Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge's October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a "frivolous" litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz's second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
What we are saying about his original long form BC is that we have tried for two years to see one sheet of paper that is required by the US Constitution but he won't produce it.
If he really had it he'd proudly show it, don't you think?
Didn't McCain, when he was challenged, produce his on the Senate floor and pass it around for all to see? Well?
And by the way
Why must we all be called "birthers" and "fringe" all the time.
Why?
We are asking a simple polite question. "Tell us what hospital you were born in and what doctor delivered you ...
" And what is this Gibberish crap???????
What is Obama --- God?
Gibberish can hold the Messiah's BC but no one else can?
He means the COLB right?
With no folds, scanned, maybe photoshopped, right?
Big deal
Normal people produce paperwork when asked, you lying fat goofy slob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3Aj2eqmS8&feature=player_embedded
------------------
Why are all the microfiche films up to Obama's newspaper announcement very well worn, but just that one day of his rather crisp and pristine???
"Why were the names of the Susan and Gretchen Nordyke twins, who were born that same day (8-4-61) but had no announcement at the same time as the Obama one in the microfiche? If the Nordyke twins weren’t in the newspapers until 4 days later but have earlier birth BC numbers then doesn’t this prove that these announcements were called in by relatives?
That, ... and the strange address in the Obama announcement (neighbors deny the O’s ever lived there) is plenty of reason to be suspicious.
And the fact that the mom named "Stanley" is listed in the phone books of Hawaii and Seattle ---both, at the same time, 1961 --- while pregnant, supposedly ...
This is not a politician who requires ordinary scrutiny.
He is extraordinarily un-American and destructive and thus demands extraordinary scrutiny and suspicion."
---------------- What we are saying is that we have tried for two years to see one sheet of paper that is required by the US Constitution but he won't produce it.
If he really had it he'd proudly show it, don't you think?
Didn't McCain, when he was challenged, produce his on the Senate floor and pass it around for all to see? Well?
And by the way
Why must we all be called "birthers" and "fringe" all the time.
Why?
We are asking a simple polite question. "Tell us what hospital you were born in and what doctor delivered you ..."
And: There are dozens of small odd weird "indicators":
For example, no one even knew they were "married" in Hawaii, none of their friends.
There are no baby photos, no nurse photos, no pregnant photos, no wedding photos, not a single letter ever from his father,
raised by a guy with a 601 page FBI file ---
and now they say Granps had an FBI file too!!!!
Bet you can't find many American politicians in the last 230 years who can say all this!
He really is special!!!.
He's used several different names.
Roomed with foreign students only. Had a special 999 SS # used ONLY for foreign students!!! (or were they just holding it upside down???
Told people he was born in Mombasa.
And,
in Hawaii
No witnesses before during after his birth, no photos, not a single person has come forth, not even a woman staying in the hospital at the exact same time says she ever met her mother, did not see her or know of her (18 year old single mom with unusual baby?)his mother was there - because she wasn't. and no long form BC --- because it doesn't exist, says this Adams guy
Only:
A scan with no folds showing at the Orwellian named Fight the Smears.
Who the hell ever heard of a USA citizen who couldn't even say what hospital he was born at?
Who?
I can!!!
Can't you?
Can't everyone? -----------------
All of Kenya says he was born there - they even stand up in Parliament there and say it. Private people there laugh about it. Do you dismiss all their words for racial reasons perhaps? Why aren't their statements acceptable and considered to be valid? Seems racist to me to laugh at them and dismiss what at least a dozen or more have said to date.
Newspapers? What of the ones that say Kenyan-born Obama??? These also don't count at all?
And Why the hell do we have to go through this torture?
Why must we chase him and his microfilms and his records ----
why doesn't he just show the two or three papers needed to put all doubt to rest?
When you apply for any job this is what you do ------ not tell people to go look at your unfolded online Scan at Fight the Smears.
And by the way again ------ where does the Holy One's paper COLB currently reside? Can I go hold it and see it?
Why not? Well then, can DeMint.? Djou ? Why not?
-------------------------
Why must this farce continue for years and years?
Why aren't Adams or Race Bannon or Fife or Dr. Drew on Hannity or O'Reilly or Glenn Beck?
Ever? Not even once?
Will any newspaper ever do a day's research on all this?
It's enough to write a book; and more is coming out weekly.
This week was quite amazing, in my opinion and I hope it continues to snowball and go viral. =============================
Like Dr. Drew, and Hillbuzz, and many many many others:
I think he is a Gay, Marxist, Revolutionary, non-Christian with a hidden past and a scary agenda. Ever see him in church?
Have you got your $242,000 personal share of the new national debt in your pocket to pay???
Whoever heard of a President with a "stash"?
What will you do 10 years from now when you need a few F-22s and there are not enough to go around and all the tools and dies have been destroyed ... by this regime.
=======
Joe Kovacs discusses in depth his 2 hr long interview of Adams & all the background investigation Kovacs did before interviewing Adams to verify the guy was legit.
Peter Boyles: 8AM hour:
http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles.xml
-------------- From other FReepers:
"Even 49 years ago US citizenship was viewed as an extremely useful thing to have in life. Zer0’s grandmother Dunham showed herself over the years to have been something of an operator in HI.
If her daughter’s child had, in fact, been born outside the borders of the US, she could have done her part to make his future life easier by:
#1 placing the birth announcement in the paper and
#2 filing his birth with the State, something which close relatives were permitted to do in HI in the loosy-goosy ‘50’s and ‘60’s as a way of getting population figures pumped up as high as possible.
You’ll notice that the COLB mentions that the birth was FILED by a certain employee. It does not use the term REGISTERED. That could be because of a lack of a long-form certificate."
The above two paragraphs well said:
by Scanian
=============== Who is Tim Adams?
Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu says Obama WAS NOT BORN THERE! (audio interview)
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/04/07/jeremiah-wright-former-muslim/
http://is.gd/cKy3m
"I will not be ridiculed into silence"
And the born abroad is what I believe. I am no fan as to Taitz’s legal abilities. Year’s ago, my best friend was a tax attorney. He always told me to look in Martindale and Hubbell if I did not know the area. I have not gone online to check her rating. There is no rationale for spending almost a million on legal fees when a long form is 20 -30 bucks max.
You have to understand who Justice Waite is referring to here:
These are primarily children born in the United States to parents who were undergoing naturalization and were thus not yet citizens, even though born here. The children born here of naturalizing parents became citizens after their father met his five year residency requirement and was naturalized -- not at birth.
Father, mother and children were still treated under the law as "aliens and foreigners" for those five years until the father took the oath of citizenship. These children were never considered under immigration law to be citizens at birth. Many immigrants returned to their home country taking their children born here with them. The child's citizenship status followed that of their father until the age of majority.
Children born here of fathers [parents] who were undergoing naturalization and became U.S. citizens were considered to have become citizens not by birth, but by the naturalization of their fathers [parents].
The only way under the law to be a citizen at birth was if the parents were citizens at the time of the child's birth. Until naturalization, the children born of them were the same status as the father [parents] -- aliens and foreigners. There was no limbo or in-between status.
"Some authorities" [not "most", not "many", but just "some" authorities of a liberal persuasion who wanted to ignore the law] were jumping the gun and wanted to consider children born of naturalizing parents to already be citizens even though the parents were still naturalizing and may still change their mind. But under the law these children of naturalizing parents would forever be known to have become citizens by means of naturalization [the naturalization of their father] not by birth, and never "natural born citizens" -- not even close.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Yep -- it's right there in crayon for you to read: Justice Gray and the Wong Kim Ark Court clearly acknowledged and accepted Justice Waite's definition of "natural born citizen" that came from common law, just as Justice Gray and the Wong Kim Ark Court said it did:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..." [Minor v. Happersett]
Thanks for posting the confirmation. Is the boldface sufficient or should I circle it with red crayon and underline it???
I didn't realize that there was a "leader" of the movement.
“If you believe FOREIGN parents make you eligible for POTUS, then you believe in the RIGHT of the likes of a child of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, of even Bin Laden to be POTUS.”
If they’re born in the US, then yes, they’re NBC.
The Constitution says it.
I believe it.
That SETTLES it.
Although I've pointed out this dishonesty to Uncle Chip before, let me point it out for any casual readers who think UC has any interest in the truth:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
There are honorable birthers, and there are liars who quote small sections in an attempt to deceive others. "Uncle Chip" has had the full quote pointed out to him before, so I must conclude that UC is in category 2.
Please also note that Minor recognized two classes: [natives, or natural-born citizens] or [aliens or foreigners]. By birth, they assume you are one or the other.
But if you want to know how the Supreme Court ruled when confronted with a case requiring them to decide, read WKA as I have posted earlier. The FULL quote, not just the sentence fragments that birthers like.
It’s a n00b poster. Apparently FR has beaten back the previous crop of DNC/White Hut scum who have worked the issues here, so now Axelgreasy has hired additional scum to work the Internet. The worst kind of traitor is the one who is too stupid to realize the enemy is using them to destroy the Republic. But they have to be dealt with, nevertheless.
That rant is so well done, I’m copying it for later pasting, with the proper attribution of course. Appreciate the clarity with which you offered that! It stands in sharp contrast to the sycophantic scum working these threads, insulting freepers slamming them as ‘birthers’, as if that title will erase the FACT that some actually want the Constitution upheld and the SCOTUS to do their damned job. I also want to commend you on that last sentence/quote. The Mr.Rogers, Non Sequitur, and company of Obamanoid scum might want to get a hearty laugh from that one, as they read off their Axelgreasy/White Hut talking points.
The US Supreme Court has said it. It is established law, and has been for over 100 years. Did you read the dissent in WKA (1898)?
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
That was the DISSENT, arguing against what the majority had ruled. If someone is born in the USA, even if both parents are aliens, then they are natural born citizens - according to the Supreme Court. You may not like it - I don’t - but it is stupid to pretend otherwise. It is established law, unchallenged for over 100 years.
You need to read what Minor wrote, and ALSO what was written in WKA. You cannot cherry pick a sentence fragment and decide to call it quits.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts,
Did you even notice the bold part? Apparently not.
The entire quote doesn’t change the definition they used. The chose only one definition to use because the other had doubts that required justification. They never said they were able to solve the doubts, but that they didn’t need to because there was a definition that had no doubts.
Where in the Constitution does it say that someone whose parents you don’t like isn’t NBC?
Cherry picking is exactly what you are doing by citing the a couple of sentences from the dissent in WKA. The argument in the dissent is that the existing treaties with China (which didn’t allow foreign naturalization of its subjects) are not and cannot be overridden by the 14th amendment.
“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.”
Doubts they did not try to resolve in Minor. It wasn’t an issue in that case so it didn’t need resolution.
It WAS an issue in WKA, which resolved the doubts - as far as the SCOTUS is concerned. And I see no reason to believe the US Supreme Court will overturn WKA and 100+ years of accepted legal reasoning to remove a sitting President.
I don’t LIKE WKA, and I think the dissent had the stronger argument, but it doesn’t do much good to whine 100+ years later. No one has any legal justification for ruling that Obama is ineligible IF he was born in the USA.
I didn’t cherry pick WKA. I quoted several pages, covering the first part of their argument: that WKA was a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen. I have also posted the link to the entire decision for anyone to read.
Where in the Constitution does it say that someone whose parents you don’t like isn’t NBC?
Actually I am more interested in where in the constitution does it clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is?
You have said that the Constitution says what a Natural Born Citizen is, please post the exact language that you are using from the constitution to make this claim.
Yep -- it describes Birthers to a "T".
Maybe some of them will open their eyes before November and start doing something useful.
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.