Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
We have more than enough evidence of the fraud perpetrated on the US, by Zero, but few here care to accept any of it.
This country has truly become Bizarro world.
I suspect this will mean that evidence of the fraudulent documents will not be considered, the NBC hurdle will be removed and it will all die away.
My dad was born in Norway and was about 6 years old when he came to this country. He was not a naturalized citizen when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor but like many other young American men, he tried to enlist the very next day. But because of his citizenship status he was refused. Ironically a year later he was drafted. He fought for this country in the South Pacific Theater and nearly lost his life doing so.
He served with valor and distinction but when he and my mom got married and when my older brother was born, he had not yet “technically” become a naturalized citizen. Part of the reason for the delay was typical governmental SNAFU’s; his service records were all messed up, one document showed he was in the European Theater and some were lost. It took time for him to straighten it out. Ironically both his Norwegian born parents had become naturalized citizens before he did.
When he became “naturalized” the presiding judged told him that his naturalization was merely a legal formality, a technicality and when he took the military oath combined with his service record meant in that judge’s opinion, that he was a US citizen from that time forward.
Both my older brother and I were born on US soil. That my brother was born before my dad was technically naturalized, IMO doesn’t make him any less of an American citizen, a natural born citizen that I am.
Because before the Supreme Court renders a decision there would be many billable hours for our most honest lawyer class.
No enveitro mentioned either because most people knew how babies were made, the old fashioned way.
Hey, what a country. Your dad was not only fortunate enough to become a citizen, but he had the power to decide whether or not your brother would be a "natural born citizen" AFTER YOUR BROTHER WAS BORN.
Tell me... if your father had later renounced his citizenship or have been found to have committed fraud in becoming a citizen, would your brother still have been a "natural born citizen"?
Prior to his becoming a U.S. citizen, was your father subject to the laws of another nation? Did that other nation reserve the power to conscript your father into its army? Would your father have been legally bound to serve? Would your brother have a conflict of interest if was President of the U.S. at such time as our nation went to war against your father's homeland?
There are many dots to be connected as to Obama’s history from grandparents to now. I tend to believe by way of Chicago, Hawaii, and communist social life that it is good possibility that Obama’s father is /was really Frank Davis. However, the Dunham family being white and with business connections had to legitimize the pregnancy without the lecherous, rabid communist Davis being involved. Some how by college associations Barack Obama gets into the scene. However, Barack had a wife in Kenya and Hawaii did not allow bigamist marriages. When and if the marriage occurred is not recorded but the couple did go to Kenya to give legitimacy for Obama Jr’s birth. Stanly Ann did not take to the African culture and wanted to leave right after birth of Jr. However. as once reported by a female missionary, who was later assassinated, Stanley Ann was denied immediate air travel because of health, her and baby, and had to wait a few days to take an air flight. The airline travel logs apparently are missing for the days travel would have been. Stanley Ann did show up in late August with child to begin school at U of Washington for which she apparently had warm feelings from earlier years.
First of all I take that you were born after your father was naturalized by official procedures. If so no problem as to being a ‘NBC’. I look at you brother’s situation as much the same as for me and my brother. I don’t believe either my brother or myself are ‘NATURAL’ born citizens as intended for POTUSA because our parents were not naturalized when we were born. Now I only feel what my brother probably would believe but as for me I can live with the thought of being just a USA citizen and proudly served in the USA Army. An interesting bit is that when I was in 2nd or 3ed grade in a parochial school the teacher asked the class one day what of the occupations listed on the blackboard did we want to be. She noted I had not responded and asked why not. I told her what I wanted to be was not listed . She asked me what then. I told her POTUSA. The whole class got a lift on that response. To my dismay years later I found such could never have been realized because I was born of ‘foreigners’. No problem my plain citizenship has been rewarded so much.
“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?”
Are you a *complete* idiot? Nobody is saying they aren’t citizens, just not NBC. Sheesh. Try to keep up!
No, not really. As he was not a legal adult, not yet 21 years old when the US Army drafted him during WWII, he wasn’t able to on his own to become naturalized before then and the war kept him pretty busy for the next four years. And as I explained, he and my mom married shortly after the war. He started the naturalization process after getting out of the Army but as I also explained, there were delays for several years in great part because the US government couldn’t provide accurate records of his service and discharge, couldn’t even decide whether he had served in Europe or the South Pacific.
Tell me... if your father had later renounced his citizenship or have been found to have committed fraud in becoming a citizen, would your brother still have been a "natural born citizen"?
First of all, my brother and I were born in America and so we are both natural born citizens. There are only two types of citizens – natural born being those born here and naturalized, those born elsewhere who become citizens. Secondly, what if your American born father renounced his citizenship after you were born? Would that negate your citizenship status retroactively? What a stupid comment.
Prior to his becoming a U.S. citizen, was your father subject to the laws of another nation? Did that other nation reserve the power to conscript your father into its army? Would your father have been legally bound to serve? Would your brother have a conflict of interest if was President of the U.S. at such time as our nation went to war against your father's homeland?
Again, what a completely stupid comment. My father’s “homeland”, place of birth, Norway was under Nazi occupation during WWII. He was not subject to the laws of Norway nor could he have been conscripted into their army. In fact when my father was drafted into the US Army, he was working as an apprentice carpenter on a railroad, work that was considered essential to the war effort and could have qualified for a deferment but refused to take it because he wanted to serve his country – that country being the United States of America.
Furthermore, my brother if he was POTUS and Norway declared war on the US or one of our allies, he would beyond question have no divided loyalties and nether would I or my father. Our allegiance is to America. My father BTW, while not ashamed of his heritage hated the hyphenated crap like Norwegian-American. My father would often say, “I’m an American, first, last and always and to my very last breath.” And indeed he was. My dad was one of the most patriotic men I’ve ever known. He was also a great student of American History and of the Constitution. When he died, there was no Norwegian flag on his coffin, rather an American flag and a VFW color guard.
I also point out that Vattel did not regard Soldiers deployed to foreign lands at the bidding of their nation as having quitted their nation. As we are arguing that the basis of article two is the principles described by Vattel, then just as much weight should be placed on his writings regarding this special case as his writings on the ordinary case.
And lastly, it is simply not equitable to penalize a man's child for his necessary service to the nation. I think the soil requirement is a leftover component of feudal law, and really ought have no basis for being a standard for American Law to follow. One is not a member of a family from simply being born in the family's house, but by being kin to the family, regardless of where born.
My reasons above may not be technically correct, but they are in accordance with natural law as I understand it, and as I perceive the founders would have understood it as well.
I would suggest that under such a circumstance of having a child not born on actual American territory, or born at an American holding in a foreign country, it should be left up to the voters to decide just how much foreign influence he has been contaminated with, and whether such a quantity is too objectionable. Unless it is egregious, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Unless he's a liberal, then the slightest whiff of foreign about him is a deal killer! :) )
So, in your opinion, it is only necessary that one have a single citizen parent in order to be a "natural born citizen"? It makes you wonder why our Founders bothered.
Washington, for one, was probably just traumatized by that whole "Benedict Arnold" thing.
I also seem to recall that there were many German immigrants in the U.S. at the time of World War II who were subject to being conscripted into the German Army. Am I wrong about that?
Well then go find something that proves me wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. The Judge didn't just pull the word "trivial" out of thin air, did he?
If I'm wrong I'll admit I was wrong in my assumption.
I think you're missing the larger context of this decision...
To use your own words...I don't think so. See reply 28.
So the long and short of it is that the case stays at the Federal level.
Oh, wait...you're replying to #39 which is 11 replies after #28.
Why bother posting to me?
The Constitution isn't a dictionary as you well know.
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."
Only if the mother was naturalized by the time of the children's birth. I have a child born to a non-naturalized spouse, born in Japan while I was in service with the Navy. That child has the opportunity to aspire to be many things, but President is not one of them, unless the Constitution is amended. That of course, is my opinion. . .
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.
The Supreme Court already gave it's "opinion" on NBC in Minor vs Happersett, and I'd hardly call a unanimous 9-0 ruling that has never been overturned a "footnote".
Any interpretation of Natural Born Citizen that does not work to reinforce the likelihood of undivided loyalties does not meet the gold standard set forth in the Constitution, "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar."
That said, I would like to see the current Court try to wriggle around Minor.
And let's not forget about your not even knowing who the Founding Fathers deferred to in the formation of our system of government.
I think you could very well be right. I too, found it interesting that the judge blew right past Ankeney and WKA and went straight to Minor.
It's not just the dems. The GOP has put up and will likely put up again a candidate or candidates with eligibility questions swirling around them. What are the odds?
"Oops upside the head." Good to see you, FW! Looks like I kicked up another one, eh?
;)
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.