims to command?
From there, every time Obama tries to act under color of law in any matter, military of not, someone sues and Obama’s action ceases.
This is an important turning point in a case of incredible constitutional and legal significance.
The thirteen original colonies were never territories. There has been a candidate born in a US territory, who had the same controversies over eligibility. His name was Barry Goldwater.
Now, heed your own counsel. There's enough misinformation and outright disinformation, without adding to it.
Ok, so the 13 original colonies(what a frickin’ nitpicker)were never territories. However all the rest of the states were and everyone born in one of those territories before it became a state was a citizen. Just as John McCain is a citizen because he was born of two US parents on soil under American jurisdiction. I already adhere to my own standards but it is plain you believe any BS you hear. We don’t need the lies, I will repeat that for you again, you are wrong about territories and citizenship, you lied about it, either on purpose or inadvertently. You threw in the 13 colonies trying to obfuscate things and turn the argument to something else. It didn’t work. You still lied.
Show me where the relevant Constitutional passage ever refers to marriage, as pertaining to the specific term of art “natural-born citizen.” It refers to parents, in the plural. That’s all.
Also, show me where the 14th amendment addresses this specific term of art, “natural-born citizen.” It doesn’t, because it can’t. That amendment had nothing to do with “natural-born citizen,” which only has Constitutional relevance in terms of eligibility, of the President and the Vice President. It is meaningless outside of that context. And, that is the only context that matters in this discussion.
Those three words, in combination, continue to have the specific meaning intended for them when the Constitution was ratified, RummyChick.
You are the one obfuscating, calex59. For anyone reading this bizarre exchange, go to your favorite search engine, and enter “Barry Goldwater”+”natural born citizen.”
Matter of fact, I’ll save them and you the trouble:
As far as the original thirteen colonies never being territories, you are the one presuming to correct people here. Adhere to your own standards, and I do strongly suggest that you drop the abusive language. It does nothing to bolster your case, and makes you seem rather more driven by emotion.
You weren’t following the conversation . Go back and read it again. The poster was mixing things up because a poster is MISQUOTING a statute.Marriage relates to the Citizenship statute of which mindbender is MISQUOTING.
Obama was born out of wedlock. Marriage or lack thereof is significant in determining the citizenship.
Separate issue is the natural born citizenship issue for which there is no statute. The 14th amendment IS important to the natural born part of this or have you not read the case law on this? The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and it’s interpretation will determine whether Obama is a natural born citizen.
how do you know obama was born out of wedlock? there IS a divorce decree between his mother and obama Sr. And I haven’t seen any proof, although I’ve heard, that Obama Sr. was married to another woman beforehand in Kenya.
All that info is sketchy at best though.
there is plenty of anecdotal proof that he was already married.
that answers your question.
By the way, one poster here has a theory that he never married Ann, she made up the marriage, never told him, and he never knew about the Divorce.
It is possible.
I don’t subscribe to that theory but it is possible.
I've seen stray replies by you making this claim, that Obama was born outside of marriage and that this impacts his being or not being a "natural-born citizen," but I have yet to see you post the relevant Constitutional Amendment that changes the meaning of "natural-born citizen," which is a specific term of art with technical meaning under the Constitution.
Would you mind doing so? Thanks.
POINT TO ME THE POST WHERE I SAY THAT.
There is a difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship.
So show me the post!
I pay acute attention to the BC threads and I’ve seen no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that obama sr. was married before Ann Dunham. There’s been talk he married after or before but nothing substantiates it. If there’s a divorce decree, which I’ve definitely seen, then that lends alot more credence to obama sr. and ann being married.
I think the balance of evidence says Stanley Ann was married to Obama Snr. If anyone has evidence otherwise I’d like to see it.
By the way, to get you started on the journey that most here have ignored concerning the illegal marriage....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545467,BSX-News-wotreev09.stng
Here is a quote :
“The way Obama describes it in his book, his father had two children by a woman in Kenya before meeting Obama’s mother in Hawaii. Then, when the junior Obama’s parents’ marriage dissolved around 1963, the senior Obama returned to Kenya with another woman he met in the United States and had two children by her. But that didn’t stop him from resuming his relationship with his first wife. “
Go read Obama’s book.
Not legally ..unless she went to Kenya to have a customary marriage.
Do you even know that Kenya did not recognize statutory marriages mixed with customary marriages.
NO UK citizenhip if born on US soil with just the US marriage.
Apparently, there is quite a bit you don’t know.
Gotta go -- need to work on their campaign literature.
I'm aware of that, RummyChick. But, one cannot be a natural-born citizen without being a citizen.
Why do you seem to believe that Obama being born outside of marriage has any bearing on this matter? This is a claim that you've made before, and I would like to better understand why you seem to believe this. Under the Constitution and US law, "parents" are what matters, as best I have been able to determine, and I've been looking into the matter since April of last year.
bookmark
I meant to say I haven’t seen evidence obama sr. wasn’t married to dunham. In other words, because there’s a divorce decree it’s more likely they WERE married.
Over and over again you see people quote a law that pertains TO MARRIED parents that they use to determine that Obama is not a US citizen if born in Kenya.
That isn’t the right law to use. You have to use the out of wedlock part of the law. How hard is that to understand?
You don’t get to the natural born part of the citizenship if you can’t get to the first step. People are claiming he can’t be at the first step but they are using the wrong law.
GET IT?
If he is a US citizen with one US citizen parent but born on foreign soil then you get the next part of the argument which would have to be decided by a court of law. It will turn on interpreting the 14th amendment.
It is a multi layer stair step process.
If you can’t get it ..sorry..I can’t explain it better than that.
And please dont anyone ask me to proof Obama SR was already married. If posters don’t understand that then they really haven’t done the research. Here is an interview with the woman.
No thanks.
If you can’t show proof Sr was married, just say so. Just because he had kids with a lady in Kenya doesn’t mean he MARRIED her.
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.