. . . . Check out #190.
[Thanks, SeizetheCarp.]
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.
You reek of three-day old zot.
Of course. That simply proves my point, that one country's citizenship laws do not govern other country's citizenship laws.
"A BORN Citizen is a natural born citizen and the other category is a naturalized citizen, ever since 1868. "
Complete bull, and you know it. Again, there is no law in the U.S., or court decision, that makes a "born" citizen as "Natural Born" citizen. The very notion defies the very meaning of "Natural" born. It's Natural vs. statutory.
Precisely my point. A "Naturalized" citizen is not mentioned in the Constitution...as contended by others.
A "Natural Born Citizen" means someone who is a citizen by birth as opposed to by naturalization. Period."
----------------------------------------
And how could a NBC of the US be governed in any way shape or form by another country? Question mark.
JB Williams
Canada Free Press
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
___________________________________
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So let’s get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots on FR don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded
“It doesn’t represent a definitive determination about what they thought of people born in the US with a non-citizen parent.”
Not a definitive determination? There is ample documentation that the Framers were adamant, and adopted specific language to assure, that he who would be president and commander in chief be of singular loyalty to the new nation for which they had sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor.
The Founders were all well versed, educated men of their time, and all familiar with Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” In the nomenclature of the time, ‘natural born’ meant the child of citizen parents, as was understood by each and every drafter and signer of the Constitution. Had they wanted the president/Commander in Chief to be merely a citizen, they’d have established the eligibility requirements as they did for members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Please see the comment to which I was responding. Thanks.
There is no change in qualifications either from what the Constitution says.
ALL persons means ALL persons.
And "subject to the jurisdiction" means "subject to the jurisdiction".
A BORN Citizen is a natural born citizen and the other category is a naturalized citizen, ever since 1868.
Where are the words "natural born citizen" in the 14th Amendment???
Born citizens can be President, naturalized citizens cannot.
Natural born citizenship is the most certain and loyal form of citizenship according to the Constitution allowing access to the highest office in the land, however your definition of natural born citizenship turns that upside down, making naturalized citizens more loyal and trustworthy to this nation than those you define as "natural born citizens".
In the Minor case Justice Waite stated there is “doubt” that the US born child of a foreign citizen father is a natural born citizen, while there is “no doubt” that the US born child of a US citizen father is a nature born citizen.
Thus, according to Waite, the most recent SCOTUS ruling explicitly commenting on the definition of NBC, there are two distinct categories of non-naturalized US citizens, i.e., those about whom there is no doubt as to NBC status and those about whom there remains doubt.
Until there is another SCOTUS ruling, I believe that is where the NBC issue stands. The Wong case only concluded that Wong had the same citizen rights as a natural born citizen. By making and preserving that distinction in Wong, i.e. by not explicitly declaring Wong to be NBC, but only to have the same citizen rights as an NBC, the “doubt” declared by Justice Waite remains unresolved.
Justice Waite's "doubt" category of US born citizen applies to Obama, assuming that BHO Sr. is his legal, non-bigamously married father under US law and under the BNA of 1948.
Note the lawyerly language in the Factcheck statement on the 1948 BNA, which says only that it applies to BHO Sr's "children" and _not_ explicitly to BHO II! The Factcheck statement fails to mention that the 1948 BNA only applies to the non-bigamous, non-illegitimate children of BHO Sr., which may not include Obama, if litigated.
Very clever of the lawyers who drafted the Factcheck statement on the 1948 BNA and BHO Sr's children!
Good stuff good post.
. . . . Check out #190.
[Thanks, SeizetheCarp.]
Check out ornery’s signup date and comments.
Cass Sunstein hireling?
ZOT!
Wrong.
In the Minor case, SCOTUS identified two types of citizen at birth on US soil as of the date of their ruling:
1. Children of US citizen fathers about which there “is no doubt” that they are NBC.
2. Children of foreign citizen fathers about which there “is doubt” that they are NBC.
These are two distinct classes of “citizen at birth” who are not in the naturalized category. The doubt in the Minor case was not resolved in Wong because SCOTUS could not “reach” that determination in the case before it. And that doubt established in Minor remains unresolved, as far as I can see, because no subsequent, on point case has explicitly reached the NBC issue.
So there “is doubt” about Obama’s NBC status per SCOTUS in Minor.
“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.”
Wrong.
In the 1875 Minor ruling by SCOTUS, the NBC issue was still unresolved, which is after the 14A was passed in 1968.
See explicit lack of NBC resolution below, which was not resolved by Wong either:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
“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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
I will admit I hit abuse on ornery a while ago - he’s banned now, maybe others did as well.
Cass Sunstein (sp?) hireling. Can’t they get better fakes? Scraping the bottom of the barrel.
That's right. His father could have been a stateless person for all the difference it would make.
But as long as he was not a United States citizen, he cannot be a natural born citizen.
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.