Good. They should set up a research team who should put together a compendium from A to Z to brief Trump. A book that has everything that has been researched over the last 3 years. From news article that Obama was born in Kenya, to his Conn SSN number and others, to that scare on his head.
Copy from another post of mine...
Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.
Interesting, since it appears that the question of applicability of precedent would become the focus when the Natural-born issue is finally acknowledged for a week in the media, and I believe at some point it will be. From a practical standpoint, if this issue makes reelection probabilities dire enough, centrist Dems would attempt to primary nobama out, which would perhaps be the smartest thing for them to do, as the D party could move to the center and the R would have to move more solidly to the right. Except who would the D’s select (besides the thoroughly worn-out clintonistas) ? Well, whatever, my real points for comment follow.
Well, I found a reference to a SCOTUS case from 1874 that referred to “natural-born”. The link to Justia.com follows the relevant snippet from this women’s suffrage case, “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)”,
“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 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.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
The text I cite above appears to be quite telling in the logic of the actors of today.
If this ruling were the latest precedential ruling, it would make sense then, that the man elected in 2008 and his true backers, whoever they may be, are exerting such tremendous effort to establish the newly-minted State of Hawaii as his birthplace. That birthplace enables him to claim “natural-born” based on being in the second classification of children in the cited reference, those born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Absent that birthplace fact, he would fail the meaning of “natural-born” cited within this opinion on both counts, as the father he claims is acknowledged to not be a U.S. citizen.
Please comment; I very much look forward to more case research and opinions regarding the precedents of this case. Please keep them research-oriented; are there any legal scholars or “lay” people out there who can do some digging ?
If this holds water, then perhaps this is the case that needs to be presented, “Occam” style.
I am not sure of Mr. Trump’s true aims, so I try to write in an unbiased tone regarding his efforts which, so far, appear to have certain commonality with most Americans, however I caution that his overall vision may be less than ideal, as indicated by some simplistic protectionist bandages that he has advocated. In his defense, I would like to remind that the amount of his assets affected by slumping Real Estate may be motivating his desire to see the nation restored.
After some more poking around...
It appears that there has been no ruling overturning or affecting Minor v. Happersett as an opinion, though the 19th Amendment granted suffrage to women, which was the subject of the case. So the precedent apparently would be that of this case ?
Also, if this indeed is the rub, then it would appear that the man who wound up winning the election of 2008 had simply gained too much traction before it was discovered within the Democratic party that he was ineligible. That would explain the extraordinary facts surrounding how the Democratic party certified him in the various States and the last-minute secret wrangling of Democratic party leadership, i.e., Pelosi & co. in final certification. I had come across these claims on the internet but I always took them with a grain of salt and simply “filed them away”. I guess until now. Now this makes sense. It was a while until it was pointed out to leadership that there was an issue. Then it took a while to research and figure out what approach was to be taken.
Regarding Chester Arthur, I think nobama’s father’s non-citizenship was known fairly early on. Perhaps the Chester Arthur handling would or could be applied. I also submit that since nobama was sworn in, and is holding the office, any actions while in office are those of a sitting President. However, the whole idea of people knowing he was ineligible would and should result in many criminal prosecutions, including that of nobama if he knew before he was elected. No doubt if he stepped down he would pardon himself beforehand - is that possible ? I don’t know, but Pelosi and any others who knew - they seem like the really need pardons or they will be wide open to prosecution.
Mostly, if this came out, it would reflect terribly on the Democratic party for not vetting. Finding out after it’s too late and trying to avoid some “Constitutional crisis” is one thing, but knowing before the election and not going public - which would have, of course, ensured a clintonista win - that would look very bad.
IMHO.
Donald needs to be invited to FR.