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.

[AmericanVictory]

Wrong on all counts. Many of the founders, John Jay, for example, and Benjamin Franklin, were adept in French and knew perfectly well what Vattel meant by indigenes. Others, like Washington, who were less adept in French, looked to them. Your assertion at the end of your piece has no foundation in the actual facts of the debate, where Vattel, whose first English translation appeared in the 1750's, was discussed often and sometimes at length along with Locke and others. Again, your authority does not stack up well against the likes of John Marshall and Story, who directly disagreed with what you say in well-known opinions.

[Mr Rogers]

No, not wrong on any account. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in translation until 1797, and it is a poor translation. A better translation would be ‘The natives, or indigenous people...’

As for the debate, there was none. There was no debate involving that section of the Constitution.

There is no denying that “natural born subject” was a legal term with a specific meaning, or that “natural born citizen” is an Americanized version of it.

Had the Founders wanted to follow Vattel, they would have written “born of citizens”. That they used a legal term indicates they MEANT a legal term...they were not stupid enough to insert a legal phrase without intending the meaning of it.

[TauntedTiger]

We need to resolve the natural born citizen issue so I can tell my dual citizenship (US/UK) brother-in-law whether he can run for POTUS when he turns 35 or not.

BHO dba POTUS could be grandfathered in under some new “Abandoned child” clause.

[thecodont]

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.

It bothers a lot of us!

[jamese777]

“Consistent with the views expressed above, I suggest that pressure be put on House Republicans to convene hearings in the House of Representatives on the natural born citizen-Obama eligibility issue.”

---

And that will never happen until someone with solid conservative street-cred, like the Heritage Foundation, publishes a paper embracing the birthers NBC definition.

---

In addition to the Heritage Foundation, there are quite a few other constitutionalist, conservative legal foundations:
Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society, the Institute for Justice, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Alliance Defense Fund, The Center for Individual Rights, the Washington Legal Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Landmark Legal Foundation, just to name a few.

I am not aware of a single statement from any of them in support of the Natural Born Citizen-Obama is ineligible movement and they certainly haven’t lent their attorneys to the lawsuits filed on this issue.
I wonder why not?

[edge919]

Minor v Happersett had nothing to do with eligibility to be president under Article 2 Section 1; it was a women’s suffrage appeal and ruling. You’re quoting dicta.

Virginia Mior was claiming suffrage on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected her claim because they said she was a natural born citizen and cited Art II Sec I to explain what that meant. It's very explicit. It wasn't cited simply for background, but it was a key factor in rejecting her claim of suffrage.

I think you missed this statement of mine in post number 289. See the reference to Wikipedia?

That's what I was replying to. There was no link nor a any quoted text from any wikipedia entry during or prior to that post. You referenced it as if it was part a running argument you were making. IOW, it came from out of the blue and makes no sense, especially when the claim does not jibe with the actual text of Law of Nations.

[edge919]

No, not wrong on any account. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in translation until 1797, and it is a poor translation. A better translation would be ‘The natives, or indigenous people...’

This is pure and utter nonsense. Vattel uses the term 'naturel' which was translated in 1781 in the journals of the Continental Congress to mean "natural born." The 1797 was fixing a poor translation from prior editions of Law of Nations.

[RegulatorCountry]

Minor v Happersett had nothing to do with eligibility to be president under Article 2 Section 1; it was a women’s suffrage appeal and ruling. You’re quoting dicta.

Virginia Minor brought suit demanding eligibility to participate in the electoral process. In the course of determining their decision, the Supreme Court laid out quite precisely the definition of natural-born citizen in order to support their finding.

Barack Obama does not meet this definition.

[Diggity]

That’s not the reason. The reason is it doesn’t exist or it lists another person as his father.

His name is no big deal. I mean who cares?

John

[Mr Rogers]

Wrong as usual. IIRC, the time ‘naturel’ was translated natural born, the phrase was ‘subjects natural’ - only French (sujects naturel???). THAT phrase was translated NBS for the English government, and NBC for the American government.

But Vattel didn’t use ‘subjects natural’, he used “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

The 1760 was “The natives, or indigenes...”, as was the 1787 American translation. That is HARDLY a poor translation, and it wasn’t fixed by turning “indigenes” into “natural born citizen.

That isn’t too hard for you, is it? Indigenes means indigenous, not ‘natural born citizen’!

[Mr Rogers]

For any lurkers not familiar with the Minor v Happersett phrasing, it runs:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Since the issue wasn't addressed there, it was covered by WKA in the 1890s.

[bushpilot1]

"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." The Founders must have gone through a time vortex when they drafted the Constitution. A partial list.

[jamese777]

The Founders must have gone through a time vortex when they drafted the Constitution. A partial list.

---

That’s nice.
Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran, does that mean that the Declaration of Independence follows Sharia Law?

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

The Koran is not a book used by Congress to help form this country.

We know you and Obama wish the Koran was relied on to help draft the Constitution...but for you sadly it was not.

Take a moment...compose yourself.

[bushpilot1]

Vattel is not listed under the Swiss.

[jamese777]

Virginia Minor brought suit demanding eligibility to participate in the electoral process. In the course of determining their decision, the Supreme Court laid out quite precisely the definition of natural-born citizen in order to support their finding.

Barack Obama does not meet this definition.

---

Better tell that to Chief Justice Roberts, he swore Obama in.

[jamese777]

The Koran is not a book used by Congress to help form this country.

We know you and Obama wish the Koran was relied on to help draft the Constitution...but for you sadly it was not.

Take a moment...compose yourself.

---

EXACTLY!
I’m glad that you got my point. Good work, Bushpilot! Owning a book and listing a book does not necessarily imply being influenced by that book.

When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of what was later to become The First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.”

Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law (and I quote Jefferson) “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

[jamese777]

Vattel is not listed under the Swiss.

---

Probably because his major work “Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains” was written on international law and not on Swiss law specifically.

[dalight]

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.

This is the right way.

BTW, several Republicans have actually tried to speak up about this but they were creamed, tarred and feathered. When Hugh Hewlett, Bill Kristol, etc, etc. is the first to denounce you as a fool, then the MSM deride you, it doesn't take long for a politico to know that "Thar be sharks in that water." Ultimately, it is the growing suspicion of the American public and the strength of some elected officials addressing this glaring problem as part of the next election cycle who will eventually break this wide open.

It hasn't helped that the Orly Taitz became the face of this question, though. But, we go on. It is our strength, not our weakness, that we persist in digging at questions that seem to need answering.