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 ...
Your document concerns the validity of the cede in 1836, not military movement and occupation in 1861.
And you of course, know that.
Produce the military order for Anderson to move into Ft. Sumter.
The document clearly states that South Carolina ceded 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..." That means they had no legal claim to it.
But you knew that.
Even had the Southern session had been legal, that would not have changed ownership since South Carolina had no legal claims to the territory. It would, at best, become foreign territory and remained the property of the U.S.
But you knew that, too.
According to the Constitution only Congress can dispose of federal property, like forts and the like. Again assuming for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal, it would have taken an act of Congress to transfer ownership from the U.S. to the confederacy.
You would know that as well, assuming that you aren't a complete idiot.
Produce the military order for Anderson to move into Ft. Sumter.
Anderson commanded all the military facilities in the Charleston area. That included Fort Sumter. No military order was necessary for him to move. But he did have verbal authorization from Don Carlos Buell to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure the safety of his men. That provided all the authorization he needed.
Either that or I've gotten more and more sane as we've gone along and disagreed more and more with your...eccentric interpretation of the law.
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.
Whether the information that is currently on a Barack Obama long form is the original information or not is anybody’s guess. It is doubtful that we will ever know for certain.
The new Hawai’i Governor spent 19 years in the House of Representatives, he knows how to play the political game.
I post the actual statutes, and you hurl an insult.
You’re a jerk!
Grow up!
Part of the actual statute. You missed paragraph a: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
By your odd interpretation a person born in the U.S. is not eligible to be president.
...and you hurl an insult.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy sometime.
You are forgetting that Buell's verbal authorization had been countermanded by Buchanan. When Buchanan learned of Buell's instructions to Anderson, he had Secretary Floyd send instructions that countered them. From [Book about Buell, see pages 61 and 62]:
"When Anderson received the Secretary's latest words of guidance, he became furious. Buell's message had allowed Anderson to decide for himself when and how to act. Now the Administration was drawing back."
If Anderson thought he already had approval to move to the fort, he wouldn't have wired Washington on December 22 saying:
I think that I could, however, were I to receive instructions so to do, throw my garrison into that work [Sumter], but I should have to sacrifice the greater of my stores as it is now too late to attempt their removal. [Link]
He never received instructions to move his garrison, however.
Buchanan's reaction after leaning than Anderson had moved into Sumter was as follows [emphasis mine]:
"My God! Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy." [Sources: Klein, Days of Defiance, page 170; Tilly, Lincoln Takes Command, page 110]
There are more documents than the long form that can hang BO. To scrub all his history would take a coup that would likely be visible and fatal to him.
19 years in the House means nothing if your party is in the deep minority.
It’s worth keeping the heat on this matter as it keeps Americans awake and alert.
The new governor of Hawaii is Neil Abercrombie who, if memory serves, is not only a long time congressman, but a classmate of the O’s at Punahou.
Do you have ADD or something akin?
That's not an insult, it's a question.
And, are you sure you want to open a discussion of hypocrisy. You consistently demonstrate hypocrisy via your posts.
Abercrombe was at U. Hawaii in 1958-1962 period, and was drinking buddies with Obama’s alleged father.
Abercrombie is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — all card-carrying members of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Abercrombie is the only person on the planet to put Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham in the same room.
I refer to Abercrombie as Obama’s life beard.
The new governor of Hawaii is Neil Abercrombie who, if memory serves, is not only a long time congressman, but a classmate of the O’s at Punahou.
The discussion was about persons born to US parents overseas — specifically on US military bases. Yet you introduce persons born in the US in your last snide post.
Do you have ADD or something akin?
That’s not an insult, it’s a question.
And, are you sure you want to open a discussion of hypocrisy. You consistently demonstrate hypocrisy via your posts.
Also, be sure to read the court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss.
Memory lost the serve.
Memory lost the serve.
That was part of the U.S. Code that you introduced. So if McCain is not a natural born citizen because his birth circumstances were included in that part of the code then what do you think paragraph a) refers to?
Were they?
War Department
Washington, D.C.
Major Anderson,
First Artillery, Commanding Fort Moultrie, S.C.:
Sir:
In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell you are directed to hold posession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity. Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the President's intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject.
It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life and that of your men in a hopeless conflict in the defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistence would, in your judgement, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity and make the best terms in your power.
This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity.
Very respectfully,
John B. Floyd
So where exactly are Buell's instructions countermanded?
Ops33, first, let's be clear, your situation is not Barack’s.
This is a circumstance the Supreme Court should address. That it hasn't been clarified was acknowledged by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February of 2008, Senate Bill 2678 “To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.” Whether clarification by the Senate would have any legal meaning is doubtful. Clarification of the Constitution is reserved for the Supreme Court. Congress can only change the Constitution through amendment.
Currently there is uncertainty about children of citizens overseas in the military. Vattel, considered by many of our founders and framers to be the major influence upon our common law, specifically included children of military citizens as “reputed” natural born.
In my opinion the Supreme Court could clarify Article II’s definition, a definition, like most of terms used in the Constitution, provided by our common law and common usage at the time of the Framers (As Madison explains in a letter which Mark Levin included in Liberty and Tyranny on p37). That is was Chief Justice Morrison Waite meant when he said:
“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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
While there are a few conservative Republicans in the House, and some to come in the Senate, this might be the time for a patriot to get credit for a clarifying amendment to Article II. Seeing how effectively the left confused citizens about the definition of natural born citizen, in spite of its appearance in so many Supreme Court decisions. Again, Obots misdirect by claiming “not defined in the Constitution.” The Constitution was not only not intended to be a legal reference, it was specifically created presuming the common language so that all literate citizens could understand its meaning.
From the minutes Supreme Court hearings in 2000, Justice Ginsberg was surprised and disappointed when informed that children of citizens born overseas were not eligible to be president. Nothing prevents them from running, but the Constitution defines eligibility. Calero of Central America ran as a Socialist Party candidate and is not even a citizens. The issue needs to be clarified. It may be that the Supreme Court is avoiding the complications which might arise if they use the fact that Vattel includes your circumstance? Is every principle and definition in Vattel Constitutional? Almost certainly not. But justices have cited Vattel again and again for so much of our law, I'm sure they can find a way.
AMENDMENT XIV
“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. “
Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court.
Page 83 U. S. 78
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
It says citizens or subjects. Obama was not born to citizens. The father puts his stamp on the child...
The stamp on Obama is Kenyan.
The discussion remains about the children of US military born overseas.
I know it’s difficult for you, but please, try to focus.
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.