What do you do when the president is NOT a natural-born citizen?

5/07/12 | Me

[DiogenesLamp]

Incessantly ranting about it on those websites which will humor you seems to be a strategy favored by some.

It must be having some useful effect. Fogblowers keep showing up to try and throw water on the fire.

[GregNH]

Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act

§ 19. (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

[edge919]

Obama was born a British Subject. He told us he was a 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen. To be president, according to Bingham, Chief Justice Waite, Chief Justice Marshall, and Chief Justice Hughes, in 1939, citing the difference between a native-born citizen with alien parents and one with citizen parents, determined that Marie Elg was a natural born citizen, not just a native-born citizen, because her parents had naturalized before she was born in New York.

Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen as the Supreme Court defined it in Wong Kim Ark. To satisfy the subject clause, one needs to be born to resident aliens. Obama Sr. was never a resident alien and his wife could NOT be because of the law of nations, as quoted by Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont:

The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. These political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

The political rights (such as losing national character) of married women (and children) do NOT stand upon municipal law, but stand on the principles of the Law of Nations. At best, the only thing Obama can claim is statutory citizenship through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

[mom.mom]

Since our elected officials ( D’s or R’s I don’t care) are not addressing Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, SS# fraud, forged documents, archive demolition, foreign student status, association with the Weathermen etc. - then it is time for us to demand answers in a more forceful way.

Call, write, protest, email - whatever it takes. This is not acceptable.

[Triple]

“The only mechanism the Constitution provides for removing a president is impeachment and conviction.” - SL

True enough, but what if Obama is not by law the president due to his ineligibility to legally hold the office.

[Sherman Logan]

Some person or group has to make that determination, don’t they?

The problem is that the Constitution makes no provision for anybody to do so. Presumably you think a court should make such a determination and order the President removed from office.

I think that is a truly horrible idea. We don’t need courts deciding to give themselves such authority not in the Constitution.

We have an opportunity to vote him out of office in November. Why spend time obsessing about eligibility when he can be removed simply and constitutionally by voting?

[Smokin' Joe]

The more outrageous the felony, the more complex the conspiracy, and the more phenomenal the stolen sum, the more likely one can hide in plain sight and denounce those who discovered the crimes as "crackpots" or "conspiracy theorists", or better yet, make up a cute but derogatory name and publicly attack the accusers.

The Looting of America continues...while the media (and their mob) flog the watchdogs.

This issue was brought up before the general election in '08, and is only gaining some traction among the punditry after years of damage.

[Spaulding]

"Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen as the Supreme Court defined it in Wong Kim Ark. To satisfy the subject clause, one needs to be born to resident aliens. Obama Sr. was never a resident alien and his wife could NOT be because of the law of nations, as quoted by Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont:"

It is always reassuring to hear from people who know more than I do, people from whom I can learn. It has been a great fortune in life to have worked with many brilliant people, but I'm discovering, even here at FR, where you don't know whether people have Nobel prizes or Field's medals (mathematics), that those with really keen minds get involved only when they have something to offer. It is an unprovable observation that people on the left need to assert their presumed intellectual superiority. Conservatives seem to have less need for such assertions, and only become involved politically when individual freedoms are being threatened, as they certainly are today.

Conservatives sometimes feel a need to correct blatantly erroneous claims, though many, like Milton Friedman, know that the market will correct nonsense because citizens are smart, and will discover a scam which is impinging on profitablity Usually, such nonsense is so common a phenomenon from the media that it isn't worth the effort, such as articles appearing on FR from time-to-time warning about picocuries of some radioactive isotope discovered after the Fukushima accident. Anyone measuring picocuries of a short half-life isotope is most likely measuring medical waste washed down sinks, or from the urine of patients. The objective is to scare people from a technology essential to free enterprise, particularly an energy source which offers no possibility for collecting carbon credits to profit government crooks and cronies, or, in these times, a technology in competition with the petroleum funding the activities of Kerry's Muslim Brotherhood.

Thanks Edge919. Now I need to read the 1952 act, just when PJ (Political Junkie)has made me pay attention to Thomas Paine. I'm sure Obama’s crew will find more obscure and irrelevant citations which we may feel a need to invalidate, but affirmative explanations from those who established our Constitution and Code are much clearer, and more rewarding. Wrong decision and sloppy construction have been a surprise and lesson to this non-lawyer. I had no idea the legal establishment could be so careless.

My latest realization is the extent to which slightly edited, supposedly original case documents, have been appearing on the Internet. It will now take a visit to our neighborhood law library to check on some of the citations being published on presumed legal blogs; when a claim by an Obama supporter is inconsistent with Justice Waite, or Marshall, or Tom Paine, or Franklin, corrupt practitioners are probably at work. It isn't just ‘justia.com’ and Cornell Law.

We have not just an ‘Obama media’ but an ‘Obama judiciary’ and ‘Obama law schools’ to contend with. Soros didn't just penetrate elections for secretaries of state, his Center For American Progress has been in most every major law school, sponsoring colloquia, making connections, for who knows how long, but it began as early as Soros’ legal assistance to McCain during lawsuits questioning his eligibility in 2003-2006, through McCain's defense by Kirkland and Ellis. Obama’s name may be on the masthead, but the political planning began years before. Perhaps someone from ‘the inside’ will reveal the truth some day.

John Brennan, former deputy CIA director's shepherding and protection of Obama, which continues today, is part of a larger plan. John Kerry is negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood, Brennan is an Arabist, Kerry with Theresa funded Science Adviser Holdren’s move from Berkeley to Cambridge, and the Marxist Science Policy Institute at the Kennedy School. David Horowitz needs to make those connections clearer; after all, Holdren worked at Horowitz’ Marxist Journal, Ramparts, during the 70s and 80s. Its all of the same cloth.

[Spaulding]

"Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen as the Supreme Court defined it in Wong Kim Ark. To satisfy the subject clause, one needs to be born to resident aliens. Obama Sr. was never a resident alien and his wife could NOT be because of the law of nations, as quoted by Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont:"

It is always reassuring to hear from people who know more than I do, people from whom I can learn. It has been a great fortune in life to have worked with many brilliant people, but I'm discovering, even here at FR, where you don't know whether people have Nobel prizes or Field's medals (mathematics), that those with really keen minds get involved only when they have something to offer. It is an unprovable observation that people on the left need to assert their presumed intellectual superiority. Conservatives seem to have less need for such assertions, and only become involved politically when individual freedoms are being threatened, as they certainly are today.

Conservatives sometimes feel a need to correct blatantly erroneous claims, though many, like Milton Friedman, know that the market will correct nonsense because citizens are smart, and will discover a scam which is impinging on profitablity Usually, such nonsense is so common a phenomenon from the media that it isn't worth the effort, such as articles appearing on FR from time-to-time warning about picocuries of some radioactive isotope discovered after the Fukushima accident. Anyone measuring picocuries of a short half-life isotope is most likely measuring medical waste washed down sinks, or from the urine of patients. The objective is to scare people from a technology essential to free enterprise, particularly an energy source which offers no possibility for collecting carbon credits to profit government crooks and cronies, or, in these times, a technology in competition with the petroleum funding the activities of Kerry's Muslim Brotherhood.

Thanks Edge919. Now I need to read the 1952 act, just when PJ (Political Junkie)has made me pay attention to Thomas Paine. I'm sure Obama’s crew will find more obscure and irrelevant citations which we may feel a need to invalidate, but affirmative explanations from those who established our Constitution and Code are much clearer, and more rewarding. Wrong decision and sloppy construction have been a surprise and lesson to this non-lawyer. I had no idea the legal establishment could be so careless.

My latest realization is the extent to which slightly edited, supposedly original case documents, have been appearing on the Internet. It will now take a visit to our neighborhood law library to check on some of the citations being published on presumed legal blogs; when a claim by an Obama supporter is inconsistent with Justice Waite, or Marshall, or Tom Paine, or Franklin, corrupt practitioners are probably at work. It isn't just ‘justia.com’ and Cornell Law.

We have not just an ‘Obama media’ but an ‘Obama judiciary’ and ‘Obama law schools’ to contend with. Soros didn't just penetrate elections for secretaries of state, his Center For American Progress has been in most every major law school, sponsoring colloquia, making connections, for who knows how long, but it began as early as Soros’ legal assistance to McCain during lawsuits questioning his eligibility in 2003-2006, through McCain's defense by Kirkland and Ellis. Obama’s name may be on the masthead, but the political planning began years before. Perhaps someone from ‘the inside’ will reveal the truth some day.

John Brennan, former deputy CIA director's shepherding and protection of Obama, which continues today, is part of a larger plan. John Kerry is negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood, Brennan is an Arabist, Kerry with Theresa funded Science Adviser Holdren’s move from Berkeley to Cambridge, and the Marxist Science Policy Institute at the Kennedy School. David Horowitz needs to make those connections clearer; after all, Holdren worked at Horowitz’ Marxist Journal, Ramparts, during the 70s and 80s. Its all of the same cloth.

[Fantasywriter]

This was a truly excellent answer. The idea that if the courts do nothing we have no recourse is a liberal dream. So long as the courts hold the line in their favor, nothing gives liberals more pleasure than kicking that fact in the face of conservatives. They only WISH we were as helpless
as they urge and advise us to be. Thank heaven the Founders didn't think along liberal lines. ‘If we can't persuade a British court to rule for us and against King George, we just have to sit passively on our thumbs and take whatever abuse England dishes out.’ Again, only in a liberal’s fantasyland.

Not to mention that in the modern era we have so many more options than did our Founders. As you listed in your dynamite post, we have a wealth of resources and tactics. By keeping the issue alive and at the forefront, we persuade more people every day that Obama is a Fraud. The icing on the cake is what a bane this issue is for Obama himself. Malignant Narcissists don't like to be questioned. They ARE the authority, and your/our role is to appreciate their uber-excellence. When people get uppity enough to fundamentally question a MN, it Does Not Sit Well. Obama is getting angrier by the day. MNs do not handle anger well. Sooner or later his anger will surface in an entirely inappropriate way, and his poll #s will take yet another hit. ::snicker snicker::

This is such a win-win-win issue across the board for us. It's becoming a better one by the day. If the economy were humming along, people would turn a deaf ear to questions of Obama’s legitimacy. The worse things get, however, the more intrigued people become w the shady, seedy, shifty things in Obama’s past and in his records. Obama HATES that, but he is impotent to stop it. More popcorn, please.

Back off the legitimacy issue? Only in a liberals fondest fantasy. In reality, never.

[Triple]

“Presumably you think a court should make such a determination and order the President removed from office.” - SL

“We don’t need courts deciding to give themselves such authority not in the Constitution.” - SL

I think that courts have long held the ability the authority to review the facts and law regarding eligibility to hold public office. This is not new authority. There is plenty of precedent.

Do you think eligibility laws should be ignored by the courts?

What other laws should be ignored?

Do you get to choose which laws are ignored, or a “blue ribbon” bi-partisan panel appointed by the executive branch?

Maybe laws that hurt people’s feelings - ignore those?

How ‘bout tax law, nobody really likes those, right?

You are really amusing, thanks. (please post to me more often)

[Triple]

“Presumably you think a court should make such a determination and order the President removed from office.” - SL

“We don’t need courts deciding to give themselves such authority not in the Constitution.” - SL

I think that courts have long held the ability the authority to review the facts and law regarding eligibility to hold public office. This is not new authority. There is plenty of precedent.

Do you think eligibility laws should be ignored by the courts?

What other laws should be ignored?

Do you get to choose which laws are ignored, or a “blue ribbon” bi-partisan panel appointed by the executive branch?

Maybe laws that hurt people’s feelings - ignore those?

How ‘bout tax law, nobody really likes those, right?

You are really amusing, thanks. (please post to me more often)

[Triple]

“Presumably you think a court should make such a determination and order the President removed from office.” - SL

“We don’t need courts deciding to give themselves such authority not in the Constitution.” - SL

I think that courts have long held the ability the authority to review the facts and law regarding eligibility to hold public office. This is not new authority. There is plenty of precedent.

Do you think eligibility laws should be ignored by the courts?

What other laws should be ignored?

Do you get to choose which laws are ignored, or a “blue ribbon” bi-partisan panel appointed by the executive branch?

Maybe laws that hurt people’s feelings - ignore those?

How ‘bout tax law, nobody really likes those, right?

You are really amusing, thanks. (please post to me more often)

[Sherman Logan]

No wonder you call yourself Triple.

A court might indeed have the authority to review the facts and issue a ruling on them. What it does not have is any power to effect a remedy. No court has the power to remove a president from office.

The Constitution specifically and intentionally gives that power to Congress.

[Triple]

“No court has the power to remove a president from office.” - SL

The courts find that the office of president is legally vacant.

It is anyone’s guess as to the actual body that taps him on the shoulder and says back to Chicago, before we throw you in jail. It could very well be the event that initiates impeachment hearings. What is O going to say? “You can’t impeach me, because I’m not actually president?”

Do you chase your tail often?

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for your kind words. I think many of us see this thing the same way. There is no reason whatsoever to stop questioning his legitimacy. All the information of which I have come across implies the same thing; That he is not legitimate.

If you liked that response, I made a similar (I think better) response to a recent commenter whom I take to be a fogblower over here.

Strangely enough, I have had no further responses from him. Perhaps he resembled my remarks? :)

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for the link. That was a rousing, powerful and inspiring reply.

What’s becoming clearer and clearer is that one side is arguing that the Framers actually ***wanted*** guys like Obama in the WH, destroying, at a staggering pace, everything the Framers sacrificed for, while the other side is arguing that the Framers easily foresaw what would happen if the offspring of America’s foreign enemies were as eligible as Natural Born American citizens, and moved to head off the absolute disaster of electing one of the former.

It’s getting harder not to self-identify as an Obama-smooching moonbat liberal, to defend Position A.

[BigGuy22]

“If you liked that response, I made a similar (I think better) response to a recent commenter whom I take to be a fogblower over here.”

And, following the link:

“I think perhaps if a few of them get hanged in the oncoming social collapse...”
__

Oh, yes, what a wonderful response! It shows your character very well, and it’s very telling that you’re so proud of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

“I think perhaps if a few of them get hanged in the oncoming social collapse...”

Oh, yes, what a wonderful response! It shows your character very well, and it’s very telling that you’re so proud of it.

And it is so telling of yours that you are not. The conservatives that I hang out with worry that there will be blood on the Horizon, and if this should be the consequence of tolerating Liberal treason, then who better should pay the price for it? Liberals shed innocent blood, but *WE* prefer guilty blood!

Have you not noticed what has happened with guns and ammunition sales? Who do you think American is arming itself against?

It should be understood by those who would twist our laws and our society that their actions may very well have unpleasant consequences. You will perhaps find it amusing that I am considered a "moderate" among some of the people I know.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution specifically and intentionally gives that power to Congress.

A court may not have the legal power, but a ruling that a President is not legitimate would have a defacto power beyond that granted them by the constitution. Such a ruling would make it impossible for Congress to refuse to take action.

It would end up working out the same as if the court WERE granted that power by the Constitution. The Usurper would be deposed.