Posted on 04/23/2010 8:47:39 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
A retired Army general and national security policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point" and should use his "right to discovery" to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born citizenship status.
In an interview with Evil Conservative Radio, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I'm not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen]."
Vallely, CEO of Stand Up America U.S., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving 32 years.
He said he inspected his own long-form birth certificate, and it contains a doctor's name, date and location of birth.
"But he's never been able to produce that," he said of Obama. "His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don't know why he won't come out with that."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
National character as incident to birth in a particular locality was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as the jus soli ; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis?
The whole body of the inhabitants of a country enjoying the protection of its laws, including the young who are still under the legal age, and the very old, who have passed the time of action, and all others under any species of disability, are, in a certain wide and general sense, citizens; but the full and complete definition of a citizen is confined to those who participate in the governing power, either by themselves or their representatives. The rights, duties, obligations, and privileges of each class of the inhabitants are different in different states, and depend on the laws and constitution of each.
A citizen, in the largest sense, is any native or naturalized person who is entitled to full protection in the exercise and enjoyment of the so-called private rights.
The naturalborn or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents.
Stoicesco, titnde sur la Naturalisation, Paris, 1876, p. 286.; Aristotle, Politics, Book III., C. S. 2 and 3 ; PoKtical Pamphlets, Expatriation and Allegiance, Congressional Library, Washington, D. C.; Walsh V. Lallande, 25 Louisiana Annual, p. 189.; Vattel, Droit des Gens, 1, i. c. six. sect. 212. Ed. Paris, 1863.
As for the 5 SCOTUS cases, I didn't say they resolved this Constitutional issue, as no case has, clearly. What those cases do represent, though, is yet more historical evidence that the definition for NBC was that of Vattel's. Born in country, to citizen parents. They reiterated the same terminology.
As stated previously, there is no precedent for this exact situation. However, to determine the intent of the framers, one can look to the lopsided evidence for that definition, through various sources including a founder's writings, multiple SCOTUS dicta and the author of the 14th. Not to mention the Act of 1790 and resolution 511 stating citizen parentS.
As you probably know, Swiss national identity was a pretty scanty thing in the mid 18th cen. I was referring to the cultural ethos of Europe at the time which was dominated by the French philosophes. Jean Jacques Rousseau also was Swiss - both him and Vattel probably identified themselves with French culture and civilization. There really isn’t any reason to belabour that point. The laws in force at the time of adoption were adopted by the colonies under English common law - those remained the law except where the new national interest required different. We still live under those laws and those adopted by the new admissions. “Feality of the individual to to the ruler” had for the most part been done away with in 1688, but I’ll not go on over that bone. I have no disagreement I can see with the last paragraph.
I believe that to be the case as well. QW in the D.C. district court no doubt.
-----------------------------------------
My response there was to the italics above, not about how he may or may not be removed from office. Only that I agreed with the statement that LTC Lakin expects to wind up in federal courts on appeal.
Presumably, he would have “access” to file a QW action in the D.C. District court, wouldn’t he?
"Expects" might be a little too strong. I'm sure he at least hopes the military court will make the initial determination.
But if they do, it's kind of hard to imagine the prosecution / convening authority appealing. And I don't think the Justice Department can stick it's oar into the military court system, at least at the lowest two levels, but I could easily be wrong about that. Still it would be politically awkward to do so.
OTOH, it will be Chaos, absolute CHAOS, if a military Court were to declare the One ineligible.
The required popcorn supply would be staggering. :)
Why can’t people understand that?
Well, not exactly. First, if he's not eligible, he's not a sitting President, he's an illegal usurper. Hard to say who would have the power to remove him, should he not go peaceably. But Congress has no explicitly delegated power to remove a usurper, at least I can find no such power in Art 1 section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, so they could not delegate such a power to the DC court, or anyone else. It's possible that such a power is "hidden" in the last clause of section 8.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Courts probably have the power under Article IV's second clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Along with article III section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
bushpilot1 has done it!
PROOF Vattel was used in drawing up the Constitution!!!
Vattel Cited: Records of the Federal Convention 1787 (Natural Born Citizen)[Farrand's Records, Volume 3] 1911 | Max Farrand
It's against their interests and political beliefs to "understand" very few people can manage to agree with a law that acts against their particular interests, especially political ones.
Actually Puerto Rico is a “commonwealth” not a “territory”
Uh, OK. Apparently, the “Internet” is not aware of this.
http://www.doj.wi.gov/dles/cibmanuals/files/TIME/HTML/usterritorialpossessions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States
http://wi-recordcheck.org/help/territorialpossessionsoftheus.htm
There is never unanimity on any subject except in the most brutal of dictatorships, and even that is only public unanimity. It's an unrealistic standard.
But there was a large majority consensus. It's on the side of requiring birth in the country of citizen parents.
“But there was a large majority consensus. It’s on the side of requiring birth in the country of citizen parents.”
Apparently Congress, the states, the voters and the courts disagree about where the consensus lies...
Then he would not be a child of the marriage, and would not have been included in the Soetero divorce decree.
Yes, I think he would. However, I don’t have time to read up on it now. The term is used for establishing child support, which is not asked for in the decree. However, she filed it in Hawaii and her husband wasn’t there to contest it, nor would he particularly care anyways as long as he lived in Indonesia.
My guess is the lawyer said to put it in so that she retained the option of asking for child support later, and since the husband was in Indonesia it stood uncontested.
But that is a guess. I’m not a lawyer, and if I did study law, it wouldn’t be divorce law! Yuck!
Very quickly, found this:
“A frequently asked question is whether, after separation or divorce, there is an obligation to support the children of your ex-partner. While it is very clear that there is an obligation to support one’s own children, the answer most people do not want to hear is “yes, after your breakup, you must also support the children of your ex’s prior relationship(s)”. However, this may well be the law, depending on the facts of the case!”
Vattel covered that in the same paragraph as the "armies of the country" "exemption". It's paragraph 217 of Volume I (and of chapter XIX in the original French version) The basic "definition" is in paragrph 212 of the same volume and chapter.
Check your facts. It is totally possible to have the state of Hawaii issue a COLB without him being born in Hawaii.
Another real man stands out in the sea of cowards.
“In the United States the right to a public office is tried by quo warranto or similar procedure, regulated by the state laws. Proceedings by quo warranto lie in a United States court for the removal of persons holding office contrary to art. xiv. s. 3 of the Amendments to the Constitution (act of the 31st of May 1870, c. 14).”
From the following site:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Quo_Warranto
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.