Replies

Feel free to stuff your knee pads where your noggin is - deep in your rear.

The intent of the ‘natural born citizen’ phrase was, if you read folks who ratified the Constitution, to prevent someone from Europe moving here, becoming a citizen, and then running for President. It was to prevent someone whose natural loyalty might lie elsewhere from taking office.

It has since then been defined by Congress.

Obama was born in the US, with a US citizen for his mother. To argue having a Kenyan father who abandoned him means his primary loyalty moved to Kenya is stupid. To argue that a presidential election - and yes, the question WAS raised during the election - should be overturned because Obama’s father was Kenyan - IF Obama Sr WAS Barry’s father, is also stupid. No court in the land would consider it for a moment.

“Second of all, to get to the Federal Court system, Lt Col Lakin needs injury to derive legal Standing. And that’s what the “MILITARY COURT” will give him ;)”

Not a chance in hell. The only thing the military court will look at is “Has the LTC disobeyed a lawful order?” And the civilian court is not going to overturn a conviction based on the idea that Obama isn’t really President.

Y’all live in fantasy land. You’d have better odds if you prayed that God would smite Obama with an asteroid.

“No one will be asking them to rule on the validity of the election, but rather of eligibility of the winner of that election.”

No military court will consider investigating or ruling on that issue. Neither will any other court. Obama won the election. By a comfortable margin. The courts would rule that the people had ample opportunity to investigate Obama and decide for themselves if he qualified - and they said yes.

At best, they would defer to Congress. And no, Congress isn’t going to overturn the election either.

Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was an American. Fantasizing that he was born in Kenya, and that a court will overturn the election based on his really being a Kenyan is STUPID!

“Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger.[2]:5[5] His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.[2]:4 There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, some believe that he would not have been a natural-born citizen (interpreting the law to mean that to be a natural-born citizen one must be born on U.S. territory) and would thus have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president. During the 1880 U.S. presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.[2]:202–203 In any case, Arthur’s father was not naturalized until some years after his birth, resulting in Arthur having dual citizenship, a fact he later covered up.[6]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

” * The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Evans was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. In an article written by Breckinridge Long, Hughes was claimed to be ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore “enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance”, Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: “Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States.”[40] However there is no indication that Long’s article was taken seriously or had any impact on the election.”

Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was an American.

Once again ...

In the end — as you continue to attempt to distract away from — this is NOT about Obama's MAMA.
It's about his daddy.

It does NOT matter WHERE Obama Jr. was born, nor how old Ann Dunham was in 1961:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,”
a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” - Judge John W. Guendelsberger, appointed by Barack Obama to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), referencing US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Minor v. Happersett (1874), in turn.

"Blackstone's Commentaries"

Mr Rogers said: "No military court will consider investigating or ruling on that issue. Neither will any other court. [...] Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was an American. "

And is that sufficient to meet the Constitutional requirement, even if true?

You keep criticizing based on your estimation of what WILL happen. How about a few words about what SHOULD happen?

Do you believe that the government authorities in Hawaii are justified in continuing to keep the details of Obama's birth secret despite a Constitutional requirement that has not been definitively established? The Constitution is silent with regard to who has the authority to demand that a President prove his eligibility. Who do you think has a vested interest in such a requirement?

Hasn't the Supreme Court already decided that no clause of the Constitution may be rendered meaningless or having no effect? Doesn't that decision argue for having the Supreme Court take action? How can this eligibility requirement be outside the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review?

You're Mister Rodgers, but WE live in fantasy land?

Oh look, de plane, de plane.

Like someone who would go campaign for his thug cousin in "the old country?"

It has since then been defined by Congress.

Congress has the power only to define a Uniform Rule of, now read closely, NATURALIZATION. Justia refers to those born abroad but citizens at birth under the statutes as statutorily naturalized . It cites ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) as on example of the Supreme Court confirming this.

Congress certainly has no power to define or redefine Constitutional terms. Much mischief would ensue, especially regarding the Bill of Rights, but also delegated powers, if they could.