U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

World Net Daily ^ | November 23, 2010 | Brian Fitzpatrick

[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.

[Lmo56]

Most people refer to Calvin’s Case [1607] as the definitive on natural-born subjectship. In this case, it was posited that a child born in England to an alien father was natural-born [since the mother, no matter her native nationality, took her husband’s status]. It was stated that this had always been the Common Law.

However, it was shown in Parliament [13 Eliz.] circa 1571 that no statute existed that conferred natural-born subjectship status to such a child. The matter came up when Parliament was discussing the royal succesion, should Elizabeth remain childless.

[thecodont]

To remove a president, yet. But the Constitution stipulated that if the PResident elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President”.

That means that if Obama did not qualify by Jan 20th (which we know to be the case) only Joe Biden could veto bills, act as Commander in Chief, appoint Cabinet positions (such as Sec Def), etc.

Or pardon a turkey.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023807-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[jamese777]

Fine but aren’t you the one arguing that a GJ approach would be successful whereas the Civil approach is doomed to failure absent a McCain or Palin complaint?

So the question remains why hasn’t a GJ been convened? And I think the answer is that NBC is nebulous (although not to me given the long history of its meaning).

So absent a clear meaning of NBC, a GJ would have no way of knowing whether Obama has committed fraud.

OTOH a resolution passed by the House that specifies meaning to NBC would enable them to convene hearings and subpoena documents. Who could stop the House from doing such a thing? If Obama tries to intervene on the meaning of NBC or as a matter of executive priviledge, then the jig is up in many ways.

The House can say what a NBC is and proceed.

A GJ cannot say what a NBC is without a long series of challenges. They may not be able to proceed.

I would put my money on the House getting to the bottom of the matter. I also see little political risk in the House conducting investigatory hearings. Even if Obama was determined to be eligible, the House leadership could respond to any criticisms with a simple remark that the entire matter could have been wrapped up long ago for a few dollars expense by Obama himself. And that delaying disclosure led to a loss of credibility in Obama and his presidency.

But I believe that Obama is hiding something and that House hearings will force him to either resign or commit acts that would expose him to the risk of impeachment.

---

An investigation into whether Obama used a forged or fraudulent document in order to get on the ballot in 50 states plus the District of Columbia does not depend AT ALL on the constitutional definition of natural born citizen.
Fraud and forgery are crimes (felonies).
Remember that an INVESTIGATION does not have to end in an indictment, it is merely an investigation. If everything is found to be in order “no harm, no foul.” The investigation is concluded.

In many jurisdictions, Grand Juries can investigate ANY issue that a district attorney or a state attorney general’s office choses to investigate. In my county, we have a grand jury currently convened on parking meter fines.

If Obama is indeed “hiding something,” it is incumbent on his political opposition to uncover that “something.” I have no problem at all with congressional investigations of that “something.” But, once again, every serious investigation into criminality surrounding the US presidency over the last 50 years has been undertaken by a grand jury: Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, and CIA Leaks.
I would remind you that even being named by the Watergate Grand Jury as an “unindicted co-conspirator” forced Richard Nixon to resign.
A finding by one House of Congress that isn’t backed up by the other House is unlikely to impact Obama at all.
He will simply chalk that up to “partisan politics.”

[Hostage]

Once again you haven’t addressed why no prosecutor has gone the GJ route. There are tens of thousands of prosecutors and not one has stepped forward to pursue this. Why?

What would be the probable cause that a prosecutor would initiate a GJ investigation? Fraudulent filing of campaign documents is an allegation. There have to be witnesses or other evidence that a fraud has possibly been committed. I don’t see how it gets off the ground.

And a prosecutor initiating a GJ on this matter could just as likely be accused of carrying on partisan politics.

As for your assertion that the House having a finding would have no impact on Obama, I disagree. The House can subpoena the BC and if they get it, the matter will finally be in the open one way or the other. Who cares what the Senate does at that point? It’s irrelevant!

[jamese777]

Once again you haven’t addressed why no prosecutor has gone the GJ route. There are tens of thousands of prosecutors and not one has stepped forward to pursue this. Why?

What would be the probable cause that a prosecutor would initiate a GJ investigation? Fraudulent filing of campaign documents is an allegation. There have to be witnesses or other evidence that a fraud has possibly been committed. I don’t see how it gets off the ground.

And a prosecutor initiating a GJ on this matter could just as likely be accused of carrying on partisan politics.

As for your assertion that the House having a finding would have no impact on Obama, I disagree. The House can subpoena the BC and if they get it, the matter will finally be in the open one way or the other. Who cares what the Senate does at that point? It’s irrelevant!

---

I already answered your question in an earlier post, the strategy of the Obama is ineligible movement has been totally devoted to civil lawsuits.

I believe that prosecuting attorneys have accepted the statements issued by Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii state Department of Health, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of Vital Statistics for Hawaii and Mark L. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii that Obama was born there.
No one on the opposition side has presented enough compelling evidence to force a grand jury investigation.

On December 6th, Obama closest political ally, Neil Abercrombie becomes the new Governor of Hawaii. Subpoenas for Obama’s birth records will be responded to by a Democratic administration as the Republican administration of Linda Lingle is term limited.
Neil Abercrombie sponsored a House Resolution that contained the phrase “Hawaii, birthplace of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama.” That House resolution passed on a vote of 378-0.

[lentulusgracchus]

Foreign military bases are not U.S. soil, they are the sovereign territory of the country they're located in. The U.S. is allowed use of the territory through treaty or agreement with the host nation.

Oh, really? You've consistently said differently about Ft. Sumter in the past -- and at the top of your lungs.

[Hostage]

“No one on the opposition side has presented enough compelling evidence to force a grand jury investigation.”

Exactly. And that’s why I say the House can get to the documents and expose the truth.

But you raise an interesting point. The new dem governor of HI will use every operative to thwart a House that compelled discovery. That would be interesting to see if HI would bow before Congress. They are defiant as it is.

[PA-RIVER]

Remember When Obama took office, and we were horrified that he was about to borrow a trillion dollars and just piss it away? And we knew this would only make the recession worse.

Everyone, even African Americans now know that Obama has made their own lives less prosperous. That he has in fact destroyed peoples dreams. Most African Americans would never take a loan from a bank and just piss it away and then expect their children to make the payments.

They may vote for him again because he's “Black” , but they know a disaster when they see one. They might be relieved to see him go away.

[bushpilot1]

“Foreign military bases are not U.S. soil, they are the sovereign territory of the country they’re located in. The U.S. is allowed use of the territory through treaty or agreement with the host nation.”

This is funny..Please produce the treaty or aggreement allowing Federal troops to occupy the fort in South Carolina, CSA.

[rambo316]

Just a few weeks ago, Laura Ingrahm came out and said that she wanted the joker to release all the files that he is paying over $2 million dollars to cover up. She is on our side now; that is why I mentioned her.

[bjorn14]

Oh, I know but it would be delicious to blow up this whole ‘Dreams’ narrative that Ayers wrote.

[bjorn14]

Oh, I know but it would be delicious to blow up this whole ‘Dreams’ narrative that Ayers wrote. I’ve often wondered why Madelyn did not want to be buried next to Stanley.

[bjorn14]

McCain wasn’t even born in PCZ he was born at the public hospital in Colon. The only place foreign soil is considered is at embassies (and maybe chanceries).

[Non-Sequitur]

This is funny..Please produce the treaty or aggreement allowing Federal troops to occupy the fort in South Carolina, CSA.

How about an act of the South Carolina legislature?

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved: That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.

IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.

Link

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh, really? You've consistently said differently about Ft. Sumter in the past -- and at the top of your lungs.

Nonsense. Fort Sumter was federal property located in the United States, and I've never said otherwise. You're the one claiming that it was in a foreign country.

[bert]

Having been through the process and having a ruling from the department of state where American dependents of state employees and military dependents born in US Military hospitals receive a birth Certificate with no qualifications.

Such dependents ate considered to be born on American soil. That would not be true of a native of the foreign country that might some hoe be born in a /US Military Hospital.

[CommieCutter]

I hope you’re right.

However, the world was a rough place during FDR’s time as well, and RATS kept with the line that he was trying to fix the mess, same as we have today.

I see a lot of people on that side still blaming Bush. We will see.

[apoliticalone]

Thanks for clarifying the natural born vs native born aspect.

[Beckwith]

Foreign military bases are not U.S. soil.

Well, finally! I agree with something you've posted.

Children born abroad on U.S. bases get their citizenship status through their parents, same any other child of a U.S. citizen born abroad.

Not so. They get their citizenship via statute, and here's the statute's key provisions from the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] Nationals and Citizens of The United States At Birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

You're losing it. Your posts used to be more precise.

[Beckwith]

David is correct.

McCain is a “naturalized” American citizen, and a citizen by statute.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/FourCases.htm#McCain

Hell, the statute governing McCain’s citizenship was even custom tailored for him:

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.