Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama birthplace lawyer denied new trial
Orange County Register ^ | 1-13-10 | Martin Wisckol

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizenship; crackpot; crank; eligibility; ineligible; judgecarter; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; orly; orlytaitz; taitz; usurper; whackamole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 next last
To: jamese777

Correct. As previously stated, the Constitution mentions two types of citizens, and only two.


161 posted on 01/15/2010 4:24:22 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

The dual citizenship at birth is, or could be, the disqualifier for Obama to serve legitimately under the Constitution as President of the United States.

The founders, signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constitution, were all born British subjects of the King. It was because of that that THEY were not ‘natural born citizens,’ and exempted themselves, reasonably enough, from that qualifier for president.

The dual citizenship was not foisted on him by another sovreign nation, it was conferred by the fact of his birth. It means, or could mean, a great deal.


162 posted on 01/15/2010 4:27:07 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Correct. As previously stated, the Constitution mentions two types of citizens, and only two.


And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. The other category is “naturalized” citizen.


163 posted on 01/15/2010 4:28:40 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
"The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy."

This point, is exactly what I've been saying.

Since Barry was born with foreign citizenship by way of his father, and thus was a citizen of two nations at birth (this, of course assumes HI birth, yet to be proven) how in the world could he possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen as required for Article II, section 1, clause 5?

164 posted on 01/15/2010 4:29:27 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
"And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. "

What court(s) have made the two synonymous, especially with regards to the qualifications for POTUS?

165 posted on 01/15/2010 4:31:43 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Your talking about naturalization laws that applied to the states PRIOR to the adoption of the federal Constitution. I clearly was refering to "the United States."

Under the Articles of Confederation, anyone naturalized by one of the States became a naturalized citizen of the United States. States continued to naturalize citizens of the United States even after the ratification of the Constitution, until Congress passed the first federal naturalization law in 1790. Someone naturalized by, say, the State of Virginia in, say, December of 1789 was a citizen of the United States but not a Natural Born Citizen, and not eligible to be President.

166 posted on 01/15/2010 4:31:49 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It’s not fickle—you’re not really thinking this through.

When a person has a record portraying them as a patriot, you call them a patriot.

But a person’s history never guarantees their future. This is the point missed by so many. (Just like with John McCain, for example.)


167 posted on 01/15/2010 4:34:07 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Liberals are just creative enough to fall into their own intellectual trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
"States continued to naturalize citizens of the United States even after the ratification of the Constitution, until Congress passed the first federal naturalization law in 1790."

Your saying, that the "states", under the Articles of Confederation...AFTER the Constitution was ratified, were naturalizing citizens as citizens of the United States (and not "just" in their state)? That, it would seem, in effect means that the Articles of Confederation trumped the Constitution as federal law.

168 posted on 01/15/2010 4:36:58 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
“The dual citizenship at birth is, or could be, the disqualifier for Obama to serve legitimately under the Constitution as President of the United States.

The founders, signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constitution, were all born British subjects of the King. It was because of that that THEY were not ‘natural born citizens,’ and exempted themselves, reasonably enough, from that qualifier for president.”

Actually, it's much simpler than that. You simply can't be a natural born citizen of a country that didn't exist when you were born. That's the obvious fact they were addressing. It doesn't represent a definitive determination about what they thought of people born in the US with a non-citizen parent.

169 posted on 01/15/2010 4:41:46 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The Constitution gave Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization and uniform bankruptcy laws. Neither power was exercised immediately; the first federal naturalization law was not enacted until 1790, and the first federal bankruptcy law was later. Until Congress acted, the states’ laws continued in force— not because the Articles of Confederation trump the Constitution, but because the Constitution did not prohibit state laws on these topics unless Congress chose to occupy the field.


170 posted on 01/15/2010 4:44:25 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This point, is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Since Barry was born with foreign citizenship by way of his father, and thus was a citizen of two nations at birth (this, of course assumes HI birth, yet to be proven) how in the world could he possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen as required for Article II, section 1, clause 5?


Because under State Department regulations, “Citizen at Birth” takes precedence over any automatic granting of foreign citizenship to a child. There is no definition of Natural Born Citizen in US law or in the text of the Constitution.
Case law over three centuries has relied on the 14th Amendment: “All persons born...” There is no exception to “ALL” for presidential candidates in the 14th Amendment and since its ratification in 1868, there have only been two types of citizens: born and naturalized.
As I mentioned, the Indiana Court of Appeals specfically rejected the foreign born father argument in their decision that Obama is a natural born citizen for purposes of Article 2, Section 1. Their ruling of November 12, 2009 has yet to be appealed to any higher court.


171 posted on 01/15/2010 4:47:20 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Since there is no US law that states someone born with foreign citizenship is in fact a Natural Born Citizen, the question remains:

How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain?

172 posted on 01/15/2010 4:52:48 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
You've been trying to make the argument that the Constitution referred to or alluded to the term Naturalization. Clearly, it did not since the federal naturalization laws didn't happen until 1790, and since there were only two types of citizen's mentioned in the Constitution...only "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" the question remains (which you've yet to answer):

How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain? Any other ideas?

173 posted on 01/15/2010 4:57:01 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain? Any other ideas?

A "Natural Born Citizen" means someone who is a citizen by birth as opposed to by naturalization. Period.

174 posted on 01/15/2010 4:59:37 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

You’re a dem plant, right? What you wrote in reply to my post should be cut-and-pasted on the next DNC ad as a reason why anyone who’s sitting on the fence should definitely not vote for conservatives. CAN you be so stupid? I’m a conservative who IS about fighting these dirtbags who have plunged America into the mess we’re currently in. What you wrote is just an unspeakably rotten piece of idiocy. You’re no conservative. You’re a walking advertisement for NOT voting conservative. Sheesh! What a dip!


175 posted on 01/15/2010 5:00:46 PM PST by oneryhombre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. “
What court(s) have made the two synonymous, especially with regards to the qualifications for POTUS?


The most recent is “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana” which was decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals on November 12, 2009. Its a long 19 page decision finding that both Obama and McCain are natural born citizens. You can use any search engine and read the court’s decision for yourself.

Other relevant decisions are: Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):

DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):

The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.

State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.


176 posted on 01/15/2010 5:02:42 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

One of the problems with this argument is that there seems to be this belief that the Constitution itself is legislation. It’s not. It’s the framework that legislation has to fall into.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to Naturalize citizens, but it did not say how. The 1790 Act is the how.

Similarly the Constitution states that one must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the Presidency. But it doesn’t say “how” that is to be done. And, frankly, there really isn’t a mechanism for the “how.”

The best bet is to stop this angels balancing on the head of a pin stuff and get either the states or Congress to pass a bill explaining how this is done.

No one seems terribly interested in doing this though.


177 posted on 01/15/2010 5:06:55 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Since there is no US law that states someone born with foreign citizenship is in fact a Natural Born Citizen, the question remains:
How can a Natural Born Citizen’s status be “Governed” by Great Britain?


Natural born citizenship status can’t be governed by Great Britain. Natural Born Citizenship status in the US is governed by Section One of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and only by Section One the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
There is no exception or special category for presidential candidates in the 14th Amendment. ALL persons means ALL persons. A BORN Citizen is a natural born citizen and the other category is a naturalized citizen, ever since 1868. Born citizens can be President, naturalized citizens cannot.


178 posted on 01/15/2010 5:17:16 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: oneryhombre
"...as a reason why anyone who’s sitting on the fence should definitely not vote for conservatives."

What? You don't want people to vote for Conservatives? I thought you said you were a conservative? Well, which way is it, Newbie?

I'm really, really glad to hear you're "fighting", because you sure sounded scared in your post of "riots and rumors of riots"...so I didn't know.

Yeah Newbie, I'm a dem plant...only been around here since about 1998, but you probably don't know how to check that, being so new and all. Anyone who clicks on my ID and reads my history of posts would naturally assume I'm radical, leftwing guy...yep, that would do it. But you probably don't have time for that, what with studying up in your Thesaurus to find synonyms for "idocy" and other liberal-style adolscent name calling words.

Well, I didn't mean to turn your thong sideways, so we'll make a deal...I won't comment on any of your future idocy if you won't comment on mine...otherwise, all bets are off.

Your choice, newbie.
179 posted on 01/15/2010 5:41:12 PM PST by FrankR (There will be no jobs until it is profitable for employers to hire people....PERIOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Sorry for calling you a “dip,” FrankR. What I should have called you is a simple-minded, uneducated dip$hit—just the kind of moron the libs love to parade before the country in an effort to tarnish the Conservative cause. The libs use retards like you to futher their aims. You’re either a dem plant or a genuine retard. Try turning off the porn channel and read some books to educate yourself. Also, stop watching World Class Wrestling—it’s fake. Oh, BTW, it’s “schtick,” not “schick,” dumb@ss.


180 posted on 01/15/2010 5:46:40 PM PST by oneryhombre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson