Posted on 02/17/2011 8:31:53 PM PST by dalight
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new “conference” on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency.
Let’s research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name “Barack Hussein Obama” on it — since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed “Soetobakh” by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillbuzz.org ...
Here is what is actually the law of the land since the ratification of the 14th Amendment:
“Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth”
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html
______________________________________________________________________
Ok, when the link. The word ‘natural’ is not even there.
It does say who is a ‘born Citizen’. Got that.
But that is only half the equation.
‘natural born Citizen’ = ‘natural Citizen and born Citizen’ in the English language.
So being a ‘born Citizen’ is not enough. The Citizenship must come from nature - as the founders would understand it natural law.
As for your race and feminist baiting - the answer is yes - women and blacks can certainly be a natural born citizen under natural law - it only requires their fathers be citizens at the time of their birth. So if Sarah Palin’s father was a citizen when she was born she is in. Condoleza Rice, in. Barack H. Obama II - not so much.
Son of Brit ain’t legit.
I have seen little mention of historical legal transitions of the United States from British common law to U.S. Constitutional law. This appears to be devoid over the entire web in general. Everyone is trying to understand the meaning of the Constitution without really delving into the catalysts that originally sparked its creation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
But you’ve only supposedly been here on a 15+ year conservative website for under a month! What’s your criteria .. what’s the rush?
Since the spring of 2008, there have been reams of historical and Consitutional information and references posted here on FR regarding the Founders and their intents expressed in the Constitution.
The keyword search is a good tool .. type in the word,
and the default position ‘keywords’ will search that term.
The other options are users, title and yahoo.
‘Founders’ in the keyword search
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/founders/index?tab=articles
Plus, you can go to the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) and type in any website, and go back in time. This FR front page thread is from 2007, for example:
Bush: Congress like ‘teenager with a credit card’
Baltimore Sun ^ | November 13, 2007 | Mark Silva
Posted on 11/13/2007 9:49:53 AM PST by IrishMike
President Bush, delivering another budget veto to a Democratic-led Congress whose spending he calls out-of-control, accuses leaders of “acting like a teenager with a new credit card.’’
This is one of the promised lines that Bush will deliver at a speech at the Grand Theater in New Albany, Indiana, today, part of a continuing attack on congressional spending. And with it, Bush has vetoed another spending bill, a $150-billion health, education and labor bill which the White House faults for $10 billion in excessive spending and too much “pork.’’
The congressional majority “was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card,’’ Bush plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech released by the Office of Management and Budget. “This year alone, leaders in Congress are proposing to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides.
“Some of them claim this is not really much of a difference – and the scary part is that they seem to mean it,’’ Bush is prepared to say. “Over five years, their proposed spending spree adds up to an extra $205 billion. Put another way, that is about $1,300 in higher spending every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year – for the next five years.’’
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20071113192054/www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse
FR page: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://freerepublic.com
The names of the founders would be good keyword search terms.
FYI - The antennae of long time FReepers who’ve been researching this issue for years are understandably raised when a newbie comes along and is immediately drawn to this issue, of all things on this conservative site.
Good hunting.
I agree that the birth certificate is nothing but a distraction. Its only purpose, if ever produced, would be to ascertain one way or the other where BHO was born.
The real question is before the court in this case, and can be determined only by the SCOTUS: what was the intent of the Framers in inserting the term ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution for the Office of President, and no other?
The Constitution was a very carefully crafted document. “Citizen” status was adequate for every other Constitutional office. But NOT for the Office of President, who serves as Commander in Chief.
I would submit that every literate person in the US and Europe in the late 1700s new exactly what that term meant, and it needed no further elaboration. Unfortunately, with the passage of time, lawyer-types have twisted it to suit their own purposes.
This SCOTUS, or one in the foreseeable future, will have to interpret that phrase once and for all. Hopefully sooner rather than later, before we have to face this question with a massive generation of ‘anchor babies.’
We can only hope there are enough Justices sitting on today’s High Court who take their own Constitutional duties seriously enough to face this tough question.
Well, feel your pain; and do not like this association; but will still keep watching Fox News; as it remains the 'best' of what is offered, out there.
Read Pamela Geller/Atlas Shrugs daily and Jihad Watch and Frontpage Magazine/Real News and IBD and read Caroline Glick/Michelle Malkin and Jerusalem Post and London Telegraph. . .and Breitbart.com as well. And whichever great bloggers come my way; by 'grace' of these sites including of course, Free Republic! Oh, cannot forget, Drudge Report and 'Rush'. . .
Regarding Islamic threat; NO ONE goes there to the extent that Fox News does. Believe this, because do check on other stations as well for 'comparative' stories.
Could they do more? Indeed; as they all could, should, would. . .but do not. (And Glenn Beck could not get a job as janitor on any of Fox News' competition.)
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.Using common sense, one clearly sees Madison was confirming Mr. Smith's citizenship through lineage and birthplace. In the context of this discussion, it does not matter anyway. All Madison has done was reaffirm what is already clearly stated in the 14th Amendment, and it does not define what a Natural Born Citizen is.
... 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; ...The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. ... 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.
OK, so he was politely asked off the Illinois Bar (who knew that outfit was so nit-picky?) and I think it's the denial of alias thing, or maybe the drug use, or the traffic tickets. Let bygones be bygones, as we say in Hawaii, where he was born.
About the father-citizen thing, I just have three things to say to you, "Wong Kim Arc," and that he's not from Hawaii, but Obama (or possibly since the adoption, Soetoro, Sodajerk, Sodaandbourbon, etc) is. By this amendment every child born here to illegal alien parents is by golly a "Natural Born Citizen" and eligible to be President, just as Obama, who was born in Hawaii, is. Trust me on this. I read all the tricky parts of the 14th Amendment and it applies to people born in Hawaii, as our PoTUS obviously was.
God, these "Birther" nuts. Why even Anderson Cooper and Jeffery Toober said they're nuts right on TV, because Obama was born in Hawaii. How could anyone doubt their word? Insane.
Now Ed, get offa this will you. We have money to spend, electric cars to build, High-speed Railroads to construct, Teacher and other government employee Unions to reward. In fact, Ed, if you weren't born in Hawaii, as I know in my heart Obama was, you don't know what you are talking about, so butt out.
Think of the children. Teach them to:
But, maybe you are right. Maybe Free Republic doesn’t want to trot down this path. So for now, I digress.
~~~~~~
I certainly never implied or stated anything close to that
statement. Why would you say such a thing?
Whatever specific years of historical data you’re seeking
would certainly be available online or in libraries.
In saying that there are reams of information and research done here, I didn’t imply any time period, or necessarily data from the 1600’s or any particular years, but the intent and the available documentation some FReepers have uncovered about the Founders and their intent, since our form of govt flows from that.
After all, we’re not a library or encyclopedic reference site, we’re merely a forum on a conservative website with very aware and concerned Americans.
Can’t teach critical thinking. That’s something that needs to be developed by the person.
Y’all can disagree as much as you want, but what you cannot do is get any court any where to pay any attention to your ‘legal’ theories.
Now it COULD be that all the world is insane, and you are the only rational or patriotic people in America. OR, it could be that YOU are nuts...
But you go on believing your conspiracy theories, and that all the courts, all the legislatures and all the folks in Congress are traitors.
Again, the Supreme Court has already said that “natural born citizen” is the American version of “natural born subject” - a legal term that had specific meaning at the time the Constitution was written.
And that meaning INCLUDED the children of alien parents.
The Founders COULD have written “born of citizen parents” - 4 words. Instead, they used 3 words with an established legal meaning - and no, it was NOT Vattel.
Y’all can disagree as much as you want, but what you cannot do is get any court any where to pay any attention to your ‘legal’ theories.
~~~~~~~~
So, you’re now channeling jamese777 ? Profound.
LOL ..
jamese777 said:
Gee, the last time I looked, “settling” was in a PLACE. “Blood” doesn’t settle. Thanks for making my point even stronger.
How exactly does this make your point stronger? Do you understand what ancestry means? Let me summarize.
Ancestry means: One, such as a parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, who precedes another in lineage. If all of Mr. Smith’s ancestors were born in the state, would this not make them citizens of said state?
Once again we can turn to de Vattel for the meaning of this:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
... 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; ...The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. ... 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.
Using common sense, one clearly sees Madison was confirming Mr. Smith’s citizenship through lineage and birthplace. In the context of this discussion, it does not matter anyway. All Madison has done was reaffirm what is already clearly stated in the 14th Amendment, and it does not define what a Natural Born Citizen is.
Since May 22, 1789 until today, has any person been ruled ineligible for the presidency on the basis of “jus sanguinis?”
Can you point us to any law or any US Supreme Court decision that elevates jus sanguinis above jus soli in determining who is a natural born citizen?
Isn’t it true that the first criterion under current US law for who qualifies as a “Citizen of the United States at birth” is: “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;”
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html
As you and I have already discussed with specific regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to receive a state’s Electoral College votes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana that “...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.” [emphasis, mine]
No higher court has reviewed or reversed Ankeny.
The Law of Nations was referenced by the plaintiffs in Ankeny and the Court of Appeals was not swayed by the Swiss professor’s opinions on the law. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark plus English common law at the time of the framing of the constitution were the precedents cited by the Court.
What I’m doing is stating a fact. The Supreme Court has already argued, in 1890, that the meaning of NBC is rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. That makes a lot of sense. The Founders didn’t HAVE to write NBC. They could have used 4 words - born of citizen parents - if they wanted to avoid any confusion with a well known legal phrase.
Since they went ahead and used a common legal term, it seems plausible that THAT was what they meant to do. They weren’t the sort to insert legal phrases into the Constitution by accident.
They also could have used Vattel’s terminology and required the President to be a “native”, but they didn’t do that, either.
So there is good legal reasoning for believing that Obama Sr didn’t disqualify Obama Jr from running for President. The other candidates among the Democrats, and John McCain & Sarah Palin could have made it an issue, but they concluded it wouldn’t hold water. The Supreme Court could have taken a case before Obama was put in office, but they didn’t either. Any Congressman could have objected in writing, but not one out of 535 did so.
So either all the rest of the world, including every state legislature is on the take, and you alone are patriots...OR, your legal case doesn’t cut the mustard. I don’t expect rabid birthers to agree anymore than I expect to convince truthers that 911 was an attack by extremists and not the CIA. But I CAN post info to let lurkers find out that the birther legal case isn’t at all what they claim, and that there are good reasons why no legislature, no Congressman and the courts haven’t sided with the birthers.
What I’m doing is stating a fact. The Supreme Court has already argued, in 1890, that the meaning of NBC is rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. That makes a lot of sense. The Founders didn’t HAVE to write NBC. They could have used 4 words - born of citizen parents - if they wanted to avoid any confusion with a well known legal phrase.
Since they went ahead and used a common legal term, it seems plausible that THAT was what they meant to do. They weren’t the sort to insert legal phrases into the Constitution by accident.
They also could have used Vattel’s terminology and required the President to be a “native”, but they didn’t do that, either.
So there is good legal reasoning for believing that Obama Sr didn’t disqualify Obama Jr from running for President. The other candidates among the Democrats, and John McCain & Sarah Palin could have made it an issue, but they concluded it wouldn’t hold water. The Supreme Court could have taken a case before Obama was put in office, but they didn’t either. Any Congressman could have objected in writing, but not one out of 535 did so.
So either all the rest of the world, including every state legislature is on the take, and you alone are patriots...OR, your legal case doesn’t cut the mustard. I don’t expect rabid birthers to agree anymore than I expect to convince truthers that 911 was an attack by extremists and not the CIA. But I CAN post info to let lurkers find out that the birther legal case isn’t at all what they claim, and that there are good reasons why no legislature, no Congressman and the courts haven’t sided with the birthers.
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.”
Ok, when the link. The word ‘natural’ is not even there.
It does say who is a ‘born Citizen’. Got that.
But that is only half the equation.
‘natural born Citizen’ = ‘natural Citizen and born Citizen’ in the English language.
So being a ‘born Citizen’ is not enough. The Citizenship must come from nature - as the founders would understand it natural law.
As for your race and feminist baiting - the answer is yes - women and blacks can certainly be a natural born citizen under natural law - it only requires their fathers be citizens at the time of their birth. So if Sarah Palin’s father was a citizen when she was born she is in. Condoleza Rice, in. Barack H. Obama II - not so much.
Son of Brit ain’t legit.
Bump!
Since 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there are only two classifications of all American citizens: Born and Naturalized. If you ain’t the one, you are the other.
____________________________________________________________________________
Actually this is wrong (again).
There are two types of Citizenships natural and non-natural. You may be ‘born’ a citizen and be a citizen right out of womb. But if you relied on any positive law made by man to have the citizenship right from birth they you are not a natural citizen.
If you rely on the 14th Amendment you are citizen from the very moment of birth. And thus you are a “born Citizen”. That is you have your Citizenship “from birth”. But you are not a “natural citizen”. As we know “natural Citizens” are citizens from their lineage with their Citizen Father.
See these links. The first one mis-uses the terms (using incorrect hyphens and Capitalization. But it is the best document for showing the correct and accurate meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” used in Article II. The second one is an outstanding post in another forum. It is does a marvelous job of explaining this in detail.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18042838/NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN-THE-MOST-CONCLUSIVE-DEFINITION
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?p=54195
Here are the jewels from this outstanding post:
“Article II “natural born Citizen” is a unique construct that is not defined in English Common law, or U.S. Positive Law, but is defined solely in Natural Law and just declared in the Positive Law at Article II in order to be protected.”
As you can see - Positive Law, the law you keep refering to simply does not apply in order to protect the perversion of the role.
“Whenever there is a foreign father, then the political rights and membership of the children in the mother’s society are in question, and must be adjudicated and secured solely by the Positive Law via statute. Any citizenship or political rights must be defined by statutory authority due to the competing superior Natural Law jurisdiction of the father. The father’s Natural Law jurisdiction is always considered to be the superior controlling jurisdiction and forces the mother to be under the Positive Law jurisdiction for describing or securing any political rights or membership in the mother’s society.”
Since Natural Law is superior to Positive Law there is ALWAYS a problem with a foreign father and loyalty that Positive law can not be relied upon to completely fix. If you have foreign father there is always a concern of loyalty.
“Therefore your place of birth or the status of your mother are irrelevant as long as you have a citizen father.”
“Any loyalties or allegiances that are derived from foreign soil or a foreign mother at birth, are only statutory in nature due to the Positive Law jurisdictions that are controlling in such matters, and so they are not inherited loyalties or allegiances from a citizen father due to the Laws of Nature for the reasons outlined above. “
And for a list of all types of Citizens see here:
http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm
Actually this is wrong (again).
There are two types of Citizenships natural and non-natural. You may be ‘born’ a citizen and be a citizen right out of womb. But if you relied on any positive law made by man to have the citizenship right from birth they you are not a natural citizen.
If you rely on the 14th Amendment you are citizen from the very moment of birth. And thus you are a “born Citizen”. That is you have your Citizenship “from birth”. But you are not a “natural citizen”. As we know “natural Citizens” are citizens from their lineage with their Citizen Father.
See these links. The first one mis-uses the terms (using incorrect hyphens and Capitalization. But it is the best document for showing the correct and accurate meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” used in Article II. The second one is an outstanding post in another forum. It is does a marvelous job of explaining this in detail.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18042838/NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN-THE-MOST-CONCLUSIVE-DEFINITION
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?p=54195
Here are the jewels from this outstanding post:
“Article II “natural born Citizen” is a unique construct that is not defined in English Common law, or U.S. Positive Law, but is defined solely in Natural Law and just declared in the Positive Law at Article II in order to be protected.”
As you can see - Positive Law, the law you keep refering to simply does not apply in order to protect the perversion of the role.
“Whenever there is a foreign father, then the political rights and membership of the children in the mother’s society are in question, and must be adjudicated and secured solely by the Positive Law via statute. Any citizenship or political rights must be defined by statutory authority due to the competing superior Natural Law jurisdiction of the father. The father’s Natural Law jurisdiction is always considered to be the superior controlling jurisdiction and forces the mother to be under the Positive Law jurisdiction for describing or securing any political rights or membership in the mother’s society.”
Since Natural Law is superior to Positive Law there is ALWAYS a problem with a foreign father and loyalty that Positive law can not be relied upon to completely fix. If you have foreign father there is always a concern of loyalty.
“Therefore your place of birth or the status of your mother are irrelevant as long as you have a citizen father.”
“Any loyalties or allegiances that are derived from foreign soil or a foreign mother at birth, are only statutory in nature due to the Positive Law jurisdictions that are controlling in such matters, and so they are not inherited loyalties or allegiances from a citizen father due to the Laws of Nature for the reasons outlined above. “
And for a list of all types of Citizens see here:
http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm
If anything in your post was constitutionally accurate, the US Supreme Court would have issued the requested injunction against Obama being on the ballot in 2008 in Berg v Obama.
They didn’t and they haven’t ruled Obama to be ineligible as a natural born citizen in 12 different appeals.
DENlZEN
A “denizen” is in a middle state between an alien and a natural-born citizen, and although subject to some of the disabilities of the former, is entitled to many of the privileges of the latter. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not, but cannot take by inheritance; for his parent through whom he must claim, being an alien, has no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the child. From a like defect of hereditary blood the issue of a denizen born before denizenation cannot inherit from him, but his issue born after may. McClenaghan v. McClenagban (S. C.) 1 Strob. Eq. 295, 319, 47 Am. Dec 632.
According to the law, the term “natural born” is an inheritable term, not something conferred by birth on the some random piece of soil.
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.