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 ...
The “girly-man” is wired to oppose every thing anyone comes up with explaining such as when Clarence Thomas’ “we are evading this”!
His goal is to keep the usurper in office at any cost!!
Also he has a few similar spammers here as well!!!
“Again, quoting the Supreme Court as the evidence of the intent of the Founders is NOT sound reasoning, especially when even such a plain-language prohibition was disregarded.”
That isn’t what I did. I said in WKA, the Court paid close attention to the Founder’s original intent, and ruled IAW it.
They took a term not defined in the Constitution, and asked, “What is there that would shed light on this term?” And given that “natural born subject” was a well known phrase in English common law, and the English common law was the lingua franca for the Founders, and that many at the time said that what the English called subjects, Americans called citizens - it all adds up.
It is a coherent, logical attempt to understand what the Founders had in mind when they adopted the Constitution using the phrase NBC.
“How is it a red herring to point out that the Supreme Court can, and has, made rulings contrary to the meaning of the Constitution?”
Because we are not discussing the 200+ year history of the Court, or how it interprets things today. We are looking at one decision: the one where they grappled with, “What does natural born citizen mean?”
LJ, you smacked that one out of the park, I can still hear the crowd cheering!!
Well done my FRiend.
Great find Star....thanks!!!
Just another birther unicorn.
Good post.
Just to let the “girly-man” and his DOJ Holder’s brigade know that this issue is NOT going away, like they are hoping for, but is still very much alive. I just receive this in an e-mail from Gary Kreep!!!
October 18, 2010
My Friend of What is Right,
A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to the U. S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U. S. Constitution at will.
A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the U. S. Supreme Court from the 3rd U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case which alleges that Congress failed to follow the Constitutional mandate which “provides for Congress to fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
This means that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon review this case to decide whether to put it on the Court docket. AND, USJF will be filing a brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of this appeal if the Supreme Court accepts the case!
This is a huge win for those who have worked tirelessly to make sure that Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate will finally be produced.
The lawsuit further alleges that “Obama was born a British subject/citizen to a British subject/citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama’s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British subject/citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be the president and commander-in-chief of our military.”
As we have proclaimed and proved for over ONE YEAR: “Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be the President of the United States of America!”
Yet, Mr. Obama continues to NOT prove his American citizenship. He even jokes publically: “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Those are the exact words that he exclaimed to NBC’s Brian Williams. Even a reporter from ABC news recently asked one of Mr. Obama’s top aides why he does not just provide his long form birth certificate!
Plain and simple: All we want is for him to prove his citizenship by providing a copy of that long-form birth certificate.
Yet, he has so much to hide from the American people!
He has reportedly spent more than $1,900,000.00 on attorneys’ fees to literally HIDE his birth records and much more.
In a damning brief recently filed by USJF with the California 3rd District Court of Appeal, Dr. Alan Keyes rightly argues that state election officials – not the U. S. Congress – had the duty to verify Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the 2008 presidential ballot. Note: This is in addition to the brief that we just filed with the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal!
I sincerely believe that, one way or another, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!
Here is also what Mr. Obama is HIDING:
• His kindergarten records
• His Punahou school records
• His Occidental College records (which USJF has already subpoenaed)
• His Columbia University records
• His Harvard Law School records (where Supreme Court Justice Kagan could have divulged the records)
• His Passport
• His medical records
• His files from his years as an Illinois state senator
• His Illinois State Bar Association records
• His Baptismal records
• His adoption records
My friend, why is he hiding so many records? Quite frankly, because it would all point to the fact that he is NOT a natural-born United States citizen.....which would mean that he does meet the United States Constitution’s eligibility requirement for him to serve as President.
As a result, his election, and all of his actions taken while claiming to be President, would be INVALID!
Stimulus bill-—would be history! OBAMACARE-—not so! This new case warns that unless the judiciary makes an ultimate decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the United States Constitution at will.
What does Barack Obama have to hide? The more he hides-—the more questions arise!
A NEW YORK TIMES poll reveals that “One in five Americans believes Obama foreign-born and another one in four have doubts.”
Mr. Obama was elected both to the United States Senate and to the Oval Office without anyone PROVING that he was a United States citizen.
Many Members of both Houses of the United States Congress have raised the question about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. So has 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin! Now, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and possible 2012 Presidential contender states: “If I were the president that would really concern me, not because of Fox News or talk radio or Rush Limbaugh, but what is there that he’s doing that would let that many people be confused?”
The bottom line: Mr. Obama has an “obligation” to figure out why so many Americans doubt his life story.
He could end this debate in 30 seconds, by showing to the public his long-form U. S. birth certificate.
World Net Daily writes: “Since even before Obama’s election, questions have swirled around his eligibility to serve as president, starting with the question of his birthplace. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, but the Certification of Live Birth provided by his campaign does not conclusively prove his birthplace, leaving him open to rumors that he was born abroad. Similarly, rumors have circulated that Obama is secretly a Muslim only claiming to be a Christian. Questions surrounding Obama’s religious belief stem from his adopted father’s Muslim religion, his childhood registration in an Indonesian school as a Muslim student and his current policies toward Islamic nations.”
If Barack Hussein Obama was born OUTSIDE the United States, he is NOT eligible to serve as President of the United States, because his parents could not pass that status onto him.
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”
Even if he was born abroad, his father was NOT a citizen of the United States and his mother had not lived in the United States the required amount of time after attaining the age of 14 years old when Mr. Obama was born, meaning that she could NOT pass her citizenship on to Mr. Obama.
Last year, Mr. Obama declared war on the United States Justice Foundation, and his attorneys have pledged to spend us out of existence. That’s his plan to keep his citizenship-related documents hidden from the public.
Now I’m pleased to tell you that the most compelling arguments yet are now before the court. And I’m pleading with you to keep us fighting for what’s right – for the truth! Our brief — filed on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes and Vice-Presidential candidate Wiley Drake, as well as California elector Markham Robinson with the 3rd California District Court of Appeal— refutes the claim by Mr. Obama’s attorneys that “jurisdiction over presidential qualifications lies with the United States Congress.”
Dr. Keyes points out that “this case concerns itself primarily with California state election law and the compliance or non-compliance by the Secretary of State in fulfilling her ministerial duties as chief elections officer of California. This is not a political question, but is, rather, a question well within the jurisdiction of this court to determine, as it is a duty that may be compelled by this court’s equitable power.”
Until he provides proof positive that he was born in the United States, Mr. Obama does not meet the U. S. Constitution’s eligibility requirement to serve as President. As a result, he and all of his actions are invalid!
Urgently yours for America,
Gary G. Kreep, Esq.
Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation
P.S. I believe that USJF will expose the most grievous hoax ever perpetrated on the American people! Together, we can force states to join the chorus demanding proof positive of Mr. Obama’s claimed eligibility to run for and serve as President. If nothing else, our case can keep Mr. Obama off the 2012 California ballot!
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
Edmund Burke
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/870
Oh, BTW, on the subject of [English] Common Law do you happen to remember the Magna Carts?
Basically it was a bunch of the nobles getting together to force the King to sign a binding document under threat of war/death/expulsion.
If’n you want to cite that then what’s to [legally] stop some section of America from seizing the Congress while it is in session and forcing them to sign on to Constitutional Amendments? If so, I think I need to raise such a force to get the following 10 Amendments put into the Constitution:
1 - The Untied States shall, in no way, tax the property of the individual.
2 - The United States, if imposing taxes upon income, shall use a uniform rate (with no exceptions) which is not greater than ten percent.
3 - The authority of the Congress to regulate the value of monies is hereby Repealed.
3.a — The value of one US Dollar shall be that of 1/16,000 lb.
3.b — Because the Congress shall still have the power to define weights and measures the pound refereed to in 3.a is approx 453.59237 grams.
3.c — There shall be no federal minimum wage.
4 - The Congress, being a poor steward of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States is hereby restricted on its assumption of debt:
4.a — All debts & monetary wages payable by the Federal Government shall be made in the form of the physical transference of Silver or Gold.
4.b — The Treasury shall make a Report of all monies physically in its position at least once a year; misreporting shall be punished by death upon conviction thereof.
4.c — The United States will not enter into any debt which results in the total debt-obligation of the United States to be in excess of One-Hundred-Ten percent of the monies physically on-hand in the Treasury.
5 - No Ex-Felon, that is someone who having committed a felony and served the sentence imposed, shall have any Right or Privilege of Citizenship denied.
5 - Any organization funded, in any way, by the federal government must allow the private Citizen to bear arms on its premises.
6 - Any Supreme Court ruling may be tried and overturned by a majority vote of a Jury consisting of the Supreme Courts of the several states.
7 - The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed.
8 - The 12th Amendment is hereby repealed.
9 - If, during elections for President the Senate’s ballot-vote be equally divided, then the current Vice President will choose from among the candidates tied candidates receiving the most votes who shall be the new President and who shall be the new Vice President. [this amends Art2, Sec 1]
10 - Any government agent, having seized effects in violation of Amendment 4, shall be personally liable for four times the valuation of said items, the legality of the item notwithstanding. If multiple agents are involved in the seizure than they are all so liable.
Typically tap-dancing from “AFTER-BIRTHERS” and con-men!!!
Doesn't change the truth...Justice Thomas was not discussing Obama.
What kind of system are you running B? Maybe it's just time for an upgrade to a new computer and a fresh install of a quality anti-virus/internet security package. You might just have too much adware/malware/registry errors built up over time to have an effective fix done.
I won't dare mention any brand recommendations publicly for anti-virus software. For I guarantee you that it would start an argument that make this eligibility stuff look timid.
You still don’t understand the difference between being UNDER English common law, and the idea that English common law provided the common terminology the Founders were familiar with for writing law.
Pity. But if you can’t handle a simple concept like that, then discussion of law isn’t possible with you.
Yes con, you are absolutely right, he was just discussing the NBC issue in general, and Thomas was squirming and showed a fake laugh when saying it. He knew exactly what it meant and additional what he was “sweeping” under the rug. Keep on tap-dancing with your other DOJ Holder’s choir!!!
Well, it would technically be illegal to seize Congress and attempt to force Constitutional amendments under threat of war/death/expulsion. So my advice would be don’t try it unless you’re feeling pretty certain about the quality and quantity of the force you’re raised.
It is a pretty basic concept.
And YOURS tooooo, count yourself in!!!
His goal is to keep the usurper in office at any cost!!
Also he has a few similar spammers here as well!!!
Dude, you kill me sometimes.
Check this out... Vattel was not writing an original work per-say! Remember, this book is a compendium. Its a book that takes the best of previous societies which proved successful in the past. It takes the best of history at that time, going back to the Roman Senate and working its way through time and advancements in governments. Vattel GOT his definition of a Natural Born Citizen - someone born to two parents who are citizens of that nation, and born upon its soil. the reason he does so, is because if you are looking at a leader with Command of the Armies, you HAD to know where that person’s loyalties lay. Aside from the men in the room, who had proven their worth and EARNED their places in writing the Constitution, what means would be used to determine that as best as possible? To Make CERTAIN no other nation had any claim on the child; that child is a citizen ONLY of the United States. This only happens with TWO parents who are citizens, and born upon the soil of that nation. In ANY other combination, the child might be a citizen, but not a Natural Born one. Natural Born Citizen isn’t a fluffy mistake by the founders. They were doing all they could to assure the people who were following them, that their leadership in the future would be led by those with sole and singular loyalty to the United States of America only, and BY BIRTH.
In particular the same book by Vattel also tells us quite clearly, that citizenship is passed from father to son. Obama was born as British as he is American. He was not, and never could have been a Natural Born Citizen. Not with what we have been told about his parentage.
Before Obama, we had presidents who would BOW TO NO ONE. Period. Why? Because Americans BOW TO NO ONE! We are AMERICA! and dang it we do what we do because that’s what we want to create! Thats what America is! Our founders wanted for us to have leadership which would bow to no one. The NBC clause is a DELIBERATE and well reasoned inclusion into the Constitution. It prevents cretins like Obama, IF IT IS FOLLOWED! And the proof lay in all the Presidents of the United States, ALL of them.... and tell me WHEN some other President EVER bowed to anyone. Let alone the dozen Obama has bowed to....
We have had good and bad presidents before... but they didn’t bow to anyone, because America bows to no one. We are unto ourselves, and this is a big part of our success!
Now I am sorry, but the soft tyranny you are selling falls short for one GLARING reason.... It’s just flat wrong. Vattel wrote his book in 1752 or so. The Constitution had not been written yet, let alone ratified, let alone gone to the point of having 14 Amendments.
Benjamin Franklin spoke of the book in letters. He DONATED one to the University of Virginia I believe. What’s more, Franklin was FLUENT in French. Very very fluent.
Rogers, the evidence supporting my claim, the historical evidence, is not only mounting, its flat out huge. More and more you are looking like you are literally tilting at a windmill.
Your whole argument is that the Founders didn’t rely on Vattel... in one guise or another, that’s normal for you. I wonder, when you are confronted by evidence in letters from Franklin, John Jay and others, that these men not only knew Vattel’s work, but studied it and used it as a guide and a frame of reference. Sorry but there it is.
The ONLY body which can make a ruling on the specific meaning of the constitution, is SCOTUS. You see, WKA is NOT important for the case, or the details OF the case. It is important that it made the DISTINCTION between Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen. It did not define the distinction.
That is why WKA is important. No other reason really. Its a dot on the chain of evidence.
That chain is getting longer by the day as more and more archival documents are found and read.
~~Man, the smoke, mirrors and obfuscation of the simplest facts gets SO annoying at times.
“Natural Born Citizen” is not found in any translation of Vattel prior to 1797.
And there is nothing ‘natural’ about the phrase ‘natural born citizen’. As Vattel put it...natural, or indigenous, but he didn’t use the awkward phrase NBC.
He didn’t because it is a legal phrase, born from English common law. And the legal term differed from what Vattel thought - yet the Founders used it, and not Vattel’s wording.
The Supreme Court spent a significant part of the WKA decision REJECTING the idea of birth by descent. Read it, or continue to lose.
WKA is NOT important for the case, or the details OF the case. It is important that it made the DISTINCTION between Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen.
~~~~
Nor was consideration in WKA based on him in the
stature of a POTUS.
Question: if BHO went back to Kenya to live, could
he gain rightful Kenyan citizenship status, based on
the paternity he’s stated?
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.