Posted on 07/07/2010 3:17:29 PM PDT by ATLAHWorldwide
but the process for removing a sitting president is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If he isn’t a natural born citizen he isn’t a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasn’t is pure denial.
Highly unlikely that this is going anywhere.
But we are still waiting to hear about Kenneth Allen’s FOIA request.
See here:
http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-day-after-roswell-by-philip-j-corso/#comment-4801
And here:
http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-day-after-roswell-by-philip-j-corso/#comment-4802
If he isnt a natural born citizen he isnt a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasnt is pure denial.
There have now been seventy adjudications in Obama eligibility lawsuits including eight at the Supreme Court of the United States (Berg v Obama Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).
No Court has found Obama to be ineligible and two state courts in have found him to be eligible: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. 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
If Obama is a CRIMINAL fraud, it is astonishing to me that there has been no attempt made to remove him via the criminal justice system. All the attempts have been via civil lawsuits.
Any prosecuting attorney could initiate a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for election fraud and then that prosecutor could issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify under oath. There are no issues of legal standing to sue to prevent a criminal investigation from going forward in the criminal justice system.
Both the Nixon resignation and the Clinton impeachment were initiated through Grand Juries.
Whether or not obama’s mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For what’s it’s worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920’s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.
Hopefully congress will listen to this man and arrest him.
Whether or not obamas mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For whats its worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.
That is why the US Supreme Court has rejected all eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them.
Here’s the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890’s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.
Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.
Also, from the actual US v Wong Kim Ark decision:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
and:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
finally, the US Supreme Court ruled that:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. “Schneider v. Rusk,” 377 US 163 Supreme Court 1964
You are correct that those who oppose Obama as ineligible have failed to present a plaintiff who would be granted legal standing to sue Obama and have a lawsuit decided on the merits. The person most likely to have legal standing is John McCain, the only other person to receive Electoral Votes. One federal judge did contemplate granting standing to Allen Keyes in “Keyes v Obama” but the judge decided against it since Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and therefore had no serious chance of winning.
There are no issues of standing in the CRIMINAL courts and I’ve been surprised that no one has tried convening a grand jury investigation of Obama for election fraud on the criminal side of the judicial equation. A grand jury could subpoena Obama’s birth documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath. If everything is on the up and up after the investigation, the Grand Jury is disbanded. If there is evidence of a crime having been committed, an indictment could be handed down by a prosecutor or special counsel.
For example, I know that Obama signed a document to get on the ballot in Arizona (and possibly other states) saying that he was a natural born citizen. A grand jury could investigate that.
Both Nixon’s resignation and Clinton’s impeachment stemmed from grand jury investigations
Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits bills of attainder.
For Saul Alinsky reasons Obama's eligibility will be a nearly bottomless pit of laughs as the election approach.
"Senate-seeker wants Obama birth-certificate treatment"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2549414/posts
"A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot."
"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."
The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.
In the Wong Kim Ark , the wording AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION WAS USED which refers to the allegiance of the parents(Senator Brown 1868). Children receive their citizenship from their parents. If a child is born to U.S. citizens, they have full and complete citizenship (natural born) if they are born to parents in the naturalization process they are also naturalized with their parents. The Indiana case is a joke ,it has no bearing on federal law and it quoted the Ark case ,but chose to ignor the fact ark was declared a native born citizen not a natural born citizen. obama appears to have mixed loyalties , the very thing that Article two was meant to block. obama is not going to allow any grand jury to get a copy of his birth records, it is the proof that would remove him from the White House.
In the Wong Kim Ark , the wording AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION WAS USED which refers to the allegiance of the parents(Senator Brown 1868). Children receive their citizenship from their parents. If a child is born to U.S. citizens, they have full and complete citizenship (natural born) if they are born to parents in the naturalization process they are also naturalized with their parents. The Indiana case is a joke ,it has no bearing on federal law and it quoted the Ark case ,but chose to ignor the fact ark was declared a native born citizen not a natural born citizen. obama appears to have mixed loyalties , the very thing that Article two was meant to block. obama is not going to allow any grand jury to get a copy of his birth records, it is the proof that would remove him from the White House.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. 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
The Indiana court ruling does not overrule federal laws and the 14th amendment. As far as I am concerned the “judges” ruling is a act of treason. Nothing more than a attempt to override the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic( a nation of laws), courts can not change the laws or the Constitution.
The Indiana court ruling does not overrule federal laws and the 14th amendment. As far as I am concerned the judges ruling is a act of treason. Nothing more than a attempt to override the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic( a nation of laws), courts can not change the laws or the Constitution.
The Electoral College operates on a state by state level. Indiana had every right to determine whether or not Obama and McCain qualified to receive that state’s electoral votes, qualifying as natural born citizens or not.
The federal courts have also shown no inclination to get involved in the Obama eligibility controversy. Here’s what three different federal judges have had to say:
This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in Taitz v ObamaApril 14, 2010
I don’t disagree with most of what you have said . I believe that the original intent of the Natural Born citizen clause should be maintained. Both parents must be U.S. citizens . A state (Indiana) does not have the legal right to redefine the qualifications for the office of the President.
I believe obama managed to get into the White House by fraud and deception and the people need to know how this happened. The problem is that everyone is afraid of going against obama . It is considered political sucide. Who is willing to put their career on the line to contest obama.
I dont disagree with most of what you have said . I believe that the original intent of the Natural Born citizen clause should be maintained. Both parents must be U.S. citizens . A state (Indiana) does not have the legal right to redefine the qualifications for the office of the President.
I believe obama managed to get into the White House by fraud and deception and the people need to know how this happened. The problem is that everyone is afraid of going against obama . It is considered political sucide. Who is willing to put their career on the line to contest obama.
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision could have been the beginning of clarifying that issue once and for all. Most US Supreme Court decisions work their way up from state courts through the federal system to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States.
In this case though, the Supreme Court of Indiana refused to review the lower court’s decision and it appears that at least for now, the issue stopped there.
I see a whole lot of people going against Obama and not being the least bit afraid to do so. On this eligibility issue alone, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility. Suing Obama is certainly “going against him” in my mind.
But there is a difference between going up against someone and beating them.
Congress has defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens
The Supreme court defined it achildren whom parents were U.S. citizens .
In the Eng case she was declared a citizen because both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.
What is meant by PARENTS/ CITIZENS? a reasonable person would assume that this means both parents.
Until such time as Congress amends the Constitution to allow one parent/citizen to be defined as natural born, then the original intent should be upheld.
Until such time as a high profile politican puts his career on the line to oppose obama nothing will be done to correct this injustice to the American people.
As for the Indiana case , if another lower court defines Natural born as requiring parents and grandparents to be U.S. citizens , would this suddenly override the Indiana case and Constitution? No court (including the SCOTUS) can override the constitution.
You are wrong, Congress has never defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens.
However in Wong Kim Ark, neither of his parents were American citizens and he was ruled to be a natural born citizen.
In the Wong Kim Ark decision the Supreme Court said: “[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 Calvins Case, strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject”
The Supreme Court does not “override” the Constitution but the Supreme Court does interpret the meaning of the Constitution and their interpretation stands until Congress passes new laws or the Constitution is amended.
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States
(FIRST CONGRESS Session II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104.
The question is whether obama is born of American citizens and shall be considered a Natural Born citizen per the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Congress and the Supreme court has allowed many people to claim citizenship , but this does not mean that it is Natural Born Citizenship? NO. Being an American citizen does not automatically make you a Natural born citizen. obama may have citizenship by code , but he is not a Native born citizen.
When a court makes a ruling in direct opposition to the original intent of the Constitution they are “overruling “ the constitution. A interperation of the constitution is required to follow the original intent. The Indiana court decision totally ignors the original intent.
Someone what to tell Dr. Manning that Congress has no arrest powers?
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.