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.

[CurlyBill]

Highly unlikely that this case will get a hearing. I think the USSC prefers to leave Obama to the voters political correctness.

All fixed.

[jamese777]

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.

---

No Court has agreed with your opininon and one court has directly disagreed.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a a natural born British subject” at the time of the framing of the US Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States natural born citizens.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels
This lawsuit challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes on the grounds that both of his parents were not American citizens.

[Non-Sequitur]

The discussion remains about the children of US military born overseas.

Children born overseas of two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens, as the law states.

[rustbucket]

So where exactly are Buell's instructions countermanded?

Buchanan via Floyd to Anderson: "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 resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity and make the best terms in your power."

Moving to Sumter did result in a hopeless conflict to defend the fort, a violation of Buchanan's instructions. Anderson apparently could only see his little piece of the situation (defending Fort Moultrie from an attack or mob that never came) and did not consider the larger political picture of war versus peace. The move to Sumter, aside from making the South Carolinians and Buchanan hopping mad, put Anderson's troops into a fort that his military superior, Winfield Scott, later said would take an invading Union force of ~25,000 men (I don't remember the exact figure) to rescue Anderson. Anderson had put his forces in a hopeless, almost indefensible situation and pushed the country closer to war.

As Buchanan said in my quote above, Anderson's move was "against my orders." I'll take Buchanan's word for it.

[Lmo56]

No Court has agreed with your opininon and one court has directly disagreed.

1. The Ankeny case was in State Court - NOT the USSC. State Court decisions do not constitutional law make.

2. The USSC in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases clearly had the opinion that children of foreigners were excluded from citizenship. The child's nationality followed the father [women did not count back then since their nationality followed the husband at that time].

3. The USSC had the opposite opinion in the 1898 Ark Case. In Ark, it was of the opinion that all children born in the United States were [at least] citizens - BUT it DID NOT go so far as to declare them to be natural-born.

4. Point being that NO USSC decision has DIRECTLY affirmed the basis of natural-born citizenship. In every case, they punted the question. Specifically, in the Ark Case, the USSC formed the opinion [called dicta] that it thought ALL children born within the United States were natural-born [regardless of heritage]. BUT, it POINTEDLY NOTED that its decision was based SOLELY on the 14th Amendment and that the question of natural-born citizenship WAS NOT addressed. It MERELY declared Ark to be a citizen.

5. BTW, dicta is merely an observation and DOES NOT form the basis of the opinion and IS NOT binding.

[bushpilot1]

Obama requires 50 pages of argument in WKA to show he is a citizen if born in Hawaii. This is a citizen not a natural born citizen.

Someone who needs 50 pages to show he is a citizen....cannot be a natural born citizen.

[Beckwith]

Children born overseas of two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens, as the law states.

OH? Now you're stooped to making stuff up. Nowhere in the statutes I presented is ther word "NATURAL" even used.

The controlling authority is the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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;

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Moving to Sumter did result in a hopeless conflict to defend the fort, a violation of Buchanan's instructions.

Absolute nonsense.

[PeaRidge]

You were asked by bushpilot1 to “produce the treaty or agreement allowing Federal troops to occupy the fort in South Carolina, CSA”.

Instead you post a red herring.

When I called you on it, you went into elaborate detail as if it mattered, but really to cover your incompetence and canard style postings.

Then you resort to insults, instead of facts.

Rustbucket gave you the lesson you should learn and live with.

Why don't you put on your big boy pants and move on.

[antisocial]

lol That was a good one!

[jamese777]

Obama requires 50 pages of argument in WKA to show he is a citizen if born in Hawaii. This is a citizen not a natural born citizen.

Someone who needs 50 pages to show he is a citizen....cannot be a natural born citizen.

---

Under the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, there are only two kinds of American citizens: “Citizens of the United States at birth” and “naturalized citizens.” The first two words of the citizenship clause are: “ALL PERSONS...” The word “all” does not encompass any exceptions and certainly includes persons running for or assuming the office of the presidency.

“Citizens at birth” and “natural born citizens” are synonymous terms: one is from the 18th century, the other from the 20th century.

If what I’m saying was untrue, some court would have ruled against my interpretation of the law by now. No court has ruled against what I am saying, in 85 attempts including 8 appeals heard at cert conferences at the Supreme Court of the United States.

On Monday we should all know about the outcome of the 9th attempt to get the Justices to take up this issue with specific regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be President.

[jamese777]

1. The Ankeny case was in State Court - NOT the USSC. State Court decisions do not constitutional law make.

---

The United States conducts its presidential elections on a state by state basis with each state having electoral votes. If Indiana had invalidated Obama’s electoral college votes on the legal basis that he was ineligible to receive them, a legal cascade of other states doing the same thing would have ensued. A majority of the 85 Obama eligibility lawsuits that have been filed began in a state, county or municipal court.

---

2. The USSC in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases clearly had the opinion that children of foreigners were excluded from citizenship. The child’s nationality followed the father [women did not count back then since their nationality followed the husband at that time].

---

The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in US v Wong Kim Ark is “stare decisis”. In Wong, the Court stated: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes, at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.” — US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

---

3. The USSC had the opposite opinion in the 1898 Ark Case. In Ark, it was of the opinion that all children born in the United States were [at least] citizens - BUT it DID NOT go so far as to declare them to be natural-born.

---

The semantic distinction between a “citizen at birth” and a “natural born citizen” is irrelevant.

---

4. Point being that NO USSC decision has DIRECTLY affirmed the basis of natural-born citizenship. In every case, they punted the question. Specifically, in the Ark Case, the USSC formed the opinion [called dicta] that it thought ALL children born within the United States were natural-born [regardless of heritage]. BUT, it POINTEDLY NOTED that its decision was based SOLELY on the 14th Amendment and that the question of natural-born citizenship WAS NOT addressed. It MERELY declared Ark to be a citizen.

---

We will know on Monday whether the latest attempt to create a consitutional redefinition or refinement in any possible distinction between a citizen of the United States at birth and a natural born citizen has any judicial/constitutional legs.
Since the 3rd US Court of Appeals called Kerchner v Obama “frivolous” and assessed court costs against the plaintiffs/plaintiffs’ attorneys for filing a “frivolous” appeal and asked the plaintiffs’ attorney to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing a “frivolous” appeal, I’m not expecting much to occur on Monday.

---

5. BTW, dicta is merely an observation and DOES NOT form the basis of the opinion and IS NOT binding.

---

“dicta” in an opinion of the US Supreme Court usually doesn’t follow the words “...this court is of the opinion...” The quotation from the decision that I posted above WAS the actual HOLDING of the Court. It was NOT dicta.

[Non-Sequitur]

You were asked by bushpilot1 to “produce the treaty or agreement allowing Federal troops to occupy the fort in South Carolina, CSA”.

I posted the act of the South Carolina legislature that gave sole legal claim to Sumter and the property it was on to the federal government. Perhaps it might prove your point if you and bushpilot could point to the treaty or agreement or legislation which legally changed ownership from the federal government back to the state of South Carolina?

When I called you on it, you went into elaborate detail as if it mattered, but really to cover your incompetence and canard style postings.

Called me on it? You claim that Sumter belonged to South Carolina because you say it did. You offer not a single scrap of evidence supporting your claim that Sumter was being illegally occupied by Anderson and his federal troops. Let's start with that, shall we? Surely someone as competent as you claim to be can answer that.

Why don't you put on your big boy pants and move on.

Because someone might wander along and come to the mistaken conclusion that you knew what you were talking about. We can't have that, now can we?

[jamese777]

Obama requires 50 pages of argument in WKA to show he is a citizen if born in Hawaii. This is a citizen not a natural born citizen.

Someone who needs 50 pages to show he is a citizen....cannot be a natural born citizen.

---

Except for the fact that Obama has offered NO defense at all in any of the appeals questioning his eligibility that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States, you’d have a point.

[bushpilot1]

“Lets buy the fort.” Thompson

[antisocial]

“They won’t touch it because the Constitution explicitly leaves that prerogative to Congress.”

The SC gave themselves the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Congress has not taken that right away from them.

[jamese777]

The SC gave themselves the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Congress has not taken that right away from them.

---

However in the specific instance of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, the Supreme Court has already refused to get involved in any of eight previous appeals: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz. The Justices also refused to intercede in the $20,000 in sanctions imposed on Orly Taitz in Rhodes v MacDonald. Ms. Taitz specifically asked Justices Thomas and Alito to stay her sanctions, they refused, as did the Court.

It appears that a majority of the Court agree with the opinion of US District Court Judge David O. Carter who stated in his opinion on an Obama eligibility lawsuit:
“There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al.” October 29, 2009

[Non-Sequitur]

“Lets buy the fort.” Thompson

But they didn't buy the fort, did they?

[bushpilot1]

“Lets buy the fort.” Thompson

“But they didn’t buy the fort, did they?” NS

Who did not buy the fort? Please explain who is they.

[Non-Sequitur]

Who did not buy the fort? Please explain who is they.

South Carolina or the confederacy. They didn't pay for anything they stole.