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.
It is for the court to decide and certainly Fukino could not make that determination unless Daddy wasn’t Obama Sr.
Personally, I would like to see it be ONLY born on US soil with two US citizen parents.
I don’t think the current SCOTUS would rule that way.
Yes, it does. It was a tribal marriage perfectly legal in Kenya. The info on that is everywhere INCLUDING IN HIS BOOK.
He was a member of the LUO tribe. They had tribal marriages. He would not have had two kids with her without the tribal marriage. In addition, her family is what I would call a prominent member of the tribe.
You obviously have not done sufficient reseach into this matter nor do you want to educate yourself so you don’t look stupid when spouting the wrong law.
Thank you for finally spelling out just why you’ve been claiming this, though it seems to have chafed you to provide it.
The point is moot under the clear meaning of the term “natural-born citizen,” going back through Elg to Happersett to Bingham to John Jay to Vattel.
Please see: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm for the specific cites behind this.
Obama, you can keep your birth certificate.
America is standing up against you and no amount of diplomas, degrees or citizenship awards will get you any extra days in the Whitehouse.
You failed to qualify.
We don’t need no stinkin birth certificate.
Sounds to me like an opportunity for Obama to purge the military of political opponents.
IMHO...this sequence of actions legitimizes this issue....substantially.
That would make the DHS “list” rather anticipatory, wouldn’t it.
His citizenship IS NOT MOOT.
The easiest way to knock him out is to show he is not a US Citizen. That is what people keep trying to do but they are using the wrong law.
Anything else is will likely require this going all the way to SCOTUS with an interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Wong is the case to look to... I am not going to go through yet another debate about it. Believe it or don’t believe it. SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Btw, once again, Vattel was written in a foreign language. There was no french word for natural born citizens. The excerpt that people keep quoting conflicts with itself. Parents used in the plural and then later claiming it is the father that makes a difference.
ParentS was probably used because the word CitizenS was used.
Constitutional lawyers do not agree on the interpretation of natural born citizen.
It will have to be decided by SCOTUS or Congress will have to make a law.
Anyone here claiming that they have the DEFINITIVE answer when it comes to natural born citizen is deluding themselves. The court will have to decide it.
That you can go ahead and believe. It may be the case it or may not be the case.
If it was the case, then SR lied on a marriage application punishable by jail time and being kicked out of the country.
The marriage is not a legal one. Obama was born a bastard unless Ann went to Kenya and got married.
<whiny liberal> No! That would be too "original intent!" The Constitution must live and breathe, and if G. Soros wants his sock puppet, marxist, American-hating, brainwashed, Chicago street thug born in Kenya to be president, we have to change it.</whiny liberal>
I don’t think the current SCOTUS would rule that way.
I fear not as well. We are on such thin ice.
Please see http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html for further information regarding Vattel’s influence upon the matter.
See also http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/index.html for specifics regarding Vattel himself.
I know about Vattel. I also know there is a conflict within the translation. As I said, ParentS and then later referencing the father is determinitive.
I don’t have any desire to discuss Vattel. He is not relevant to me because it is a debate that SCOTUS will have to have if the case comes before them. They will likely decide how they want to rule and then they will fit the law into that ruling. Perhaps that is a jaundiced view but that is what I believe.
All I need to know is that the definition is still up in the air and subject to someone who finally wants to define it- SCOTUS or Congress.
If you want to see a discussion by people who have followed Vattel and OTHERS you can go to Jonathan turley’s website and read the comments from lawyers.
I was posting Turley here during the uproar over McCain’s eligibility, RummyChick. Angling around to try to paint someone else as less knowledgeable won’t always work to your advantage.
Regarding Vattel, translation was not an issue to those who relied upon the publication in English.
I’ll just end this by saying that natural-born citizenship either is, or is not, present at birth, and leave it at that.
Since you think you are an expert on Vattel then explain to me why he says this
““The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Remember, This is his translator writing this.
But it also says this:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
“I say, that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
What happened to the magical “ HAS TO BE BORN OF TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS” with an S.
Wong is the case to look to in this under the Supremacy Clause. It decimated “subjected to the jurisdiction thereof”.
No one knows for sure how SCOTUS would rule.
And for you to say to me that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to this is ridiculous.
“Operation VALKYRIE is in effect!”
Ping WOW-
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts
To my knowledge, no one since Adam and Eve have been reputed to be born without parents, RummyChick.
Additionally, under the law at the time, under the law based upon the future Constitution of the United States, and right up to 1920 in this country, females assumed the citizenship of their husbands, so the father's citizenship would have been the citizenship of the parents in toto. The morality of the time did not countenance bastardy; even so, parents in the plural are rather a necessity, and the citizenship of the father would be transmitted to the child. A child of unknown paternity would never have been deemed eligble for the office of President.
Simple as that. Then, you have the language of the Constitution. Nothing about marriage there, specific to "natural-born citizen."
The Obamas were married according to the evidence we have so far. Stanley Anne used the surname Obama while she was living in Seattle after Obama was born.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, cos the Miner case whch is after the 14th says the Constitution (including the 14th)doesn’t define Natural Born Citizen.
You seem to be getting your info from junk sources. Keep in mind that the internet is being flooded with misinformation.
Try Leo Donofrio for real expertise. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens - Emer de Vattel
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=VattelsNBC-LawofNations-citizenS.jpg
“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.”
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Also reference to Parents means both of them, and nowhere does it say MARRIED parents. The NBC follows if both Mother and Father were Citizens.
Why do you keep harping on Marriage? I have repeatedly told you that Marriage is relevant to US citizenship if born overseas.
There is a SCOTUS case that talks about the out of wedlock issue.
It is a separate argument. Are you really that obtuse or just playing dumb for a purpose?
You asked why Vattel could so easily switch from parents to father, and I explained why.
Are you always so abrasive?
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.
