Soldiers & Lawyers Readying Class-Action Lawsuits Against (Non?) President Obama

No, all it indicated is that Obama SR lied on a marriage application. there is plenty of evidence that he was already married. It wasn’t that hard to get married in a LUO tribe. Do some research.

They had a VOID marriage. A VOID marriage does not become legal just because there was a divorce. FInd me the law that claims that.. A VOID marriage is one that was VOID from the start. A VOID marriage can become VOIDABLE...but divorce is not one of the things that would cause that.

Their marriage or rather lack thereof is significant on two fronts.

It changes Ann’s residency requirement for citizenship if Obama was born in Kenya.
It changes the UK Citizenship of Obama if born in the US..and YES , UK immigration would consider it a VOID MARRIAGE. There are some arguments about what would happen if he already had UK citizenship and it was later found out the it was from a VOID marriage due to deception on behalf of his parents. Also questions about what would happen if Ann had a customary marriage, he got UK citizenship, and then later they passed the “before 1971” rule.

His illegitamcy problem at birth could have been fixed if they ever had a subsequent legal marriage according to UK law.

Those claiming that his UK citizenship would make a difference based on his ALLEGIANCE...would have to take this into consideration.

Any lawyer representing a client who does not look into these issues is bordering on malpractice.

You can ignore these points.
They can’t or they risk being ultimately sued.

The reality it is this..it is perfectly foreseeable that a court might look to his allegiance and not that of his father..and UK citizenship comes into play.

Just because YOU think they would only rule that certain things are applicable doesn’t mean that is the case...because you certainly seem to discount that Wong Decimated the clause in the 14th amendment.,,or maybe you are one of the ones that claim the 14th amendment has no bearing on a natural born case.

This is the current law on the issue of status of citizenship:

United States Code: Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

As you can see, it is much more than just place of birth.

Thank you kindly. I agree about being careful of facts too. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that the postings are not as factual here as they once were.

Regarding Congress, I did look at the history of some of the laws. In 1790, they did pass a law to define children of American parents born overseas to be NBC (unless the father had never been a resident of the USA).

Then in 1795 they passed another law which did not use NBC, just citizen. Then there were some Supreme Court cases that undermined the Congressional action.

The legal article I was looking at did not explain this fully, but did state that it was doubtful whether congress had the authority to define the term, although, at the time they certainly thought they could.

Yes, the rampant disregard for factual information is unfortunate.

My post was really about where it stands now as per Congress.

There was a 1790 Act that did define NBC. It didn’t show up in the 1795 act. Why? It is unclear. Perhaps the article you read was by Mario Apuzzo. I think he claims the passing of that act was unconstitutional. Well, ahem..let me just say that Apuzzo is not a constitutional lawyer. That is not to say he can’t have an opinion about the Constitution or that true Constitutional Scholars wouldn’t have the same opinion.

I will offer up that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were involved in authoring the 1790 Act .George Washington, a man who signed the Constitution, signed the Act into law. Do you think he would have an opinion as to whether it was unconstitutional since he signed off on the document? It is likely that some of the people that were at the Constitutional Convention were ones that okayed the 1790 Act.

I am sure you realize that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He did not sign the Constitution. He was overseas as was John Adams. Jefferson believed it needed a Bill of Rights. This came later.

You can thank Jefferson for freedom of religion and press. His ideas.Madison used Jefferson’s arguments when defending the bill.

What has this got to do with anything?

I find it hard to believe that they thought the 1790 law was unconstitutional when they passed the 1795 law. There may have been another reason for taking it out.

However, enter the whole Marbury versus Jefferson (no, not that case name) drama.

Here are some interesting quotes from Jefferson if anyone wants to read them about Marbury.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

Congress passed no Amendment overturning the Marbury case...so today..we have an expanded Judicial Review by the Supreme Court.

Ironically, the law that was struck down in Marbury was probably constitutional.

Constitutional Scholars have differing opinions about most things to do with the Constitution - maybe about EVERYTHING to do with the Constitution.

There is no one that can say right now , IN MY OPINION, that Congress can’t pass a law on this or SCOTUS can’t decide what NBC means.

Therefore, it is all up in the air EXCEPT if Obamanazi was born in the US to two US parents.

Anyone looking to unseat Obama has GOT TO LOOK AT ALL POSSIBLE CONFIGURATIONS AND PLAN FOR ALL OF THEM.

You can’t just selectively forget that the Marriage to Ann was a VOID marriage.

There are two Scholars who have analyzed the Torah that said back before Obama announced his run that he would be president and he would govern for 3 1/2 years.

Their prophecy is sort of in the nature of the ones that look at the Bible for Clues that Obamanazi is the Antichrist or the leopard leading up to the Antichrist.

The 3 1/2 years is interesting. What happens in that last 1/2 year. Does he get the boot because of the NBC issue? Does he get sick and die? I am not a biblical Scholar and there will be others that are more familiar. I think that something has to happen to the person that is the Antichrist and then Satan enters the body. Maybe what happens in 3 1 /2 years is that event.

Then you have those Hebrew words that sound like Obama’s name that would be used to describe Satan in a Luke Passage.

In any case, I hope US citizens wake up to the destruction of America

Okay, done with my ramblings.

Thanks for the link. I will check it out later. You certainly did ramble-it’s ok. I’ll just ramble back.LOL

As to the constitutionality question. Lawyers in this field remind me of economists-each one seems to have a different idea.

I am reminded of the Bylaws we wrote for a 501c3 organization (our constitution as it were). We are a small, casual board, but sometimes we run into situations where we think we can do something, but after careful re-reading and consideration we find out that we really can not legally. Also we might be setting a precedent which could lead to unintended consequences.

Of course some members think we should just do willy nilly whatever because after all we made the rules, so we should just be able to make exceptions anytime we want.LOL

Makes for interesting meetings sometimes. But to the point-if Adams and Jefferson authored the bill, it shows what they thought the rule should be, and what the majority of congress thought.

Just as we found when we wrote our bylaws, what we thought we could do or meant to say was not always what was in the document. So we had to amend the rules.

My opinion (not worth a lot-I am no expert)is that it is questionable whether Congress actually has the power to define it after-the-fact unless they make it a constitutional amendment.

The state dept indicates in their foreign affairs document that the 1790 law is no longer operative, but does not explain why. I read also that the SCOTUS ruled on several cases that invalidated the definition. I have not had time to further research what exactly happened there.

The state department’s statement that “the fact that someone is a NBC pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purposes”, is another reason why I believe Congress would need to amend the constitution to more fully define it.

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.