Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'

WND ^ | 26 April 2012 | Bob Unruh

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

[DiogenesLamp]

I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

[Paine in the Neck]

If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.

That is his ace in the hole as regards NBC but it still leaves him open to multiple felony fraud charges.

[rodguy911]

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.” “This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

These idiots are about four years too late but I guess better late than never,hard to imagine the judiciary is this stupid.

[rodguy911]

I think zero and his handlers have covered up and burned any reference to DNA possible to him or possible relatives starting with his granny in Hawaii who was burned rather than buried as was her request in her will. This crap has been going on for a while.

[rjsimmon]

They need to be identified publicly as idiots and they need to accept the responsibility that but for their refusing to support the effort to question this man, he would not have been President, and all the damage he has done would not have happened.

Absolutely!

Were this case to reach its ultimate conclusion and the SCOTUS finds that BHO is ineligible for the office, it would by default prove that BHO perpetrated the greatest fraud on the citizenry of these United States in the history of our Republic. The fallout would redefine our electorate.

[iopscusa]

DiogenesLamp, I agree with you as to the revenge on all the cowards like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Eric Erickson, Allahpundit, Ace as well as the big talkers like Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc. I’ve stopped listening to all these faux Conservatives and have lost all interest in anything GOP! BTW, I’m in favor of also investigating Romney, Rubio or any other candidate as to their eligibility as Natural Born Citizens!

[RummyChick]

No, he isn’t the first. Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen at time of birth.

[philman_36]

So the long and short of it is that the case stays at the Federal level.
Fed Court: Eligibility Question “Important and Not Trivial”
I also told you that LLF had filed a motion to remand the case back to the State court. Last Friday the Federal court denied our motion.
Good. IMO it needs to be at that level.

“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
While I would like to see that in context, evidently someone argued something to garner such a declaration by the Judge, it seems to me that the "dispute" is already settled.

[stanne]

Legitiamate or not, he doesn’t care about the Constitution or worse but he has nearly finished on term, maybe his last.

Could we please act out of character for conservatives or republicans and move on.

Rubio is presently and actively speaking against the US in favor of the UN and IMF.

Romney just got the nomination, can we face it and turn our attention to this?

the time to look at Rubio is NOW.

I liked him until I read yesterday’s piece repeated here on FR.

He frightens me.

[bluecat6]

And we can thank Leo Donofrio for finding that...in 2009...

Arthur hid the fact and hid it well due to the implications.

[stanne]

Legitimate is the way it is spelled, I know.

[philman_36]

“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Notice it's going straight to the heart of the matter! No Wong Kim Ark, no Ankeny...none of the BS cases.

I'm going to go see if I can find some pdf files that cover this.

[philman_36]

Here we go...4-13-12 – Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Case Back to TN State Court

[RummyChick]

Not really. The information comes from a biographer.
Greg Dehler.

It is a matter of public record.

I suspect that there were people in the Republican Party that knew the truth at the time.

It is also possible that Justice Horace Gray knew it , too.

[philman_36]

Well, well, well...would you look at this new twist! Defendants further assert that the matter of President Obama’s qualifications for office arises under federal law. In any event, the Court should hold that Plaintiffs’ claims turn on significant federal questions. Defendants offer one other basis for denying remand, that federal constitutional interpretation should preempt any state law claim involving presidential qualifications.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”3 The removal statute, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), provides that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”4 A case may “arise under” federal law where (1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law.5 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”6

Perhaps the Defendants might have known that their case wouldn't pass muster in this State so they forced it into the Federal level to avoid a negative ruling.
The question to ask is...why hasn't this been done before this case is if it's such a significant "federal question"?

[philman_36]

Context before the statement... Based on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are exactly of the kind which “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” As one of the elements of their claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants somehow misrepresented a material fact.14 It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. It is true that viewed from one perspective, Plaintiffs’ suit is about state elections and the manner in which a state political party selects its nominee for federal office and then takes steps to have the nominee’s name appear on the state-wide ballot for a general election. When cast in this light, it could be argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are peculiarly a matter of state law. Nevertheless, the primary basis for Plaintiffs’ state-law claims is the allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as the Supreme Court has defined the term, and therefore not qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs concede as much and actually allege in their First Amended Complaint that President Obama cannot be considered a natural born citizen based on a definition of “natural born citizen” the United States Supreme Court announced over one hundred and thirty-five years ago in Minor v. Happersett. Plaintiffs’ ultimate success in proving Defendants liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation turns then on Plaintiffs’ ability to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as federal law defines that concept.15 Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.”

Furthermore, it is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are “actually disputed and substantial.” There is a sharp dispute in this case over Plaintiff’s main contention that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is otherwise disqualified from the office under the United States Constitution. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor. The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.

IMO things just heated up!

[Josephat]

BTW, I’m in favor of also investigating Romney, Rubio or any other candidate as to their eligibility as Natural Born Citizens!

Of all of the politicians in the country, how many have questionable “natural born” status? I’ll bet the percentage is very small; yet, the top candidates for Pres and VP both fall in that category. What are the odds?

[Drew68]

If the Supreme Court ever gets this case, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR, will pull the old FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS card and show his DNA tests.

Why? Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama's eligibility?

Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS will craft a decision that confers upon millions of Americans born and raised here a status of second class citizen?

[philman_36]

This gives some insight into the arguments presented... Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).”16

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

[philman_36]

Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama's eligibility?
Do you still honestly believe that the presumptive POTUS is actually a NBC?

Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS will craft a decision that confers upon millions of Americans born and raised here a status of second class citizen?
Nobody would be a "second class" citizen. They would have all of the rights of other citizens with the sole exception of being elected to the office of POTUS.
What you're trying to do with your question is BS and contemptible!