Why the Supreme Court has been compelled to hold a new hearing on Obama’s eligibility.

HillBuzz ^ | February 17,2011 | Kevin DuJan

[Kenny Bunk]

Hemenway did not go the Quo warranto route.

Perkins Coie has been brilliant in keeping this from court in a number of cases. The upcoming conference, once again, seems not about the case on its merits, but rather about Hemenway's motion, then request, for recusal of Kagan and Sotomayor. Be interesting to see what they let in.

The SOTUS has become a bit of a tap-dancing team over this issue. Not pretty.

[jamese777]

Hemenway did not go the Quo warranto route.
Perkins Coie has been brilliant in keeping this from court in a number of cases. The upcoming conference, once again, seems not about the case on its merits, but rather about Hemenway’s motion, then request, for recusal of Kagan and Sotomayor. Be interesting to see what they let in.

The SOTUS has become a bit of a tap-dancing team over this issue. Not pretty.

---

Obama was represented by private attorneys in 3 lawsuits challenging his eligibility: Berg v Obama, Keyes v Bowen in California and this case, Hollister v Soetoro. In nine others, the US Justice Department represented Obama. It doesn’t take any particular legal “brilliance” to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. That’s standard operating proceedure in any lawsuit. When John McCain and the Republican National Committee were being sued in New Hampshire on the grounds that McCain was ineligible for being born in Panama, his lawyers and the Republican Party’s lawyers had the lawsuit thrown out for lack of standing. Neither Obama nor the Justice Department has submitted a brief in any of the appeals at the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was “Hollander v McCain and the RNC”
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php

Since no Obama eligibility lawsuit has ever gone to trial, the extent of private attorney/Justice Department Attorneys work on Obama’s behalf has been limited to submitting briefs moving for dismissal.

There has only been one quo warranto claim filed in the DC District Court: “Taitz v Obama” which was dismissed on the grounds that Taitz lacked standing to bring quo warranto.

It is true that the Supreme Court is considering the Hollister v Soetoro motion to recuse in the new March 4 conference but that motion is based on a false legal premise, that if Sotomayor and Kagan were to recuse themselves that the Supreme Court’s tradition of “the rule of four” would magically morph into “the rule of three.” There is no “rule of three” and there never has been. It takes FOUR Justices to agree to hear an appeal and both Sotomayor and Kagan are irrelevant to getting four Justices to agree to take on Obama’s eligibility. ONLY the Justices appointed by Republican presidents are needed: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

It doesn’t take the slightest bit of “tap dancing” to affirm a lower court’s ruling on standing when those who have challeged Obama have failed scores of times to present plaintiffs who meet the consitutional standard of Article III standing, the most important of which is “immediate and direct harm” from the action of the defendant.
If John Mccain, Sarah Palin or the Republican National Commmittee were to be the plaintiff suing Obama as the only other persons/entity to receive Electoral College votes and have a chance to be elected, then a lawsuit could have gone forward.

The role of the Supreme Court is often misunderstood by many in ruling on the constitutionality of lower court decisions. The ONLY issue that has been before the High Court in Obama eligiblity appeals has been did the lower court (usually the US Circuit Court of Appeals) err in not granting standing to the plaintiffs. If the Supreme Court accepted one of these appeals and ruled favorably for a plaintiff, that would only send the case back to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits with the plaintiff being granted standing to sue.

An actual decision at the Appeals Court level that Obama was eligible would be needed in order for the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and rule him ineligible. Thus far, there’s been nothing but dismissals to reverse and none of them have been reversed.

[jamese777]

Add two words. “Right away.” The mills of the courts grind slow, but exceedingly fine. But our team has emotionally tied our thoughts on this to Obama/Soetoro. The issue goes far beyond him.

In reality, this issue may not reach the courts until long after Obama is gone. But the questions must be answered, both in regard to Article II, and Amendment 14. A significant portion of the voters believes Obama/Soetoro to be ineligible. It is a grievance that must be addressed, even if not redressed.

Even if eligibility is not a concern of a majority of the voters, any uncertainty weakens the office. That is a danger to the Republic.

---

The Republic survived 13 states seceding and 600,000 Americans killed by other Americans. We survived Bush v Gore, I think we’ll survive where a president was born and where his parents were born.

“It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).

“The state of Hawaii says that the president was born there. That’s good enough for me.” John Boehner, Speaker of the House (R-OH).

“It’s(the Obama eligibility issue) distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.”—Sarah Palin

[jamese777]

james, did you even read what the court said and how it described Vattel?? This was pure and perhaps intentional stupidity. “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.” We know the SCOTUS has frequently and authoritively cited the Law of Nations. It’s not a random, irrelvant ‘treatise.’ Second, the court blows off the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as “quotations of Members of Congress.” John Marshall is rolling over in his grave and passing wind at the Indiana appeals court.

---

Poor John Marshall is “rolling over in his grave” for every decision that goes against what any plaintiff and their supporters were hoping for.

Since the Roberts Court has denied all Obama eligibility appeals without comment, it is obvious that references to de Vattel and the Law of Nations in current Obama eligibility Petitions for Writs of Certiorari has carried no weight in influncing any four of the Justices that are required to hear an appeal.

American law is not based on the legal opinions of a Swiss citizen who never set foot in our nation. Natural born American citizens have always been capable of writing our own laws.

[edge919]

Poor John Marshall is “rolling over in his grave” for every decision that goes against what any plaintiff and their supporters were hoping for.

We're only discussing one decision and some specific, yet stupid quotes. What part of that do you not understand??

Since the Roberts Court has denied all Obama eligibility appeals without comment, it is obvious that references to de Vattel and the Law of Nations in current Obama eligibility Petitions for Writs of Certiorari has carried no weight in influncing any four of the Justices that are required to hear an appeal.

Again, we're talking about the Indiana appeals court decision. Let's focus.

American law is not based on the legal opinions of a Swiss citizen who never set foot in our nation. Natural born American citizens have always been capable of writing our own laws.

Vattel's influence on the founders and the SCOTUS has been documented plenty of times. Are you really going to play the stupid game??

[EDINVA]

I’m not too sure how brilliant Perkins Coie has been vs. the courts not wanting to touch this one with a ten foot pole. All the P-C lawyers have had to do is basically nothing. Let the courts do the work for them.

In this case, the judge at the district level had a very clear prejudice in favor of Obama. This was, finally, HIS kind of POTUS, after 8 long, miserable years of Bush. In early 2009, Obama was perceived as walking on water, so the judge could say/do anything he wanted that favored Obama. The wind was at their backs. 2011 is another year, with some record now behind Obama and maybe his having shown feet of clay.

The original attorney was Berg and the judge could not have been more contemptuous of him, but since Berg wasn’t a member of HIS court, the judge took out his venom on Hemenway. Eventually Hollister chose to go with Hemenway and dropped Berg (good move).

Hemenway and his team are no Orly Taitz, who really did a helluva lot of (incalculable) damage to this entire question. This WH couldn’t have asked for a better ‘face’ for the eligibility question than her. Sorry, I originally admired her passion, but she f’d it up royally with incompetence and showboating.

I think SCOTUS has to consider both, the recusal motion and the petition as originally filed, with updated information i.e., the whole Abercrombie matter and, oops, no BC on record in HI, just notes.

Who knows what they will do?

[jamese777]

One trick ponies.

So, apparently your position is:

IF, as many believe, there are unique and unprecendented notable irregularities with the history and possible Constitutional eligibility of Barry Barack Dunham Hussien Soetoro Obama,

and whether cowardice/inertia/intimidation is preventing a govt body, court/Congress/DOJ, etc., with the authority to refrain from seeking answers to said possible irregularities to verify that our Constitution and the rule of law are intact and preserved in the man holding the office of world’s most powerful leader ..

that’s acceptable to you?

Especially now, with this country and the world on fire, with anarchy threatening and America and our freedoms being destroyed more every day by this alien occupier ?

And you’ll just spend your endless wind here, doing nothing more than countering any research offered here to seek possible clues and answers to this monstrous and despicable puzzle that threatens the very survival of America as we know it ?

Are you also sympatico with the Wisconsin legislators who ran out of state, white stripes on their cowardly backs, evading and shamefully abrogating their honorable civic engagement, mocking those with righteous intent and honor to their country, because it was easier to run and fling lies and mockery than deal with an uncomfortable showdown ?

That there may be no govt authority or official with the courage to get these answers does not invalidate the actual facts of the TRUTH. The truth just IS, whatever it is. As Americans, it is our right to have it, our solemn obligation to seek it.

God forbid I should ever have to occupy a foxhole with you.

---

You could be right. And that’s why I am constantly advocating for a Grand Jury investigation or a congressional committee investigation as the best alternative to get to the bottom of the issue once and for all.

But there is also the possibility that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii and the citizenship of his father is irrelevant because his mother was born in Kansas and her side of the family goes back four generations as American citizens.
“We conclude that persons born within the boundaries of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana, November 12, 2009

I think that the United States of America is still the best place on earth to have divergent opinions on issues respected and expressed so that the court of public opinion can make the ultimate determination.

[jamese777]

We’re only discussing one decision and some specific, yet stupid quotes. What part of that do you not understand??

Again, we’re talking about the Indiana appeals court decision. Let’s focus.

Vattel’s influence on the founders and the SCOTUS has been documented plenty of times. Are you really going to play the stupid game??

---

Can you quote or link me to any Supreme Court decision on natural born citizen status that cites de Vattel?
The following is from the Wikipedia entry on “Natural Born Citizen:”
A 1797 (10 years after the Constitution was ratified) English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel states the requirements to be “Natural Born Citizens” as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Known to have been read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, informing their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

This quote reflects the citizenship laws of Vattel’s native Switzerland; two paragraphs later, he notes that “...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” This reading of “natural-born” is more applicable to US law, which is generally founded on English common law.

[Godebert]

Your argument is flawed. Why did the founders change the presidential eligibility from born Citizen to natural born Citizen?

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military.

This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements.

John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel's codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a "strong check" against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a "natural born Citizen". Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a "born Citizen" was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., 'natural'. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one's parents via natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay's letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a "born Citizen" of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

See a transcription of Jay's letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Obama is a Fraud and Jamese777 is a liberal troll

[little jeremiah]

MR posted nothing but fluff until he started posting on the eligibility threads. Stupid fluff. And about 1000 comments a year, or less. Then, he all of a sudden dropped the fluff and zeroed in on these threads.

Odd, very odd.

[little jeremiah]

Red Steel may have methods of doing google/etc searches to find comments on FR.

He’s explained stuff to me but being the dummie I am, I can’t remember exactly.

[mojitojoe]

I seriously doubt either of them would ever have the courage and patriotism to serve, so finding either of those slugs in a foxhole are slim. Mom’s basement, much more likely.

[mojitojoe]

Oh thanks, I’m so glad you let us all know what the founders intent was. I’m sure they wanted illegals to come here, pop out babies so they would be eligible. Give ma a break. That flies in the face of reality. Why is ONLY the president held to the standard “NATURAL born”? DIVIDED LOYALTIES! THAT is what they were concerned about and now it has happened. It’s obvious that Obongo hates the UK and we all know why. One of the first things he did was send the bust of Churvhill back. Why do you think he did that?

[mojitojoe]

Jamese777 is a liberal troll
_______________
Here and all over the internet, this troll works tirelessly to counter any BC issues.

[Mr Rogers]

“I’m so glad you let us all know what the founders intent was. I’m sure they wanted illegals to come here, pop out babies so they would be eligible. “

Not me, the US Supreme Court. And the children of illegals would NOT be eligible, since their parents were not here “in amity” with our government.

“It’s obvious that Obongo hates the UK and we all know why. One of the first things he did was send the bust of Churvhill back. Why do you think he did that?”

Hmmm...but I thought his UK citizenship - according to the birthers - makes him loyal TO the UK, and thus ineligible? Which is it?

[mojitojoe]

Hmmm...but I thought his UK citizenship - according to the birthers - makes him loyal TO the UK, and thus ineligible? Which is it?
_____________________

Apparently you aren’t keeping up. He hates the UK and if you don’t know the reason then you are so far behind that I’ll let you do the research.

Start here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287828/Revealed-Why-President-Obama-loathes-British.html

http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+obama+hates+the+uk&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

[mojitojoe]

Also, did it ever occur to you that this is one reason he does despise them. They are a thorn in his side due to his supposed father being a subject of Great Britain?

His own web site carried an admission that his birth status
was governed by Great Britain.

At the time of his birth, he was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii, IF he was born in Hawaii and IF Stanley is really his mother, which I have my doubts since she dumped her first born child on her parents)) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Citizen is NOT the same as NATURAL BORN citizen. Why is NATURAL BORN only used when speaking of the President. It must have had a different meaning, a different standard.

[little jeremiah]

Watch your mouth, troll.

[Kenny Bunk]

I have no doubt that the Republic will survive Obama.

However, I think that a large number of citizens who believe he is holding the office illegitimately, inevitably weakens the office. That's not a good thing.

I have no idea how many citizens feel this way, but I think the number is substantial enough to have their concerns officially addressed. If their POV gets officially blown away, so be it.

A fundamental right of Americans is to petition the government for redress of grievances. A fundamental obligation of government is to do so. While your presentations are forceful and realistic, it is not the same thing as a court hearing the case on its merits and issuing a ruling. And the same goes for John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Sarah Coulter, the MSM, etc., in fact, every elected Republican I have queried on the matter!

I think we’ll survive where a president was born and where his parents were born.

Yes we will. Should a future candidate present the same bona fides as Obama, there has to be a much clearer path toward either validation or rejection of that candidate's constitutional eligibility.

At the moment, you have done yeoman work in telling us what is. We have replied by telling you what we think should be. That, is the point in constitutional government, where our institutions should step in and tell us who is right, who is wrong, why, and exactly what should be done about it. That process is what's missing.

[Mr Rogers]

I have repeatedly told birthers that Obama hates the UK. THEY tell me he has divided loyalties between the US & UK. Which is it?

Nor can another country force citizenship upon you. Obama has never tried to get a UK passport, nor to become a citizen of Kenya...so he is NOT a citizen of either in the eyes of our law.