Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Race war,highly unlikely! Yes , there would be a few riots , but on a level of war, NO. Most people once they understood that obama is not the legal President , would support a decision to remove him. Perhaps even worse is the damage that obama can do to our country if allowed to stay in office two more years, Far worse than a few race riots.
I understand. Kinda funny though, that even then he would have been qualified, even though it was one of those duck walk questions that is obvious to a third grader that since the country didn’t exist...
I was screwing around with it a little. But just a little.
Our very own African style dictator is on a downward spiral and the weaker he gets the more chance the US Supreme Court will hear this case or the next one like it that simply asks Barrack Hussein Mugabe to prove he is a natural born citizen of America
Aside from this we need 1-2-3 states to demand a long form birth certificate if you want to run in any 2012 Presidential primaries or November election
I believe that the term, "NWO", is simply the most recent name given to that ruling class segment of the population which has always existed, and which has been trying to undo the American Experiment from Day One.
As for the the so-called "black helicopters", it's hard to refute their existence when you've seen one with your own eyes.
As to whether our Supreme Court is evading the eligibility issue, I think it's abundantly apparent that they are. The political cowardice they've displayed about this most important of issues is astounding to me, and has helped to fuel my passion to restore this country to its Founding Principles. I'm sure that millions of other Americans feel exactly as I do about this.
Pinging a couple of you just in case you didn’t see Sven’s letter.
Pinging a couple of you just in case you didn’t see Sven’s letter.
Boy do you have that right, look what he's done already while having to tread lightly!
“Here’s the best part - I received my dental qualification on-line. Call me if you need a checkup. I’ve got a new Dremel and an awesome pair of pliers I’m dying to try out”
lololololol
Are you related to Orly?
And just as important, would the bills passed and signed during the administration of an ineligible president be constitutionally valid?
If Obama even had a “US citizenship” in the first place, the Soetoros could have easily convinced the State Department with the understanding that Obama had a decision to make when he became of age to re-establish a US citizenship.
The link I posted in #112 shows that Apuzzo/Kerchner has indeed been turned down in lower courts for standing and harm considerations. That’s why they are before the SCOTUS now.
Expect this case to be denied hearing by SCOTUS.
However, as I said in that same post, come this January there is nothing holding the GOP House back from holding hearings on how Pelosi and the DNC certified Obama’s eligibility.
Of course some limp spine GOP Congress members will refuse to hold hearings as it is not in the spirit of repealing Obamacare or cutting the deficit. But my response to them is that if I can chew gum and walk at the same time, why can’t they?
I expect most GOP members to be cowards to being called and labeled ‘birthers’ if they think of investigating Pelosi and the DNC. But who knows? Maybe there will be some TP members with the cajones to pursue a hearing on the matter.
The founders and framers probably would have thought so if they used Vattel to define a Natural Born Citizen...because they (your children) were born "in the armies of state"
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL
THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 211. What is our country.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country -- a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, -- for example, that of holding public offices -- and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
[Edit: Notice this talks of "citizens" and not "natural born citizens." The Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 in an attempt to extend NBC status to children born (of citizens parents) "beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States" which would apply to §215 and §216 That Act was repealed with the Act of 1795. ]
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
§ 218. Settlement.
Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.
The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
§ 219. Vagrants.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man's country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60) -- 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,1 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man's obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.
2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty -- in a word, between the internal, and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them; and this is the case of every citizen, with respect to his country.
3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves, instead of defending it, they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in a united body, and in concert; they are infamous deserters, whom the state has a right to punish severely.2
"Class action"? Only the ballot box, or cartridge box varieties of class action are going to restore the country to its Constitutional foundations. I have NO faith that any branch of our government will self-correct.
Wow, that'd be a bummer since the Democrats no longer control the house or have a super-majority in the Senate.
My dad was a career officer in the US Army. Three of his eight children were born in foreign countries, and are not Natural Born Citizens, per our best understanding of that phrase.
I've never asked him (or my three siblings) about their feelings on this, but I suspect that they've never thought a whole lot about it, one way or the other. Their sole concern (when it was at issue) was purely about their basic citizenship. They're all US citizens with full rights and privileges. They just can't be president.
I don't see how that can happen here.
Agnew resigned, aka was booted from office, and Nixon appointed Ford to the VP slot (he was confirmed as the VP), then Nixon resigned.
Nixon, originally, did offer the VP slot to Rockefeller, but he declined, and then offered it to Ford, who accepted, Ford then offered it to Rockefeller (who realized his mistake) and he accepted and was confirmed.
To be very honest, I don't see any similarity to the 2.
Thomas Jefferson wrote there would be more than a race war.
Unfortunately depending on Berg is a hopeless cause. 1) the tenth amendment has nothing to do with eligibility. 2) the phrase “we the People” does not appear in the tenth amendment but in the preamble. Don’t quote this guy unless it is for laughs.
Thanks Obama apologist. Keep watching Prince Al Waleeed’s Fox News or Prince Al Waleed’s Disney/ABC News or Prince Al Waleed’s TW/CNN or Prince Al Waleed’s GE NBC/CNBC/MSNBC to get your reality. Maria is practically prostate in a burkah when she fawningly “interviews’ the guy who is keeping GE’s worthless debt afloat.
The drooling public who watches TV ends up supporting Democrats/Obama/islam/elites.
Why would any Repub stick their head up to get it smashed in by American-Islamic TV - including Al Waleed’s Fox News? FR is filled with many spineless types as well as anti-birthers like the woman who hates World Net Daily.
FR has loads of these fellow travellers.
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.