Posted on 02/17/2012 8:28:43 AM PST by Seizethecarp
“At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law,” he submitted to the court. “The petitioner’s right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.”
He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.”
His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic.
“[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains.
It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana.
“Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
A ping is a comment reply alert to one or many FReepers. A ping list is a list of FReeper ID handles kept by a FReeper volunteer to send out alerts on a particular topic.
LucyT keeps the best eligibility ping list and you can ask her to be put on her list.
If you see an article that LucyT hasn't pinged yet, you can alert her with a ping.
I think you ought to realize by now that none of these court challenges is going to remove Obama from office or prevent him from running again. Judges have great discretionary powers, and they will use them.
We the people have more power than the judiciary, president or ‘congress, their powers derive from us, we the people. See American Revolution and US Civil War for previous demonstrations of who has the power.
like the magic bullet, the magic Usurper has a magic birth certificate, now you see it now you don’t...
Thanks for the info.
Could you add me to the Ping List? Thanks
You’re added.
From WKA:
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“’All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’”
This is the passage that Ankeny holds up as the NBC definition which allows Barry to be eligible with a foreign father...a situation about which the later 1975 MvH case says “there are doubts” as to NBC status.
Yes, fail to produce IN COURT and pay $ millions to defeat any attempt to compel production of his identity documents in any court...and let an honorable LTC go to the brig before pretending to “produce” an alleged BC, but just for one friendly MSM reporter to hold and take a crappy smartphone photo of, but never allow a judge to hold it.
you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about!!!!
I. There are 2 classes of citizenship under American Law
A. State Citizenship
1. found in the U.S. Constitution prior to the Civil
War
a. e.g. see qualifications for Representative,
Senator, and President (1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5)
2. this is a sovereign class created and endowed by
the Creator
B. federal citizenship
1. 14th Amendment attempted to formalize a second
class of citizen first defined in 1866 Civil
Rights Act
2. this is a statutory creation, a subject class,
created and endowed by the Congress, not by the
Creator
II. 2 recent decisions of Utah Supreme Court struck down the
14th Amendment.
A. Congress and the President forced Southern States to
vote for it “at the point of a bayonet”, using the
duress and undue influence of martial law.
B. The Civl War was over and Southern States had already
been counted upon to ratify the 13th Amendment, banning
slavery.
III. The consequences of the failed ratification are many and
far-reaching:
A. federal citizenship is not defined in the supreme Law
(i.e. the U.S. Constitution)
1. it is, at best, the creation of federal statute
2. as such, it can be taxed, regulated, and even
revoked, just like a corporation
B. in contrast, State Citizenship is an unalienable Right
which Congress cannot tax, regulate, or revoke
1. Congress cannot amendment the Constitution
a. Congress derives its power solely from the
Constitution
b. Congress can lawfully exercise its powers
only within the limitations of constitution
2. qualifications for Representative, Senator, and
President have never been amended by the States
a. the term “United States” in these provisions
means “States United” (see People v. De La
Guerra and Ex parte Knowles, Calif. Supreme
Court)
3. since the Constitution as lawfully amended is
perpetual, then so is the Sovereign State
Citizenship which it has recognized from the
beginning (1787)
IV. The term “United States” has 3 separate and distinct
meanings in American Law:
A. The name of the sovereign nation, occupying the
position of other sovereigns in the family of nations
B. The federal government and the limited territory over
which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority
1. to be a federal citizen is to be a “citizen of the
United States” in this second sense of the term
C. The collective name for the States united by and under
the Constitution for the United States of America
2. to be a State Citizen is to be a “Citizen of the
United States” in this third sense of the term
(i.e. a “Citizen of one of the States United”)
V. One can be a State Citizen without also being a federal
citizen
A. see Crosse case from Maryland Supreme Court:
“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a
person to be a citizen of the United States in order to
be a citizen of his state.”
[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections]
[221 A.2d 431 (1966)]
B. see State v. Fowler case from Louisiana Supreme Court:
“But a person may be a citizen of a particular state
and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty — the right to declare who
are its citizens.”
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]
C. see Cruikshank court from U.S. Supreme Court:
“We have in our political system a Government of the
United States and a government of each of the several
States. Each of these governments is distinct from the
others, and each has citizens of its own ....”
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
D. numerous other authorities can be found, with cites, in
“A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes
of Citizens”
VI.
The key is the statement that the US follows “English concepts” with “an acceptance of the jus soli.” Jus soli means “born on the soil” = Natural born.
The claim that Minor v Happersett defines NBC is far more tenuous than the clear statement in Rogers v. Bellei.
Since what you have posted (code from 1845) has since been changed by Constitutional amendment and statute, it has no applicability to a birth in 1961. Not to mention that it applied only to New York state, not any other state. Are you claiming 0bama was born in New York?
As far as I know, what you are saying has absolutely no legal validity. If “condition” vs. “title” is a legal issue, please link to where I can read about the law in this area.
Links to an citations to that case as making a clear statement on NBC definition, please.
Rogers v. Bellei, a case about a foreign born child with a US citizen father, concerns a fact pattern having nothing to do with Barry or the definition of NBC. None of Barry's attorneys have ever cited to that case (feel free to prove me wrong) and Malihi and the Ankeny court did not cite to it.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.I expect you already know this: in English common law, "born on the soil" (jus soli) makes a natural born subject. In Rogers v. Bellei it was stated that US law follows that system, so "born on the soil," (with the usual exceptions) makes a natural born citizen.
Distinguish this from Minor, where it was acknowledged there was doubt, and clearly stated the case was not going to resolve that doubt.
Two things:
1. How about some links.
2. You missed the point of the conversation. States have no say over America citizenship. There is nothing states can do to influence natural born citizenship. In the example given, nothing NY says about state citizenship can deny American birthright citizenship.
Because of the 14th amendment, States can offer special privileges to their citizens. But they cannot deny their own citizens the rights afforded to them as US citizens and they cannot deny residents of other states the basic rights afforded every US citizen.
Amen brother.
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the states giving citizenship to anyone...
The 14th amendment creates U.S citizens which are different from American citizens.
Go back and read what I posted and google it, you just may learn something...
The doubts were regarding the citizenship of children with one or more non-citizen parents...NOT doubts about NBC children who were born in the country to citizen parents.
The Minor case concerned an NBC, Mrs, Minor, whose citizenship was in a class (NBC) about which there was no doubt.
The Minor court did not need to resolve the doubts about children with one or more non-citizen parents because they could not “reach” that issue because it did not apply to Mrs. Minor.
It was the WKA court that resolved the doubts about a sub-class of non-NBC children who met all of the qualifiers listed by the WKA court. The WKA court did not declare WKA to be NBC as the Ankeny court admits (and also Malihi).
The irony is that Obama voted for the law that requires people to produce a BC to get a drivers license, yet the Kenyan coward refuses to abide by this same standard for himself.
You’re utilizing a composition fallacy and misunderstanding of the law. The quote from RvB only refers to the statutory law, not NBC. Be honest enough to acknowledge this.
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.