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

HillBuzz ^ | February 17,2011 | Kevin DuJan

[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.

[Fred Nerks]

Interesting comment below, if you read between the lines, it looks like dear old ‘Granny’ was probably telling a lie...and we will probably never know what it was that Onyango Obama did that landed him in jail...

Mau Mau
More Obama and the Churchill Bust
6 March 2009

in In the News

Thanks for the amus­ing “Obama, Cal­houn and the Churchill Bust-Out.” What do you say how­ever about the Daily Telegraph’s spec­u­la­tion that Obama’s rejec­tion of Churchill was based on the British jail­ing and tor­ture of his grand­fa­ther, Hus­sein Onyango Obama, between 1949 and 1951, “dur­ing the Mau Mau rebel­lion in Kenya”? —R.P.

---

First, the Daily Tele­graph did not con­nect Obama’s grandfather’s jail­ing with the Mau Mau rebel­lion. The Tele­graph report is very care­ful on this point:

It was dur­ing Churchill’s sec­ond pre­mier­ship that Britain sup­pressed Kenya’s Mau Mau rebel­lion. Among Kenyans allegedly tor­tured by the colo­nial regime included one Hus­sein Onyango Obama, the President’s grandfather.

Pre­sum­ably it will now get round that the President’s grand­fa­ther was a Mau Mau rebel. But Town­hall colum­nist Diana West explodes the whole busi­ness. West explains that the tor­ture alle­ga­tion stems from a blog site, and/or Obama’s “Granny Sarah” (who also claimed that Barack was born in Kenya, which would make him inel­i­gi­ble to be Pres­i­dent). West continues:

In his Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his grandfather’s deten­tion as last­ing “over six months” before he was found inno­cent (no men­tion of tor­ture). What­ever the case, Churchill didn’t become prime min­is­ter for the sec­ond time until the end of 1951. The Mau Mau Rebel­lion didn’t begin until the end of 1952, one year after Obama’s grandfather’s release.

Mr. Obama, an intel­li­gent man, prob­a­bly appre­ci­ates that the Par­lia­men­tary forms finally emerg­ing in Kenya stem from the colo­nial British, as they do in much of the old Empire, notably India and what Churchill called the “Great Domin­ions.” To para­phrase Mark Steyn (whose bust will prob­a­bly never adorn the President’s office either), imag­ine how Kenya might have devel­oped if it had been col­o­nized by, say, the Ger­mans, Japan­ese or Russians.

http://richardlangworth.com/tag/mau-mau/

[bushpilot1]

posting for later reference. naturale-gecynde

1 With the expressions used about the succession of Eadward compare the still stronger expressions used by Florence about the succession of Eadred in 946; “Proximus heeres Edredus, fratri succedens, regnum naturale [gecynde] suscepit.” Yet Eadmund left two sons, both of whom afterwards reigned.

[wintertime]

Despite trying to avoid the issue the SCOTUS will have to hear it sooner or later.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why would they “have to hear it”? I pray that you are right, but I don’t get why they would “have to hear it”?

[edge919]

Can you quote or link me to any Supreme Court decision on natural born citizen status that cites de Vattel?

No problem. The dissent in the Wong Kim Ark decision cites Vattel:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

This same definition in the dissent is matched nearly verbatim by the majority opinions in Minor V. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. I've underlined all the matching portions of the defintions to prove the point.

... all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Justice Gray explained further that those persons who fit this definition were excluded from the 14th amendment by the Supreme Court.

... the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...

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.”

Sorry, james, but you're simultaneously mischaracterizing Vattel's natural born citizenship definition as only applying to Switzerland (which is nonsense, since the title of the book is "Law of Nations") and you're undermining the faither NBC argument by showing that the common law in England (in reference to children domestically born of aliens) is regarded as an act of naturalization (which I underlined in your quote above).

[Kenny Bunk]

In this battle to establish or re-establish the constitutional eligibility rules for Presidential candidates, the Leftists are not the real problem.

The problem is that the Establishment GOP and the RINOS in elected office on the local, state, and federal level are monolithic in their entrenched positions against those questioning the eligibility of Barack Obama to have run for, and occupy the office of POTUS.

With the exception of a few state legislators who have loudly promised, although not delivered, to enact eligibility legislation at the state level, not one Republican Congressman, not one Senator, not one governor, not one state AG has uttered a word of support to us. Can you not imagine how much farther down the road we would be with one nationally recognized elected Republican on our side? The Leftists have pulled off an anti-constitutional coup and the Republicans remain silent.

If I had a dollar for every elected Republican who has uttered the "Born in Hawaii" mantra, Freerepublic would never have another fundraiser. I have not heard one (1)elected Republican even approach the "Natural Born Citizen" issue. On the talk radio side, an almost unbroken wall of silence. Mark Levin wrote a book about the Constitution, but he has no commentary on Article II. Since he also wrote a book about his dog, I must assume his dog ate Article II from his copy of he COTUS. But he is not alone. The powerful Limbaugh? a few jibes about the birth certificate brouhahah. About NBC, precisely nothing. Hannity? Nothing. O'Reilly (who is an operative of the Democrat Party) mockery. Coulter? Ditto. That, by the cold light of dawn, is where we are with this.

Those who disagree with us from the left, no matter what their motives, are at least open about it. It is IMHO, tragic that those who should agree with us about a traditional interpretation of Article II are hostile at best, and work against us at worst.

Given the above, it is nothing short of miraculous that the legal efforts we support have gotten this far. Through Attorney Hemenway, the issue is once again at least in conference at the SCOTUS. That tells me we are closer to having our grievance at least addressed in the right venue.

We have moved the issue from nowhere to somewhere, with NO support from our political party and those whom we have elected to represent us.

[little jeremiah]

As my Aussie and NZ friends say, “Too right”.

[jamese777]

In this battle to establish or re-establish the constitutional eligibility rules for Presidential candidates, the Leftists are not the real problem.
The problem is that the Establishment GOP and the RINOS in elected office on the local, state, and federal level are monolithic in their entrenched positions against those questioning the eligibility of Barack Obama to have run for, and occupy the office of POTUS.

With the exception of a few state legislators who have loudly promised, although not delivered, to enact eligibility legislation at the state level, not one Republican Congressman, not one Senator, not one governor, not one state AG has uttered a word of support to us. Can you not imagine how much farther down the road we would be with one nationally recognized elected Republican on our side? The Leftists have pulled off an anti-constitutional coup and the Republicans remain silent.

If I had a dollar for every elected Republican who has uttered the “Born in Hawaii” mantra, Freerepublic would never have another fundraiser. I have not heard one (1)elected Republican even approach the “Natural Born Citizen” issue. On the talk radio side, an almost unbroken wall of silence. Mark Levin wrote a book about the Constitution, but he has no commentary on Article II. Since he also wrote a book about his dog, I must assume his dog ate Article II from his copy of he COTUS. But he is not alone. The powerful Limbaugh? a few jibes about the birth certificate brouhahah. About NBC, precisely nothing. Hannity? Nothing. O’Reilly (who is an operative of the Democrat Party) mockery. Coulter? Ditto. That, by the cold light of dawn, is where we are with this.

Those who disagree with us from the left, no matter what their motives, are at least open about it. It is IMHO, tragic that those who should agree with us about a traditional interpretation of Article II are hostile at best, and work against us at worst.

Given the above, it is nothing short of miraculous that the legal efforts we support have gotten this far. Through Attorney Hemenway, the issue is once again at least in conference at the SCOTUS. That tells me we are closer to having our grievance at least addressed in the right venue.

We have moved the issue from nowhere to somewhere, with NO support from our political party and those whom we have elected to represent us.

---

The Republicans are tolerating the birthers in order to keep them voting Republican and not for an Independent or Third Party candidate.
Obama hopes to “divide and conquer” on the eligibility issue by forcing elected national Republicans to take a stand on the issue and hoping that alot of them will alienate the “birthers.” Thus far, Obama’s been successful.

[jamese777]

No problem. The dissent in the Wong Kim Ark decision cites Vattel:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

This same definition in the dissent is matched nearly verbatim by the majority opinions in Minor V. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. I’ve underlined all the matching portions of the defintions to prove the point.

... all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...
Justice Gray explained further that those persons who fit this definition were excluded from the 14th amendment by the Supreme Court.

... the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
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.”
Sorry, james, but you’re simultaneously mischaracterizing Vattel’s natural born citizenship definition as only applying to Switzerland (which is nonsense, since the title of the book is “Law of Nations”) and you’re undermining the faither NBC argument by showing that the common law in England (in reference to children domestically born of aliens) is regarded as an act of naturalization (which I underlined in your quote above).

---

Thanks.
Vattel’s Law of Nations then has never been used by the Supreme Court in a decision on presidential eligiblity under Article II, Section 1 as legal justification for the position that two American citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. I guess that’s why Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th President of the United States for more than two years now.

---

I didn’t mischaracterize anything. The Wikipedia entry pointed out that Switzerland is a nation that required two citizen parents for citizenship and that Vattel was Swiss.

In the Law of Nations, Vattel himself acknowledged that different nations have different traditions on jus soli and jus sanguinis. His bottom line was the law of each nation should be respected. HIS opinion though was definitely that two citizen parents were required in order to be a natural born citizen.

[jamese777]

No problem. The dissent in the Wong Kim Ark decision cites Vattel:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

This same definition in the dissent is matched nearly verbatim by the majority opinions in Minor V. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. I’ve underlined all the matching portions of the defintions to prove the point.

... all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...
Justice Gray explained further that those persons who fit this definition were excluded from the 14th amendment by the Supreme Court.

... the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
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.”
Sorry, james, but you’re simultaneously mischaracterizing Vattel’s natural born citizenship definition as only applying to Switzerland (which is nonsense, since the title of the book is “Law of Nations”) and you’re undermining the faither NBC argument by showing that the common law in England (in reference to children domestically born of aliens) is regarded as an act of naturalization (which I underlined in your quote above).

---

Thanks.
Vattel’s Law of Nations then has never been used by the Supreme Court in a decision on presidential eligiblity under Article II, Section 1 as legal justification for the position that two American citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. I guess that’s why Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th President of the United States for more than two years now.

---

I didn’t mischaracterize anything. The Wikipedia entry pointed out that Switzerland is a nation that required two citizen parents for citizenship and that Vattel was Swiss.

In the Law of Nations, Vattel himself acknowledged that different nations have different traditions on jus soli and jus sanguinis. His bottom line was the law of each nation should be respected. HIS opinion though was definitely that two citizen parents were required in order to be a natural born citizen.

[jamese777]

Nope. You must submit, or you join the traitorous ranks of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and others...RINOs!

< / sarcasm >

---

But most likely, they’re all peregrines so they don’t really count. Suddenly we’ve all gone through a time vortex back to Rome circa 50 BCE.

[Beckwith]

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DividedLoyalties.htm

[Mr Rogers]

“If I had a dollar for every elected Republican who has uttered the “Born in Hawaii” mantra, Freerepublic would never have another fundraiser. I have not heard one (1)elected Republican even approach the “Natural Born Citizen” issue. On the talk radio side, an almost unbroken wall of silence. Mark Levin wrote a book about the Constitution, but he has no commentary on Article II. Since he also wrote a book about his dog, I must assume his dog ate Article II from his copy of he COTUS. But he is not alone. The powerful Limbaugh? a few jibes about the birth certificate brouhahah. About NBC, precisely nothing. Hannity? Nothing. O’Reilly (who is an operative of the Democrat Party) mockery. Coulter? Ditto. That, by the cold light of dawn, is where we are with this.”

Yes, it is lonely when you are the only honest defenders of the Constitution and the American way of life. After all, conservatism has long argued the value of Vattel. Why, I remember Buckley talking about him...

OR, OR, OR - you are simply WRONG about what the Constitution says. Even Vattel didn’t say ‘natural born citizen’ until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written! The phrase, at the time the Constitution was written, had an established legal meaning. Until you think about what the Founders wrote, instead of pretending they wrote something else, you will continue to be lonely.

“With the exception of a few state legislators who have loudly promised, although not delivered, to enact eligibility legislation at the state level, not one Republican Congressman, not one Senator, not one governor, not one state AG has uttered a word of support to us.”

And you can’t imagine why? The only reason you can come up with is that EVERYONE is a traitor?

There is a lady near where I live who keeps buying and selling horses. She buys a good horse, rides it a while, decides it is poorly trained and disobedient, and sells it - and then buys another. As our farrier says, “After the 3rd horse, you’d think she realize the problem isn’t the horse but the rider!”

Maybe the problem isn’t with the GOP & talk radio, but with birthers?

[Mr Rogers]

Ah....so you agree. Obama does NOT have any loyalty to the UK. Glad to hear that ‘divided loyalty’ stuff has been cleared up!

[Godebert]

Why did the Founding Fathers change the presidential eligibility requirement from born Citizen to natural born Citizen?

[Kenny Bunk]

Cruel. But actually somewhat fair.

So I have a suggestion. Since there are divergent points of view on this matter (NSS), since the legal steps that can be taken are being taken, and since it is unlikely that these legal steps will bear fruit at anytime soon, perhaps we ought to concentrate more on the activities of those we have managed to elect. 2011 and 2012 can see no change in the major power ratios of the various branches of government, so our job becomes not Obama Removal, it is Obama Containment until 2012, and selection of his replacement by election, even if he decides not to run.

In the meantime, those of us who wish the constitutional matter ruled upon must support the BETTER legal teams attempting this difficult task in any way we can, including financially. The objectives are: having the case heard on its merits, getting Col. Lakin out of jail, and figuring out exactly who our POTUS is in a legal manner that will convince others, at the very least, to consider not voting for him or those who support him. Again, IMHO, it is miraculous that we are in Supreme court conference ...again ... with the whole world against us. We have a great shot. But in the meantime, there's a country to run.

The POVs expressed by Jamese and Mr. Rogers, in my mind anyway, do not express support for Obama. They are a realistic look into the beliefs behind successful strategies the other side (aka The Dark Side)has used to keep the constitutional issues off the legal table so far, and so are most useful.

The country has been dealt a very bad hand, and so have we. We have to play it smarter. We lose the next two years, the country loses.

[Mr Rogers]

A very fair summary.

I fully support state laws to require candidates to produce birth certificates, etc. I also support laws requiring candidates to release their education records and any military records, or perhaps to say that such records shall not be considered private by any government agency. Just as a person running for public office loses a lot of protection from libel, he ought to lose the right to keep educational records private.

[EDINVA]

I donated here, to the team representing Hollister:

http://constitutionalruleoflawfund.org/about/default.html

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2675406/posts
and http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897

It’s not the most sophisticated website; guess they’re better lawyers than webmasters.

[wintertime]

so our job becomes not Obama Removal,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Removal of Obama has **NEVER** been my motivation. Defense of the rule of law and the Constitution is.

Without the rule of law and a Constitution we will soon be looking at firing squads, death camps, and ovens. ( I seriously mean it.)

What could possibly be more fundamental than defense of the rule of law and the Constitution? Huh?

If Obama is a legitimate natural born citizen then he has every right to occupy the White House.

[mojitojoe]

The Founders COULD have written “born of citizens” instead of “natural born citizen”, but they did not.
_______________________
Well, then he wouldn’t be eligible since his ‘supposed’ father was NOT a citizen.

[mojitojoe]

No, YOU are the idiot. Romneybot.

• Six reasons to vote for John McCain
Friday, April 25, 2008 11:32:55 PM • 167 of 276
Mr Rogers to SoCalPol
I’ve got 25 years in the military, and I’m not voting McCain. Guess I hate myself...
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies

• ‘Where’s Mitt?’
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:25:09 AM • 44 of 289
Mr Rogers to ladyjane
It isn’t his religion or money. It is the fact that he ran for Gov as a ‘Ted Kennedy Republican’ and then ran for Pres as ‘Mr Conservative’.
Some of us like our candidates to have beliefs.
BTW - I voted for Mitt in hopes of stopping McCain. I think a Mitt/Sarah ticket in 2008 would have been pretty strong. A Palin/Mitt ticket in 2012 might do OK.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies