Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.
In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.
The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.
On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.
“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”
On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.
This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.
The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.
Yes, I am saying that unfortunately.
You may have been damaged politically. Or spiritually. But name the specific, quantifiable damage that you have specifically suffered because Obama is the president. Please remember that the damages have to be specific and unique to you - not shared by 150 million people.
Birthers don’t understand what they going to unleash if they get their way on this standing thing.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you have bad tomatoes in your garden? Sue the federal government for acid rain.
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
What you do is CONSISTENTLY make excuses for why this un-qualified POS should be able to hide anything and everything about his life. Your argument falls flat to me at least. IF you, as an American citizen don’t want to know who is ruining your country, then your part of the problem. You like what this POS, illegal at that, is doing. No other explanation will do. CO
Q “So. What is the NBC rule for?”
A To keep naturalized citizens from being President.
Why didn’t the Constitution say Naturalised Citizens can’t be President?
If the Constitution meant Naturalised Citizens couldn’t be President, why did they invent the term “Natural Born Citizen”?
What? What in the Wide Wide World of Sports does this have to do with human freedom?
We've got a new After-Birther here...or a retread.
Which Barack Obama was not.
A Natural Born Citizen is someone who was a citizen from the moment of his birth.
Which Barack Obama was not.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October, 2008 over eight months ago.”
Thus far the courts have accepted Dr. Fukino’s statement as official verification. 53 legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been dismissed including 7 at the US Supreme Court.
You know the answer to this... If Obama was an NBC, he could show his long form birth certificate to prove to his critics that he is....which he is not in any case since he inherited foreign citizenship at birth - that’s not a natural born American citizen.
Furthermore, Hawaiian birth records could be easily fooled since Hawaii took the word of anyone who said they witnessed a birth in the state. Shazam, here’s your birth certificate!
You know the answer to this... If Obama was an NBC, he could show his long form birth certificate to prove to his critics that he is....which he is not in any case since he inherited foreign citizenship at birth - that’s not a natural born American citizen.
Furthermore, Hawaiian birth records could be easily fooled since Hawaii took the word of anyone who said they witnessed a birth in the state. Shazam, here’s your birth certificate!
There is no addition information on the Hawaii long form that is relevant to the constitutional requirement
Oh yes there is. How about what Hawaiian hospital he was born in and what physician facilitated his birth?
Would you trust any document released by Obama? A subpoenaed document is the way to go.
Easy. Obama could authorize Hawaii to release to the public to see all his birth records on demand...if he was an honest "president".
Didn't Carter admonish her about his court was not the right place to file the suit, but that she should go to the court in the "District of Corruption" (D.C.)???
Really, I am!!!
It was raised and discussed .. see below transcript excerpt:
His order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD?autodown=txt
Excerpt of testimony from the Oct. 5 hearing
and Quo Warranto:
If the President
08:41 20 were forced to go through pretrial and discovery and trial,
08:41 21 imagine what would happen to his ability to function as the
08:41 22 chief executive officer of the United States of America.
08:41 23 Moreover, what would happen if, for example, some
08:41 24 judge in one district were to decide that the President is
08:42 25 not qualified or did not meet the qualifications to be
1 President, and another judge faced with 08:42 the same issue in
08:42 2 another district were to decide, yes, he is qualified.
08:42 3 What would we do then? We would have appeals.
08:42 4 In the meantime, the President’s ability, for
08:42 5 example, to conduct foreign policy would be severely
08:42 6 damaged.
08:42 7 I mean, imagine the prospect of going into
08:42 8 negotiations, for example, over nuclear nonproliferation or
08:42 9 some other extremely delicate matter with our foreign
08:42 10 adversaries and allies looking at the President saying,
08:42 11 “Wait a minute, I just heard that a district judge in your
08:42 12 country decided that you’re not fit to be President. Why
08:42 13 should I engage you in negotiations?” Imagine what it would
08:42 14 do to the ability of the President — and this is any
08:42 15 President. We’re not just talking about the current
08:42 16 incumbent President. This is an attack on the presidency
08:43 17 itself.
08:43 18 Imagine the damage that would accrue if matters
08:43 19 such as these could be litigated in courts. The damage that
08:43 20 could accrue to the President’s ability to pass his domestic
08:43 21 agenda. The President of the United States is the only
08:43 22 officer of the United States who is elected through the vote
08:43 23 of all of the people of the United States. He’s not — it’s
08:43 24 not like a Congressman or a Senator. He doesn’t have just
08:43 25 one constituency. His constituency is the people of the
08:43 1 United States.
08:43 2 I submit that the constitutional — the textual
08:43 3 commitment in the Constitution to the questions which the
08:43 4 plaintiffs in this case seek to raise renders it mandatory,
08:43 5 in my view, that these matters be considered nonjusticiable.
08:43 6 That the remedies, if any, which these plaintiffs have and
08:43 7 other plaintiffs who wish to challenge the fitness and
08:43 8 qualifications of a President to serve in office — those
08:44 9 are committed to the legislative branch, to the Congress,
08:44 10 and not to courts, and for very good reasons.
08:44 11 THE COURT: Only to the Congress?
08:44 12 MR. WEST: Yes, Your Honor.
08:44 13 THE COURT: And then in your argument you stated
08:44 14 that minimally if the Court disagreed, it should be
08:44 15 transferred to the D.C. District.
08:44 16 MR. WEST: No, Your Honor. The quo warranto —
08:44 17 the plaintiffs have made the argument that the quo warranto
08:44 18 aspects of this case should be transferred to the D.C.
08:44 19 District. We have not suggested that that be transferred.
08:44 20 If the — if, in fact, they wish to bring a quo
08:44 21 warranto action, they should bring an original one in the
08:44 22 D.C. District.
08:44 23 THE COURT: Thank you.
08:44 24 MR. WEST: And I’ll submit the matter for any
08:44 25 other questions which the Court may have.
1 THE COURT: I going to have a couple, 08:44 but not now.
08:44 2 Counsel.
08:44 3 MR. DeJUTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
08:44 4 THE COURT: Once again, would you make your
08:44 5 appearance for the record. I know who you are, but I want
08:44 6 my record to know who you are.
08:44 7 MR. DeJUTE: Good morning, Your Honor. David
08:44 8 DeJute, Assistant United States Attorney for the defendants.
08:45 9 Just briefly, Your Honor. With respect to the
08:45 10 surreply, it makes essentially two points. The one is that
08:45 11 the reserved rights of the Ninth Amendment entitle these
08:45 12 plaintiffs to come before this Court. And without going
08:45 13 through the historical analysis, which is very interesting,
08:45 14 of the law of nations and treatises that were extant in the
08:45 15 1750s and so on, plaintiffs concede that the Ninth Amendment
08:45 16 has to do with unenumerated rights. They also concede, as
08:45 17 they must, that the Constitution is a written document.
08:45 18 That written document, as Your Honor just mentioned, gives
08:45 19 to Congress and to no one else the ability to remove a
08:45 20 sitting President from office.
08:45 21 The Ninth Amendment simply is not a source of
08:45 22 rights even as a matter of theory when that written document
08:45 23 already enumerates those rights to a different coordinate
08:45 24 branch of government.
08:45 25 The only other point that they make in their
1 surreply is with respect to the 08:45 FOIA, or Freedom of
08:46 2 Information Act, claims. And their argument is essentially
08:46 3 that this Court should disregard the fact that they haven’t
08:46 4 been filed properly and should use its power to
08:46 5 constructively construe that because they’ve been attempting
08:46 6 to get information, then this Court should construe those as
08:46 7 proper FOIA requests. It simply is not the law that they
08:46 8 can circumvent the jurisdictional requirements of venue and
08:46 9 district to do their FOIA requests in a roundabout way.
08:46 10 They did not file their FOIA requests in a proper
08:46 11 manner, and they should be held to have those FOIA requests
08:46 12 dismissed and re-file or make them; and if the final agency
08:46 13 action is something with which they disagree, then they can
08:46 14 file the appropriate FOIA action in the appropriate district
08:46 15 at that time.
08:46 16 Thank you, Your Honor.
08:47 17 THE COURT: Thank you.
08:47 18 Counsel, your argument concerning standing, I’d
08:47 19 like to hear it, please. You stated that that was the crux
08:47 20 of the issue, that the Court didn’t need to go any further,
08:47 21 so I’d like you to repeat your argument.
08:47 22 MR. WEST: Well, I believe the political question
08:47 23 is clearly also present. But with respect to standing,
08:47 24 Your Honor, our argument is that plaintiffs cannot establish
08:47 25 the requisite injury in fact to establish standing in this
1 case. No plaintiff in this case 08:47 can establish a
08:47 2 particularized harm as to him or her sufficient to vest them
08:47 3 with what is traditionally known as standing to bring an
08:47 4 action in the U.S. District Court.
08:47 5 They — no plaintiff in this case has any greater
08:47 6 standing than a taxpayer standing. You know, try as they
08:47 7 might, they cannot particularize an injury to them. In
08:47 8 fact, they cannot even — in certain cases they cannot even
08:48 9 identify an injury itself.
08:48 10 Moreover, with the respect to the question of
08:48 11 redressability, which is another aspect, another prong of
08:48 12 the standing question, as I’ve stated before, we do not
08:48 13 believe that any of the questions in this case are
08:48 14 justiciable, and therefore, there’s no redressability —
08:48 15 there’s nothing that this Court can redress.
08:48 16 And that, in essence, is our standing argument.
08:48 17 No injury in fact and no redressability.
08:48 18 THE COURT: Okay. Have you concluded your
08:48 19 arguments? Are you satisfied?
08:48 20 MR. DeJUTE: Yes, sir.
08:48 21 THE COURT: Counsel, are you satisfied?
08:48 22 MR. SOSKIN: Yes, sir.
08:48 23 THE COURT: Do you have anything you would like to
08:48 24 say?
08:48 25 MR. SOSKIN: No, Your Honor. I’m just here to
1 advise and assist these gentlemen in 08:48 any way possible.
08:48 2 THE COURT: Counsel, are you satisfied?
08:48 3 MR. WEST: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
08:48 4 THE COURT: Before I turn to Ms. Taitz for a
08:48 5 moment, I just have one or two questions for you.
08:49 6 This idea of political question is an interesting
08:49 7 one. I’d like you to walk me through the process, if you
08:49 8 would, of how that would actually take place. In other
08:49 9 words, if, in fact, Ms. Taitz was correct, or better yet,
08:49 10 let’s assume that Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for
08:49 11 President. He was born in Austria, apparently cannot become
08:49 12 or run as a candidate, and he now decides to declare for the
08:49 13 Presidency of the United States.
08:49 14 In this belief on your part that Congress is the
08:49 15 deciding branch of government, I want you to assume that
08:49 16 that Congress is a Republican Congress for a moment and
08:49 17 explain to me and walk me through — and I’m going to
08:49 18 require you to do that. We can spend all day or night until
08:50 19 you do. Walk me through how that works.
08:50 20 MR. WEST: First of all, Your Honor, you’re
08:50 21 talking about a candidate for President.
08:50 22 THE COURT: I’m going to talk about both
08:50 23 eventually, so I’ve got plenty of time. Let’s just start
08:50 24 with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I’m going to suggest to you the
08:50 25 Courts are going to have to intervene at some time in what
1 you perceive to be a political 08:50 question and stop
08:50 2 Schwarzenegger from running for President.
08:50 3 MR. WEST: Well, I believe, your Honor, the
08:50 4 question of whether a person is properly qualified as a
08:50 5 candidate is a different breed of cat altogether from
08:50 6 someone who is a sitting President whom the plaintiffs are
08:50 7 seeking to remove from office.
08:50 8 THE COURT: Are you going to answer my question?
08:50 9 MR. WEST: Yes. I believe that the Courts could
08:50 10 have some jurisdiction over the question of whether a
08:50 11 candidate is qualified to be on the ballot.
08:50 12 THE COURT: Do you agree, Counsel?
08:50 13 MR. DeJUTE: I do agree, Your Honor.
08:50 14 THE COURT: Counsel, do you agree?
08:50 15 MR. SOSKIN: I don’t believe we need to take that
08:50 16 position at this time, but it’s conceivable that there would
08:51 17 be standing in a scenario in which such a case could be
08:51 18 adjudicated.
08:51 19 THE COURT: So in what might be commonly called a
08:51 20 political question, because that’s a broad word, at least in
08:51 21 that hypothetical, the Courts might be the intervening
08:51 22 party. We can just say might.
08:51 23 Okay. Now, I want to take this situation. I want
08:51 24 you to walk me through, assuming that this is a Democratic
08:51 25 Congress, the process wherein Congress would take this issue
1 and decide that President Obama 08:51 did not meet the
08:51 2 constitutional mandates. How would that work?
08:51 3 MR. WEST: I believe a bill could be introduced in
08:51 4 the Congress to — probably to call for an investigation
08:51 5 into the issue of whether he is qualified to be President.
08:51 6 There are provisions within the Constitution which call
08:51 7 for — for instance, the 25th Amendment, which calls for —
08:51 8 which has a set schedule, if you will, or a set of
08:52 9 procedures for questioning whether a President is capable of
08:52 10 remaining in office or whether he should be removed either
08:52 11 temporarily or permanently.
08:52 12 In addition, as we point out in our papers, under
08:52 13 the Nixon case, the question of impeachment, if we were to
08:52 14 talk about impeachment here — and I don’t really know where
08:52 15 the Court is going, so I’m giving you the lay of the land as
08:52 16 I see it. And I’m not suggesting in any way, shape, or form
08:52 17 that impeachment is appropriate in this case. But let me
08:52 18 just say this: That the Nixon case makes it clear, both the
08:52 19 D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, that the question of
08:52 20 impeachment is not a question which Courts can involve
08:52 21 themselves in.
08:52 22 That’s one of the reasons why we are making the
08:52 23 argument we’re making, because the Constitution is clear.
08:52 24 The only two uses of the words “sole,” “sole power” anywhere
08:52 25 in the Constitution are where Congress — where the founding
DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER
SACV 09-0082 DOC - 10/5/2009 - Item No. 3
1 fathers gave to Congress the sole power 08:53 to impeach and the
08:53 2 sole power to try impeachments.
08:53 3 So if you’re talking about the impeachment
08:53 4 procedure, the articles of impeachment are drawn up in the
08:53 5 House, and the impeachment is tried in the Senate.
08:53 6 THE COURT: Now, I’m going to come back to my
08:53 7 question. I want you to walk me through the process in this
08:53 8 particular case. Is it impeachment?
08:53 9 MR. WEST: I don’t know.
08:53 10 THE COURT: That’s my belief also, that we don’t
08:53 11 know.
08:53 12 MR. WEST: Right. I believe it would depend upon
08:53 13 how Congress wished to address it, how Congress wished to
08:53 14 view it. And I think that if these plaintiffs believe that
08:53 15 they have some claim that Barack Obama’s birth certificate
08:53 16 is forged, let them go through their congressman. It’s the
08:53 17 only workable way, Your Honor. It’s the way the founding
08:53 18 fathers intended.
08:53 19 THE COURT: I understand. I’m going to come back
08:53 20 to my question because I’m still unclear about what you
08:54 21 said.
08:54 22 I heard you say that you didn’t know the
08:54 23 methodology at the present time by which the legislative
08:54 24 branch, Congress, would proceed. That it could be
08:54 25 impeachment, or I also heard the implication that there was
1 no process in place, and that Congress might 08:54 enact a process
08:54 2 in this peculiar situation.
08:54 3 MR. WEST: Well, I believe we have the 25th
08:54 4 Amendment, Your Honor, which sets forth a procedure. For
08:54 5 example, the contemplation, I believe, in the 25th Amendment
08:54 6 is a situation where the President is incapacitated for some
08:54 7 reason. I believe that this could be a species of
08:54 8 incapacitation if they want to try to establish that Barack
08:54 9 Obama was not a United States citizen. The procedures
08:54 10 outlined in the 25th Amendment I believe would be the
08:54 11 procedures that would be utilized.
08:54 12 THE COURT: Do you agree, Counsel?
08:54 13 MR. DeJUTE: I do agree, Your Honor. And I would
08:54 14 just add that, you know, the reason we don’t know what the
08:55 15 procedure is, is because the plaintiffs through no fault
08:55 16 have been somewhat unclear. And it either is impeachment or
08:55 17 it’s not impeachment, it seems to me. “Impeachment” simply
08:55 18 meaning, in the colloquial way, removal from office. So
08:55 19 they are seeking the President’s removal from office, or
08:55 20 they are not.
08:55 21 If they are seeking the President’s removal from
08:55 22 office, not as a candidate, but as someone whom the electors
08:55 23 have sworn in and the Chief Justice twice swore into office,
08:55 24 then it seems to me the only way you can remove a sitting
08:55 25 President from office is through the impeachment procedures.
1 And as Mr. West has indicated, that is entirely 08:55 the province
08:55 2 of Congress.
08:55 3 If they are not seeking removal, if they are
08:55 4 seeking something else, then there’s the whole doctrine of
08:55 5 this Court not being willing to issue nugatory orders.
08:56 6 If the sole power to remove someone is through
08:56 7 impeachment, then if they’re seeking anything other than
08:56 8 that, then, at the end of this trial, when this Court were
08:56 9 to declare, at their best case scenario — I’m not
08:56 10 suggesting this is in any way factual — that somehow the
08:56 11 President is ineligible for office, this Court would be
08:56 12 without power to enforce — no Court is in the business of
08:56 13 giving advisory judgments, where the only thing that they
08:56 14 could do with it was to pass it on to Congress and say do
08:56 15 what they will with this.
08:56 16 So it’s either impeachment, where they do not have
08:56 17 jurisdiction, or it is an advisory opinion, in which this
08:56 18 Court should not issue one.
08:56 19 THE COURT: Lastly, with the Military Commission
08:56 20 Act, or with numerous iterations, Congress sought to make
08:56 21 certain that this disparity — in other words, 600 federal
08:56 22 judges in the United States, 93 districts, the specter could
08:56 23 be that the parties were picking a forum, either a liberal
08:57 24 or conservative forum, for their own uses, whichever party,
08:57 25 whichever entity is involved. I hear that argument very
1 clearly. Congress sought to cause 08:57 uniformity in the
08:57 2 Military Commission Act, et cetera, by placing that within
08:57 3 the purview of the D.C. Circuit. Now, I understand a
08:57 4 quo warranto going to the D.C. Circuit. But is that your
08:57 5 position also, that if there ever was a resolution by a
08:57 6 Court, that it should be in the D.C. Circuit?
08:57 7 MR. WEST: I don’t believe that quo warranto is
08:57 8 applicable to the President of the United States. I would
08:57 9 not concede that.
08:57 10 However, if it were, the only statute that we know
08:57 11 of that would cover this kind of a situation would be the
08:57 12 D.C. statute. But I think that we’re not conceding at all
08:57 13 that quo warranto would apply to the President of the
08:57 14 United States.
08:57 15 THE COURT: I’m not asking you to take that
08:57 16 position either. I just recognize the value of your
08:57 17 argument and how discomforting it is that parties could go
08:58 18 across the nation and simply pick what they perceive, by
08:58 19 either party’s choice, a liberal or conservative district by
08:58 20 reputation, which doesn’t mean that we are on the bench. We
08:58 21 cast away politics when we come to the bench, as you know.
08:58 22 But still there’s a perception different parts of
08:58 23 the country are more liberal or conservative than others,
08:58 24 and the question I’ve always had is whether Congress, with
08:58 25 the separation of powers, had the ability literally under
1 the Military Commission Act to start focusing 08:58 the Courts and
08:58 2 directing the Courts to hear a motion or decide these issues
08:58 3 in one jurisdiction and if that wasn’t violative of the
08:58 4 separation of powers in and of itself. But that’s not an
08:58 5 issue before us.
08:58 6 Are you satisfied with your argument for the time
08:58 7 being?
08:58 8 MR. DeJUTE: I am, Your Honor.
08:58 9 THE COURT: (To Mr. Soskin:) And you’re, once
08:58 10 again, taking no position on anything?
08:58 11 MR. SOSKIN: Mr. West and Mr. DeJute have ably
08:58 12 stated the position.
08:58 13 THE COURT: (To Mr. West:) Counsel, are you
08:58 14 satisfied?
08:58 15 MR. WEST: Yes, Your Honor. I have very able
08:58 16 assistance from Mr. DeJute. Thank you.
http://www.sodahead.com/other/transcript-from-judge-david-carter-hearing-10-5-09/blog-178541/
Can you explain then how a disgruntled atheist can get standing to sue the federal government because of a cross on a lone hill in the Mojave Desert??? Federal judges have no fixed rules for standing and and they have shown it regularly by some of the goofy cases that they hear and consider.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you sympathize with the spotted owl or the fish darter, sue the federal government, be granted standing [even though you are not a fish or owl], have your case heard, be granted discovery, and win. Is that what you are saying???
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
Who wants them changed. We want the same rights to standing and having a valid Constitutional case heard as the atheist and deranged environmentalist and global warming nutcases. Is that asking too much???
The fish darter is not in the Constitution, nor is any mention of spotted owls nor crosses on lone hills in the desert, but the "natural born citizen" clause is front and center.
The hypocrisy and duplicity of the federal courts along with the corruption of the Constitution in the process is what we are all seeing here --
BTW Welcome to Free Republic, Mr Plant.
You are a "plant", right???
No, you have to prove that you actually have a case.
A Kenyan BC, attested by a dodgy source who admits to obtaining the cert by bribe; wild accusations, with no proof, that Hawaii issued BC's to the foreign-born; and a random internet database printout of SS numbers don't convince judges that there is a case.
Where's the beef? Judges need beef.
From patriot08’s post:
“Americans keep asking what they can do...” vis-a-vis the complicity of elected officials and the cowering fear of the citizenry over what has befallen our country. One answer is this: Each of us must get personally and vigorously involved at the PRECINCT level of whatever political party we’re affiliated with, although I can’t imagine much hope of success within the Democratic Party (so, we’re essentially talking about the Republican Party here). That said, what we’re going to find when we DO get involved is a very strong political machine in place that serves, just as it has always served, to ensure that the interests of the party elite are protected and furthered. In other words, WE’VE GOT A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS! How else do you think that people like McCain, Bush, Crist, etc. keep showing up on election ballots every time voting day rolls around? Take heart, though, the powers that be can be beaten. Get involved PERSONALLY. Study the issues. Associate with like-minded people. Pray.
” We are so afraid of the rampant carnage (burning cities, murdering people of West-European descent) that would follow his removal from office that absolutely nothing would be done about it (other than maybe shooting the messenger).”
Speak for yourself you pussy!!!!
You sure as hell don’t speak for me!
If he was born in a Hawaii, he was.
Again, I didn’t realize until recently that William F. Buckley’s wife was a Canadian. (She didn’t become a citizen until the 90s).
Under your theory, any children that Willaim F. Buckley and she had (again, ignore for a moment that Chris Buckley is who he is) would not be eligible to be president.
Does that make any sense to you? Your father can be traced back to the Mayflower. You could be born and raised and never leave the state of Texas. But because your mother was born in Vancouver, you have a lesser form of citizenship?
When the man in the Oval Office is a foreign national in violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution and the Federal Courts deny standing to those who raise the issue, we have an even lesser form of citizenship!!!
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.