Orly Taitz - Defendents oppose transfer of case (Quo Warranto to DC )

Oil Immigration.org ^ | January 11th, 2010 | David-Crockett

[Red Steel]

It is my best guess that Obama’s attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over… far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.

Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:

Orly has pointed out that Judge Carter promised to hear the case on its merits. The Justice Department defending Obama conned the Judge into dismissing and used the excuse of “jurisdiction” claiming only Quo Warranto can be brought in Washington DC.

Orly said, “fine, let’s move the case.” She is asking Judge Carter to move the case to Judge Lamberth’s court in DC. This would serve to best expedite the case, including discovery.

Orly is making sure that Judge Carter is aware of the fact that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been stalling for many months now. An original Quo Warranto was filed in Judge Taylor’s Washington DC court (he has since retired.. couldn’t stand the heat in my opinion).. that was back in March, 2009. The Justice Department has done everyting in its power to stall, hide, ignore the case..

Orly is telling the Judge that the longer he waits to allow “we the people” to seek justice in court the more damage that Obama does to our Country. The Justice Department is basically defending a Usuper in office.. the entire system appears to be corrupt.. of course, Eric Holder is simply a puppet for Obama.

We hope and pray that Judge Carter allows this case to be transferred.. Obama will have a much tougher time getting the case dismissed in Washington DC if Carter allows the transfer.. Any kind of ruling against Obama will set a precedent that could literally force the Court into action.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Two outcomes from a possible quo warranto:

1. He is found not to have been born in HI, then case closed easily. He is ineligble and removed from office.

2. If found to have been born in HI, then legal question is much more complex. The DC District Court would have to opine on the definition of a natural born citizen.

Don't forget the third possibility: Obama might actually have been born to two American citizens, and quo warranto discovery of the BC could reveal that his bio-father was someone other than BHO Sr. (which is certainly a compelling reason for hiding the long-form...)

Such a scenario would mean that we no longer have a case to remove Obama as ineligible, but at least we would know that Dr. Fukino's statement was accurate :-) Then, we just hammer Obama for lying (I seem to recall that Rep. Wilson (R-SC) has already mentioned this aspect of Obama's personality ;-)

[stockpirate]

The night of the barking moonbat trolls, humbletroll alert.

[humblegunner]

Thanks for alerting me that I’m on the thread.

[stockpirate]

No problem, I sometimes wonder if you are aware of it yourself.

[stockpirate]

“People need to put down their crack pipes...”

From the leader of the AFTER-BIRTHER crack pipe smokers.

[NOVACPA]

Good point.

If the eligibility issue is solved, then there is liekly some other data point that create conflict with the “narrative” we know about him know.

Revelation of such data could prove equally damaging.

[RonF]

Not in my kid’s soccer league. If you didn’t have an embossed copy of your kid’s birth certificate from the County your kid couldn’t play. Too many parents putting their kids one level down so that he’d stand out as a star.

[RonF]

Ever heard of an “anchor baby”? If a child is born on American soil he’s an American citizen regardless of his parent’s citizenship.

[RonF]

Then explain to me what the phrase “anchor baby” means? There’s children born every day in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois and elsewhere in this country to two illegal aliens who are American citizens at the moment of their birth.

I agree with the philosophy that ASA Vet cited, but that has no force in American law. The law in the U.S. (as unfortunately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) is that if you’re born on American soil you are a citizen regardless of your parents citizenship. Under U.S. law your parents’ citizenship only matters if you are NOT born on American soil.

[ASA Vet]

While it's true “anchor babies” are US Citizens, they are NOT Natural Born Citizens so are not eligible to be President.

[ASA Vet]

The U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is,
and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), stated:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
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.”

Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.
”Vattel’s law: EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, &212:

The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,
are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27).
Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations
to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty.
The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention
“to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”
Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens,
for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”

Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section,
in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

____________

[LibertyRocks]

The law creating “anchor babies” was not in effect when Obama was born in 1961. That is why so many people are confused on this point, IMHO. One needs to look at the laws in force at the time of Obama’s birth, and according to those laws he could not have had US citizenship granted to him through his mother, regardless (given her age at the time). One also needs to take into account the fact that Hawaii’s laws were still a little different than the rest of the nation due to its being a very young state still at the time...

Even if I’m wrong on interpreting the law regarding Stanley Ann not being able to confer citizenship, Obama is STILL without a doubt a “dual-citizen” by birth given that he DID receive British citizenship through his father (regardless of where he was born - even if it WAS in Hawaii...). That fact in itself would disqualify Obama under the Constitutional requirements...

It’s ironic that his dual-citizenship rests in Britain — it should be very easy to see the parallels here since one our forefathers’ main concerns was to prevent someone loyal to Britain from becoming President. Unless Obama is over 250+ years old, he doesn’t qualify, period.

[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I definitely could be wrong, but these laws aren’t THAT hard to understand - especially not the section in the Constitution that is applicable in this matter.]

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

If you didn’t have an embossed copy of your kid’s birth certificate from the County your kid couldn’t play.

Completely unnecessary. A COLB is every bit as valid as a BC. I cross the border into Canada all the time. Before passports were required, the law was you had to show a birth certificate at the border. I would carry a COLB and it was accepted every time. Just as it is at the DMV or any other circumstance that requires a BC.

[RonF]

Then explain to me how it is that children born in the U.S. of two illegal alien parents are citizens of the U.S.

[RonF]

The law creating “anchor babies” was not in effect when Obama was born in 1961.

I don't believe that it's a matter of legislative action but of judicial action (i.e., the Supreme Court) that the law is interpreted in this fashion, and that it applies to everyone regardless of when they were born.

One also needs to take into account the fact that Hawaii’s laws were still a little different than the rest of the nation due to its being a very young state still at the time...

American citizenship is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Different states can take different actions to discover your citizenship status and notify the appropriate authorities, but they have no effect on whether or not and how you are a citizen.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Those are “native born” citizens — not “natural born” citizens. You have to go back to the founders and the meaning of the language that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

There is a lot written about it, if you care to look it up.

[ASA Vet]

If you stop deliberately confusing Citizen with Natural Born Citizen you'll get it.

The only circumstance where Natural Born Citizenship is required is to be eligible to become President.

I have three sons.
#1 is a US Citizen at birth even though he was not born in the US. His citizenship was derived from one parent, (me) being a US Citizen. He is not a natural born citizen.
#2 was born in the US, so is a US citizen though place of birth AND having one US Citizen parent. He also is not a natural born citizen.
#3 was born in the US, by that time his mother had become a US citizen. He has two US citizen parents and was born in the US. He is a Natural Born Citizen and therefore the only one of my sons eligible to become President

[Red Steel]

All threads are open for discussion, genius.

You bring your pack of After-Birther's to shut down and inhibit discussion genius.

[PeteCat]

Thank You for your effort.
I nominate you for a Silver Star.

PC

[Drew68]

#2 was born in the US, so is a US citizen though place of birth AND having one US Citizen parent. He also is not a natural born citizen.

I hope you're not feeding your son this made-up BS.