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 ...
Thank you Beckwith. I doubt the moron Rogers will read it. He like his little Barry boy.
Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on... Once again the US Senate sold us out! Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court..... Pull up the Supreme Court's website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer.
It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.
Records of these hearings show Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama. Links to SC docket are: Here, here, here, here, here, and here
Nor does Kenya count, since he cannot even apply for citizenship in Kenya
______________________
Irrelevant. His supposed sire was a Kenyan, he wrote an entire book about dreams of his Kenyan “father”, a “father” that he never even knew.. that he saw once in his entire life. He has visited Kenya several times to see his supposed “family” there. It is the ONLY supposed “family” he has other than his supposed sister and an uncle.
Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant. He cares about Kenya, he just can’t go there. You know, the old skeletons in the closet stuff. Too many big mouths there say he was born there, so he figures it’s best to just stay away, at least until after 2012. If he didn’t care what was he doing over there helping Odinga? Clearly a violation of the Logan Act. When he’s out of the WH, he will go back.
Bottom line... Obongothemuslimcommie in chief hates this country and everything it stands for. The only thing he likes about this country is the money he can amass without really working. PERKS, PERKS, PERKS, that is the only thing he likes about America. Where’s big fat manbeast this weekend? Oh that’s right, another trip. PERKS!
Disgusting. Corruption runs rampant.
Some people are acting on behalf of leftist ideals. ANd have no desire to advance the cause of conservative principles or the proper rule of law, or Constitutional principles.
I think you are seeing with rosy glasses.
One question about Alger Hiss would have sunk her foul little boat. Forget about arguing with the opposition on this site. Complain to the people who can actually do something, but don't. That is, the Republicans we elect.
Who knew, except you, that the Constitution was written in the 1740’s, 10 years before Vattel published the “Law of Nations?” And who are we to take the authority of Story, John Marshall and St. George Tucker, Daniel Ramsay, Chief Justice Waite and others before taking yours. You continue to mislead and misinform. You must get a reward. What is it, a bale of hay?
Appreciate the light. Been enough heat.
Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them as a member of the court.
Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on... Once again the US Senate sold us out! Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court..... Pull up the Supreme Court’s website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it? The American people mean nothing any longer.
It’s all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.
Records of these hearings show Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama. Links to SC docket are: Here, here, here, here, here, and here
If ever there was a non-story on Obama’s eligibility, this is it.
Any four Justices can agree to hear an appeal on Obama’s eligibility before the full court and there are currently five Justices appointed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush, so Kagan’s (and Sotomayor’s) vote is irrelevant to whether a challenge to Obama’s natural born citizenship status is heard by the full Court. It’s obvious that at least two of the conservatives-strict constructionists-originalists on the current Roberts Court aren’t interested. Thus far 12 applications have been denied by the Court.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas can agree to hear an Obama eligibility appeal and Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas can rule that Obama is an ineligible usurper of the office of the presidency with Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority.
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.
Vattel's definition was used in Minor v. Happersett to explain what the term natural born citizen means specifically in regard to presidential eligibility.
The Wikipedia entry pointed out that Switzerland is a nation that required two citizen parents for citizenship and that Vattel was Swiss.
You didn't cite or link any Wikipedia entries. Vattel's work speaks for itself as well as the number of times the SCOTUS has cited it.
In the Law of Nations, Vattel himself acknowledged that different nations have different traditions on jus soli and jus sanguinis.
You're reversing your earlier claim that he was only talking about Switzerland. Are you having trouble making up your mind?? Come back when you're sure about your position.
And that will never happen until someone with solid conservative street-cred, like the Heritage Foundation, publishes a paper embracing the birthers NBC definition.
“Who knew, except you, that the Constitution was written in the 1740’s, 10 years before Vattel published the “Law of Nations?””
The Constitution was written in 1787. No translation of Vattel at the time used ‘natural born citizen’. That incorrect translation first appeared in 1797 - 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
As for the original intent, it helps to know that NBC was a legal term, widely debated in the century prior to the Constitution in its English form ‘natural born subject’. Any lawyer at the time the Constitution was written would be familiar with the term and its meaning - which INCLUDED the children of aliens.
Romneybot?
If you REALLY went back to research my views, you would find I supported Fred Thompson. Fred dropped out prior to the Arizona primary, and the only hope of stopping McCain and tossing it into the Convention was Romney - so I voted for Mitt in the hopes of stopping McCain from getting the nomination. And yes, I loathed McCain and only voted for him because of Palin. McCain would have done many of the same things as Obama while pretending to be Mr Conservative.
As you noted, I criticized Mitt, saying, “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.” The same could be said of McCain, only more so.
My question for you - don’t you have a life? What sort of person goes back 3 years to find my posts, and then completely misreads them? But if you do it again, please dig up my posts supporting Fred Thompson, and thank you for quoting (without understanding) my post criticizing Romney.
Your logic here is impeccable. However, as my grandmother was fond of saying,
It is my feeling (I am a 'glass half-full' kinda guy) that many elected Republicans are closet Birthers and "Natural Born Citizen" fans of the traditional sort, but fear the light of day and the possible scorn of the MSM and the other party, and as such would never "come out of the closet," with this approach!
But this clearly is exactly why we should put a great deal of pressure on them, and in turn pressure on the courts to opine on the merits of the case.
Great Idea!
Vattel’s definition was used in Minor v. Happersett to explain what the term natural born citizen means specifically in regard to presidential eligibility.
The Wikipedia entry pointed out that Switzerland is a nation that required two citizen parents for citizenship and that Vattel was Swiss.
You didn’t cite or link any Wikipedia entries. Vattel’s work speaks for itself as well as the number of times the SCOTUS has cited it.
In the Law of Nations, Vattel himself acknowledged that different nations have different traditions on jus soli and jus sanguinis.
You’re reversing your earlier claim that he was only talking about Switzerland. Are you having trouble making up your mind?? Come back when you’re sure about your position.
I think you missed this statement of mine in post number 289. See the reference to Wikipedia?
“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.”
The only way you and I agree is when you twist and bend fact.
But, that of course is your purpose here. Deflect, distract, harry and in general, make a pain in my ass out of yourself.
Even the name, Mr. Rogers, brings to mind a whiney, passive-aggressive that liked to hang around children. Yechh!
That was an impressive and typical response from a birther - full of bile, but not even a small attempt at logic.
Since you disagree with me on everything, I gather you support homosexual rights, oppose the 2nd Amendment & Constitutional Carry, support illegal immigrants, support expanding government, etc...oh, and I suppose it means you are not a Baptist and you hate the military.
This was all done well before there was any question of eligibility. So, it seems there was some concern within DNC circles early on. Without clarification, that bothers me.
I have always maintained that this is a non story, too. But, I have to admit that the nagging question of why it can’t be settled keeps finding a way to make my suspicions rise. I have always hoped to hear or see a substantive explanation of why the DNC filed different official certification documents in many states, especially Hawaii where specific language about being legally qualified to serve was omitted.
This was all done well before there was any question of eligibility. So, it seems there was some concern within DNC circles early on. Without clarification, that bothers me.
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.