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

To: editor-surveyor

BS!

In the only cases that addressed this specific issue, that is exactly how the court ruled.

Give up Obama Man.


I’m sorry but you are mistaken:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in the case of US v] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009


99 posted on 05/03/2010 10:50:08 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777

Ark is not responsive here. The Court in Ark was not asked to conclude as to his natural born status, only his status as a “citizen”.

n fact, if you read the full case and the writings of each justice, the Court would have concluded that Ark was not a natural born citizen of the US.

We have 3 definitions from the Court in Ark, Minor and Elg, all state that a natural born citizen is born of 2 citizen parents (plural).

AS far as Indiana’s ruling, the lower court improperly cited Ark as guidance, when the Court had made no such ruling, and would not have.

Obama is not eligible either by the founders and framers intent nor by SCOTUS defintion, which has not changed.


118 posted on 05/03/2010 12:49:57 PM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777

US v] Wong Kim Ark has zero relevance to this issue.

They were addressing an individual that had been lawfully born in the us to non-citizen parents, not anything in that case is in any way parallel to the Pretender’s case. They were not addressing Article II, Section 1 issues.

He was born outside the US, in the homeland of his father, and never acquired US citizenship. But the relevance of that is beyond what is needed to disqualify him. There is no scenario under which he could qualify as a natural born citizen.

Thje issues and cases are discussed in detail here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/


120 posted on 05/03/2010 2:26:23 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777

.
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
.


121 posted on 05/03/2010 2:33:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

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