Posted on 02/24/2010 1:03:52 PM PST by rxsid
"Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case
Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama
An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that challenges Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.
WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens."
More here:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125985
Attorney Apuzzo also has info on this, on his site:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/court-grants-motion-for-leave-to-file.html
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I've purposely been avoiding engaging in responding to you, but this I will not let this stand. The propaganda spewed at that site is nothing more than liberal left diatribe by some washed up traffic law clerk who twists and edits to make early legal scholars, founders as well as taken out of context(very liberally editted) congressional records for their twisted & sick view of the constitution & our founding.
1st article exposing their lies:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/did-common-law-really-grant-automatic-us-citizenship-upon-birth-regardless-of-parentage-part-ii/
2nd article, Part I which is now a series, as it is going to take several to expose all the lies and educate the public properly:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/the-statist-conspiracy-debunkers-debunked-part-i/
He signed. See post 23, 3rd document. Read center text.
obumpa
Girlfriend as in two women in real estate and massive shopping since 1980.
My husband is more conservative than I am. I could not be a Carville/matalin marriage.
BHO, Jr. has always maintained that he was a "Native Born Citizen" on his www.fightthesmears.com website. Now Suz has pointed out a very alarming document, the existence of which was previously unknown to me.
He signed his AZ ballot application, which is an affidavit confirming that he is a Natural Born Citizen. This contradiction alone should be enough to have triggered the AZ AG to bring a demand for a Writ of Quo Warranto, and I expect will be entered into evidence by those demands now before the Federal district in DC. I wonder what BHO, Jr.'s plans are for 2012. But not as much as I wonder what ours are.
If I was a man, I would not read Dr Laura. She is a hypocrite and a arrogant bore.
You have obviously never read her books.
The noose tightens, and the worm squirms.
I tried to listen to her on talk radio for about a year in 1999 or so. She made a lot of mistakes in her life so thinks she is someone to listen to? If she comes on talk radio, usually in Los Angeles, I cannot turn her off quick enough. Blleecchh!!
It’s like not supporting someone you do not believe in, like you said previously. I would not buy her books.
You always say the most silly things but never really say anything.
Dude, you are just torturing yourself with this stuff. I went to your sites and it was like way too difficult. Let me simplify it.
Should a court hear the NBC stuff, they can use any Learned Treatise they want in trying to decipher the framers intent. Period. They can look at Vattel, they can look at the Chinese Book of Real Hard Legal Problems, the Kama Sutra, whatever. If it is a Learned Treatise, they can look at it. Or not.
Courts do this all the time. They look at books like Prosser on Torts, AmJurs, Corpus Juris Secundums, Brill on Damages, Farnsworth on Contracts.
But, heres the skinny. These books are not law. They are what is called secondary authority. They have persuasive value only. They do not provide for binding authority. And they will NEVER do so.
Primary, or binding authority comes from previous judicial decisions, statues, regs, and common law, which is also judge made law. I separate the two prior judicial decision because there isn’t really a Federal Common Law.
To take these treatises, and to try to transform them into primary binding authority is just a waste of time and energy. You can cite it to judge. That isfine. But you can’t jump to a legal conclusion based on it. Not today. Not ever.
A court may well find that Vattel is the Bible on this. I doubt it. But it don’t matter. Because you can’t read Vattel and say, “That dang Obama is a usurper. He ain’t even a natural born citizen.” Not based on Vattel or any other book. Period, friggin period. So dissect Vattel, dissect all the statements by anybody you think relevant and it still ain’t binding primary authority unless it comes from decided cases, statutes, regs, or common law in a limited way.
And in our country, “Natural Law” isn’t law. There is kinda an exception, but unless you plan on cannibalizing someone when you are stranded or shipwrecked, it pretty much ain’t gonna apply.
But here is some binding, primary authority. It can be “over-turned”, but right now it is probably the best thing out there:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
This post 14th Amendment case is important both because it provides a broad survey of citizenship law and the legal framework through which the Constitution views citizenship, and because this decision is cited by numerous other cases.
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and
…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The net impact of all this is, if you are born here, you are pretty much going to be a citizen, and a native born citizen is a natural born citizen.
This point has not been decided on point for the presidency, and you can raise some other issues, but this ought to be giving you a real strong clue where it is going.
Obama was born in the USA, his mom was a citizen,and frankly I don’t give a hoot if his daddy was a Russian spy who knelt and kissed Khrushev’s ring and pledged everlasting allegiance to Mother Russia, Obama is a citizen.
Learn to live with it.
parsy, who feels sorry that you guys are just flagellating yourselves to this degree.
Cheney not following the constitution by asking if their were any objections during the electoral count.
Its almost like God or something trying to warn the people Obama is bad news.
To me, these among other things smelled like a cover-up. But what if they were on purpose. Not Nancy though. She knew Obama was ineligible to be president but didn’t care. He was her kind of guy. A Communist.
Now Cheney is not a dumb guy and he does love this country. He knows Obama isn’t eligible but because of Obama’s skin color he couldn’t really do a whole lot about it without being called a racists or maybe fearing bloodshed in the streets so just maybe he had purposely left out the part where he was supposed to call for any objections as it says in the constitution in the hopes it would be caught and brought to the peoples attention. Maybe it also helped him from feeling a little less guilty Who knows.
Well, lo and behold it just may have. The case of Barnett v.Obama. The DOJ motion to dismiss opened up just that subject. The DOJ quoted the Untied States Code correctly about the process of objections being handed to the president of the senate but left out a very important part. The part where it states the President of the senate to call for objections after the count of the votes. (which Cheney DID NOT do)
So you go on to ramble and totally disregard the quotes from the early court justices & actual congressional records that your traffic law clerk twisted to make his case, but when I expose them they are irrelevant? You then end with the erroneous WKA ruling as if it is actually law. That shows how ignorant you really are.
Parsi, you are truly laughable(yes I am laughing at you, not with you) and I suggest you stick to writing your sick little ditties making fun of people because educating yourself in American history and the truth of our founding is obviously far beyond your capabilities.
Wong Ark IS law. It may not be 100% on point for this case, but it IS law. It shows you where things are probably headed.
If a kid born to a Chinese couple is a citizen because he was born here, in the United States, then a kid born here, in the United States to one American parent, and one African parent, is a citizen. And if native born means natural born, which the language indicates, little Obama was a natural born citizen. Period.
You wanta obsess for hours on the finer points of alleigence, or what “under its jurisdiction” means, or all those other little distractions——go ahead. Have fun.
But the Supreme Court case is LAW. And that case has laid out the fundamentals.
parsy, who can think of better ways to spend his time than on trivialized legal dead ends.
let me try to say it a different way. You dissect cases. You don’t dissect treatises. The reason is, is that there is no reason to dissect treatises or lines of treatises. There is a reason to dissect cases or lines of cases.
That is because cases are the law, for the most part, and treatises are not law.
One would want to dissect cases, or lines of cases, because one would hope to be able to find some way to distinguish ones’s current case from the prior case or lines of cases. This is so that one could fit in under the application of law in those cases, or to escape the application of law in those cases, whichever is applicable.
There is no real need to do that with treatises, or with statements by people about the subject matter or issue IF case law has already incorporated that stuff into its prior decisions. It is just busy work.
Here, Wong Ark, or whatever, has already reviewed some of this stuff. SO, THAT IS WHERE YOU START. If you do, you can see where it is headed, as I have written above.
Now, a good lawyer, if he has a bad case, is going to scrounge through this stuff like crazy, on the off chance he can find some little bon mot (French for a good “mot” and I don’t know what a “mot” is.) that will provide some hope or way to approach turning his doggy doo-doo case into a winner.
For non legal people to spend their time scrounging thru the minutia of facts and statements, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT THEY ARE REVIEWING IS LAW, is not right. You will find a Vattel, who says XYZ, while the law is ABC. You will whoop it up under the assumption that you now have the law on your side. You won’t. You will have just wasted your time and gotten your hopes up over nothing. And, you will probably then go off half cocked and tell your friends what you found and get them stirred up too.
You will also end up calling people who disagree with you bad names under the mistaken conclusion that you see things clearly, when you way off base.
If you feel you must do something, start with the case law. Look at the holdings and establish some commonality if it is there. That will tell you what legal battles have to be won. In this particular case, Obama, it is probably over already. Like I said, if that little Chinese kid was a citizen because he was born here, Obama is probably a citizen.
Allegiance probably has nothing to do with it because his mother was an American. Period. The Court seems to be holding “native born” and “natural born” are synonymous.
parsy, who hopes you don’t beat yourself to death on this stuff
French for a good “mot” and I don’t know what a “mot” is.) that will provide some hope or way to approach turning his doggy doo-doo case into a winner.
Thx!
parsy, who says Bon Jour
I thought we were told this had not standing, or that this will never see the light of day in court, or no court will take this or other cases, so on and so on.....
Frantzie ? I don’t know if you have seen some of the few threads on FR, it seems that Ann Coulter might be finally coming around to the birther cause.
As ALL of the current SCOTUS have recently stated in debates, interviews & speeches:
Despite popular belief, case precedent is NOT law. It is merely the opinion of the court at the time the case is heard. Cases get overturned quite often when the right case comes before them that proves the early ruling was erroneous one.
Therefore, the obots theory of WKA being the law of the land is just diatribe to divert attention away from the immediate remedy & that is understanding our founding & our constitution by educating ourselves to our founding, founders & laws and that begins with the Magna Carta 1215, the Mayflower Compact, the 1st American Colonial Constitution of 1639, the early philosophers on law, etc, etc.
To truly understand we have to get inside the minds of those great people who wrote our laws based on the laws of nature & the laws of nations. Those laws have been the basis of every law written in this great land from the beginning of the 1st settlements. But they weren't limited to American law. From the beginning of time in English history, the laws of nature were the laws of the land and much is still in place there today.
Once we are educated properly, as many are now today after 2 years of indepth study, we are armed to take on WKA and renew permanently the definition of citizenship that our founding fathers & the states ratified in 1789, but was already put in place in all but a couple of the states by 1780.
parsi takes at face value the twisted, parsed & biased bits of history put on the internet by a washed up traffic law clerk rather than actually opening a book or going to a library, whether locally or online, to read & learn about our founding is the prime example of why this country's values & morals continue to decline. parsi is a disgrace to the very core of our country's founding & our founding fathers would wholly agree as being educated in the early works I spoke of above, were at the top of the list of all studies during the time of the founding and continues to be to this day in all classes that are not run by statist professors.
Hillsdale College has a wonderful program and anyone can call and get a list of all class study requirements to work on & read from home for their own personal education. It is free, but I recommend a small donation as Hillsdale takes not one dime of federal funding, not even through tuition fees. Hillsdale also is connected to the Kirby Center which also has a vast amount of resources to learn from in the comfort of your home. I welcome all to partake in these opportunities to truly learn our history so that we may regain it.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/
http://www.hillsdale.edu/kirbycenter/default.asp
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/
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.