Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
>But the Constitution overrules any treaty we sign.
And it gives the Congress power to make the rules (read laws) regarding naturalization. If congress ratifies some treaty which places some stricture on Nationalization then it *IS* the law.
You are quite wrong here, nowhere in the unamended Constitution does it define who is a Natural Born Citizen or who is not; the 14th Amendment says “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.”
NOTE THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘NATURAL BORN’ QUALIFIER, but also notice the AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF qualifier. The later means that a visiting Ambassador could give birth, with all the populace as witnesses, and that child would NOT be a Citizen according to the 14th Amendment. (”Diplomatic Immunity” means NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the states.)
So then, it simply is not enough for a child to be actually born in the states to be a Citizen thereof.
>That was the point of WKA - the treaty was invalid because WKA was born a citizen, per two clauses of the Constitution: the NBC clause, and the 14th Amendment.
Addressed above, there is NO “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution EXCEPT for the single mention in the qualification for President. Do a word search for the word [and all forms thereof] of “natural.”
>And no treaty could override that.
No treaty can override the National Constitution, true.
However, a treaty could be made that alters the rules of naturalization... i.e. say Israel and the US sign a treaty declaring that no individual who is from a nation which has open hostilities toward either State unless a thorough background check, independently by by both States, shall reveal no connections to terrorists.
>In like manner, if Obama was born in the USA, he cannot renounce his citizenship as a minor,
Granted, being a minor precludes THAT PERSON’S legal obligations.
>and he cannot lose it based on foreign laws or treaties. Just as WKA could not.
And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial? Even though the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS IT? (Amd 5 & Amd 6.)
Methinks you have a problem with consistency.
As I understand it, the Constitutionality of the law would not be the issue. Whether the law stands would be at issue, and that would depend on whether it would go into effect without a valid POTUS signature. Most laws would, because a signature is not required; absent either a signature or a veto it goes into effect. So the law would stand because of the authority of Congress, not because of the authority of the POTUS.
In the Lakin case the DOD is actually arguing that Lakin’s orders don’t depend on the CINC at all because the Congress authorized the Sec Def to maintain the military. The trouble with that argument, though, is that Congress doesn’t have the power to single-handedly give the PARTICULAR SecDef the powers. The SecDef has to be appointed and/or retained by a valid POTUS. So though the Congress does have some say in giving authority to a SecDef, they can’t give that authority to a particular person without that cabinet position being filled at the request of someone exercising the Presidential powers according to the Constitution.
At this point, with nobody having been lawfully certified as the winner of the electoral vote, nobody could be lawfully inaugurated or lawfully assume the presidential powers. So we are without a CINC.
So yes, I think this is a special circumstance with Lakin. At least based on the understanding I have at this point.
Correct.
Born in the US = Native-born citizen.
Still not a natural born citizen as intended by the Founders and Framers.
Master Yoda: “Native born citizen, he may be...natural born citizen, he is not...”
>Everything you offered regarding his documentation is pure speculation. None of it has been reviewed or verified by a governing authority. It may be accurate. It may not. Until you can prove it in a court of law, it has no force.
I like the circularity here! [/sarc]
You can’t prove/substantiate ineligibility until an authority decides to review the case; and no authority will review the case until the proof/substantiation has been determined!
Catch 22/FUBAR.
It’s not a catch 22. Get the evidence in front of a grand jury who can investigate or convince enough Congressman to initiate hearings. The eligibility lawsuits aren’t going to work.
Additionally you should be preparing challenges to Obama’s placement on the ballot in 2012 in your state and petitioning your state legislature to require candidates to submit satisfactory documentation of natural born citizenship.
I like the circularity here! [/sarc]
You can’t prove/substantiate ineligibility until an authority decides to review the case; and no authority will review the case until the proof/substantiation has been determined!
Catch 22/FUBAR.
Here in America, we prefer legal issues be decided in a court of law with a plaintiff and a defendant or with a prosecution and a defense, in the case of a criminal proceeding.
In America it is the job of the plaintiff to present evidence of injury or harm and in a criminal proceeding, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is called an adversarial system.
There have been 72 civil lawsuits thus far dealing with Barack Obama’s eligibility. In each of those lawsuits, plaintiffs have submitted legal briefs to judges that lay out the case that plaintiffs would make to go forward to an actual trial. Those legal briefs are exactly what you are asking for: a review of the facts of the case.
The defense then counters with briefs showing why a trial is unnecessary and a waste of the court’s time.
Thus far, “unnecessary and a waste of the court’s time” has prevailed 72 to 0.
Sort of like saying you can’t sue until the electoral vote is certified or the inauguration because no harm has been done yet... but then being told you can’t sue because it’s too late; the harm is already done.
When people use that kind of reasoning you know the fix is in. When the judiciary uses that kind of reasoning you know somebody is stacking the deck; the only question is who, how, and why.
Actually the only question is how you throw their stacked deck back in their face; let them play 52-card pick up. lol
Ummmm, no.
Um, no? That’s it? Why bother?
Um, no? That’s it? Why bother?
Correct in evading a Constitutional issue so that the country is without a CINC while we wage war?
There is only one circumstance I can think of where that would be the correct response: if ruling on the issue would certainly put the country’s very existence in peril.
Do you think that is the case?
Did you read the part of your posted I quoted?? A coherent thought you’re not making (with apologies to Yoda).
What wasn’t coherent in my post?
Exactly so! Therefore anyone who places and credence in the COLB on the internet is either a wet behind the ears Mr. Gullible or, more likely, invested in the fraud either emotionally, financially, or ?
SCOTUS heard the Gore v Bush case on the merits and decided it. They knew it was an important issue that had to be resolved so they did.
All any of the “birthers” are asking is that the issue be heard on its merits and resolved according to the best evidence there is, law, and the Constitution.
Totally different scenarios.
You don't accept the answer you got.
How does the birther’s stance differ in any practical way?
>They didn’t accept the answer they got.
>
>You don’t accept the answer you got.
>
>How does the birther’s stance differ in any practical way?
Begging your pardon, sir, that is incorrect.
We’ve not been given any answer; all we’ve gotten is the equivalent of “go away kid, you’re bothering me.”
I have never gotten an answer to the questions I have asked, nor has anybody. What we got was a “Go away. You don’t count.” That’s not an answer; that’s an EVASION, just as Justice Thomas said.
If they had done that to the Gore supporters what would America look like today? I asked that question of somebody else: if the courts had refused to take up Bush v Gore on the merits how would that election have ended?
When the legitimate means to decide issues FAILS, it is an invitation to what happened in Kenya: whoever torches the most churches wins.
Keep in mind that the guy whose campaign planned ahead-of-time to torch churches in order to force a spot for himself in the Kenyan government... received a million campaign dollars from Obama.
I am not joking or exaggerating in any way when I say that for me this issue is about the rule of law. If over half the country is saying WTF regarding the law-breaking that’s gone on concerning Obama’s eligibility, and if that and the illegality of actions by Congress can all be “evaded” by the legitimate means for us to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that means we no longer have the rule of law. Period. The only law we have is the law of the jungle, and you can look at Obama’s hero, Odinga, to see exactly what that means. Or you can look at the druglords that our own DOJ is making sure are able to come into the US to do their beheadings.
What is going on here is serious, serious doo-doo. Surely you have to see that.
Oh, wow. Great minds think alike. I just got done posting mine and saw what you had.
Yours was shorter. I like it. =)
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.