Posted on 07/29/2009 8:58:42 AM PDT by LS
Bless your heart, you need to win somethin' tonight don't ya ... well, here, I'll give way and you can have the last word, anything you want to say sweetie. Enjoy yourself; I'll even promise to go get a glass of tea and read whatever you write! Buh bye now.
You said to Vendome, “Well and truly stated!” Trying to backpeddle like Obama now?? LOLOL
Well here is the deal on that. We get a two fer. Illegal Aliens will be defined and so will their offspring. As yet, they haven’t.
So this will clearly establish “Jurisdiction” and I don’t see how it could go another way.
It would also be interesting for someone to go to the library in Honolulu and also look at the birth announcements for the week before and the week after as well as the one for Obama. Perhaps then we would know better what happened to the Nordyke announcement. That person could set up their report like Zombietime has done in the past—I think it was when he/she researched 0’s Columbia days and then we could be sure whatever was found was the truth.
Same street, different address.
I’m not familiar with what other airlines were flying. I just know that I flew from CA to Milwaukee in 1959. The United Airlines plane was a prop and it took all day (5 AM CA time to 8 PM Central — losing 2 hours, of course). Jets for domestic flights were rare during those years.
Skimpy uniforms? Are you sure that you are talking about 1961? Even passengers were expected to “dress up” for a flight in 1961. I remember a big flap caused by one of our domestic airlines in the mid-1970s — forgotten which airline — that gave away a pair of tickets to fly to some vacation spot and then denied boarding to the couple who showed up. The lucky ticket winners were dressed in jogging attire which airline officials deemed inappropriate.
I think that it is interesting that she is listed as “Anna Obama”. I’ve never heard any other reference to her using that version of her name.
Anything used, should be researched and verified.
Their marriage was VOID at his birth. He was not a UK citizen at Birth. Read the UK law. A divorce does not change the fact that marriage was VOID.
I think you are overplaying your interpretative skills if you don’t understand the difference between a VOIDABLE marriage and a VOID marriage.
A VOID marriage never existed. a marriage nullified ab initio
Example - BIGAMY
Mick Jagger’s marriage in Bali was a legally VOID marriage
The couple are treated AS IF NEVER MARRIED.
***A void marriage can be attacked collaterally.
Voidable - technically invalid but continues on until someone VOIDS it. CAN BE VOIDED.
There are certain rights that can be declared if one was tricked -putative spouse doctrine. Estoppel could also come into play.
A divorce isn’t necessary in a VOID marriage. the fact that they got a divorce doesn’t make it a valid marriage as it pertains to UK citizenship laws.
You can’t think of any example of where a VOID marriage is a concern.
Good grief, read the UK law.
The fact that Barry admits his UK citizen might have bearing if a court decides to look at whether he had allegiance in his mind even if he did not have legal allegiance. I HAVE SAID THIS MORE THAN ONCE.
He did not have legal allegiance under the concept of UK citizenship BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A UK CITIZEN IF BORN IN THE US
So, back to the original point. You best be knocking him out at the initial step because anything else is subject to interpretation...INCLUDING YOUR POINT. The court would have to look at his ALLEGIANCE Mind and not his actual status.
Furthermore, since he is a lawyer..he should know that he was not a UK citizen.
ALthough that is in question because it seems that a lot of lawyers buzzing around this question that don’t even understand this is an issue.
But let’s say he was a competent lawyer and knew that he was not a UK citizen under the presented facts.
That means his claim is FALSE ...or his mother went to the Kenya and got married....OR he was born in country that would convey UK citizenship.
The only avenue out of this for your purpose is if you can find a law in Hawaii at that time that would have made the marriage VOIDABLE AND NOT VOID
Without a marriage certificate or other substantial proof that Obama Sr, was married prior to marrying Ann Dunham, you have nothing. Where is your admissible evidence?
How hard is this for you to understand. Congress can make a law. The Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional. OH, AND CONGRESS CAN PASS AN AMENDMENT OVERTURNING SCOTUS.
Yes, Marbury said
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
Congress can define Natural Born Citizenship in a law..the Supreme Court can say unconstitutional.
CUT TO THE CHASE. Point out EXACTLY what says Congress will have to hold a Constitutional Convention AS YOU CLAIM THEY MUST...to define Natural Born Citizen.
POINT OUT EXACTLY WHAT SAYS SCOTUS CAN”T DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
I don’t care about Marbury V Madison or the thousands of scholars who have weighed in agreeing or disagree with Marshall...or whether Judicial review was already there or whether he created it...or wheither Marshall violated the Constitution...or whether the law he struck down was actually constitutionaL.
Jefferson could have wrote an amendment saying that the Supreme Court can’t judge the constitutionality of laws - the 11th amendment overuled a SCOTUS case.
Just give me a SPECIFIC quote with a link that says there will need to be a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO DEFINE NATURAL BORN STATUS.
Not what some scholar thinks or interprets.
It was a LUO tribal marriage. Have you looked into the LUO tribe or what would constitute a marriage in their tribe recognized by Kenyan law?
There is plenty of anectodal evidence Sr was married to Kezia including Kezia’s own words. You can choose to believe it is all false and you could try to claim it is all false in a court of law. I think you would lose. It won’t be hard for Obama to prove his father was already married.
However, rest assured that if someone tries to use the definition of NBC that Vendome just used...You can bet the other side will be saying that Barry was misinformed..there was no UK british citizenship per UK law. He never had a UK passport, etc. He was not raised by his father. Didn’t really know his father. Yada yada yada
A lawyer representing a client is this case would be naive and irresponsble to refuse to look at how that argument can be attacked because you damn well better be ready for it and have a rebuttal.
I can think of some rebuttals to this claim of no UK citizen after looking at the UK law. I don’t think they would fly but they might. You just never know. But to totally disregard the argument is downright foolish.
What does matter is parentage and the jurisdiction of the parent and under what citizenship that falls under.
I think one could make a case either way, strengthen or weaken the argument using marriage as an adjunct but, to my mind it doesn't matter. I could make a case for it or against under the scenario they were legally married or they were not legally married.
However the salient point, once again, is jurisdictional citizenship.
Your points are well taken but your posts and position continue to evolve into points that are really nonsequitors.
We are arguing about Article 2, sec. 1 and the 14th. There could be a case made to support that using say Dread Scott and maybe some others but really, the marriage thingy won't carry much weight in the argument.
Additionally, there are limitations, as expressed in Marbury v. Madison, which extend to the Supreme Court itself, regarding Constitutional directives for the judicial.
And, Congress itself is limited under the Constitution to enumerated powers of legislating immigration and naturalization, neither of which can impact the natural-born citizen status of any living citizen, or alien, as the case may be.
If you can't understand that, then go on back to chasing your tail about purported marriages that have nothing to do with anything, and are not part of any legal record even if they did.
“You are a whole citizen under the jurisdiction of the United States only, upon birth or you are not”
At birth, you don’t have an opinion as to whether you are a citizen.
The fact is, AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH, the marriage in Hawaii was VOID AB INITIO.
You seem to be saying that his status at birth was later changed because he THOUGHT he had UK citizenship when , in fact, he did not. (Of course this is based on the Hawaiian marriage- doesn’t take into account being born in Kenya or a marriage in Kenya)
It doesn’t jive with the first sentence.
But think what you will and ignore what you will.
I wouldn’t want an attorney to represent me that didn’t consider and plan for the possibilities.
That stew is LATE 60s. Don’t know about the planes. I just know what I flew in 1960 and it was expensive and uncomfortable.
Well I’ll be damned. You are saying Congress can’t decide and the Supremes Can’t decide..I guess Obama gets to stay in Office.
It won’t take a Constitutional Convention.
Are you Mario Apuzzo? Have you written on your site that there will have to be a Constitutional Convention to decide the definition?
Btw, are you one of those people that advocate getting rid of the Plenary powers?
PS...in the absence of judicial interpretation of Constitutional language Congress may express a legislative opinion
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.