Posted on 08/26/2012 8:28:48 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Mitt Romney said on Friday in his native state of Michigan that, "No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised." The Republican presidential candidate insisted afterwards that it was just a joke. That didn't stop Obama campaign manager Jim Messina from immediately used the comment in a fundraising appeal, calling it "a new low for Mitt Romney."
"That wasn't a low at all," the real estate mogul told me in a sit-down interview on Sunday in Sarasota. "The low was when they accused Gov. Romney of essentially murder, when they called him a felon. Those are the lows. What he said is not a low at all."
Mr. Trump said that more will come out about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's birth in the weeks and months leading up to the election. The Constitution says that only native-born Americans can be president. Mr. Trump cited polls showing that, "A tremendous amount of people believe there is certainly a validity to it."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
At that point they would probably say it was injusticiable - that there is no legal remedy for the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.
What we need is for the SOS’s to realize that they can be prosecuted for election fraud themselves if they accept what they know to be a perjurious application to be on the ballot.
The SOS’s need to know that at this point it is a legal fact that Obama has failed to qualify. As Onaka confirmed in his letter of verification to Ken Bennett, we have no way of knowing even how old he is. The burden of proof is on Obama now, and the stuff in Hawaii is legally worthless at this point.
The only avenue for him to ever be ABLE to qualify is if a SOS leaves him off the ballot and he has grounds to sue, and the judicial process of evidence, discovery, cross-examination, etc is allowed to happen, so that the real story of how that birth record was created is sorted out according to all the evidence.
I haven't found that in any copy of the Constitution. If it's not in there, what's the authority for it? It's certainly a popular view, but I can't find legal or logical support for it. And the consequences of having a single, Federal court interpret all our laws for us seems to be the USSC as the final arbiter—and therefore the body that in the end makes all the rules.
As I read it, the three branches are all tasked with the job of interpreting the Constitution and doing as it says.
Isn't it remarkable Milton, how few appear to have actually read the Constitution? If Trump did make the statement about “native-born” his motives must be questioned. He has attorneys who should inform him, unless his real intention is to maintain the public’s state of confusion. Obama, born to and alien father and a citizen mother is presumed to be a naturalized citizen - “A native-born citizen of the US”. The term was used when the 14th Amendment turned slaves, residents but not citizens, because their allegiance was not voluntary. American Indians were also native-born, but Indians were not made citizens because their allegiance was to tribal authority, not the individual freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It sounds like Trump is hedging his bets in case Obama is reelected. He helps Obama by contributing to the confusion around natural and naturalized citizens. To be a constitutional president one must be a natural born citizen. At least four Chief Justices, and over twenty justices have confirmed the common-law definition, a definition made precedent when it was need for the resolution of Minor v. Happersett: “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 ... natives, or natural-born citizens...”. The issue, enunciated by Roman philosophers, is that children inherit the allegiances of their parents (fathers then, since women assumed the citizenship of their husbands).
The other remarkable subterfuge is the claim that natural born citizenship is undefined since it isn't defined in the Constitution. Many are simply ignorant, and depend upon media pundits for their understanding of the Constitution. Definitions are not found in the Constitution, by design. Our founders and framers wanted the Constitution, unlike the thousands of volumes constituting English Common law found in oak paneled law libraries, it was considered essential that every literate citizen be able to understand our foundation. Like invariance principles essential to interpreting the physics of stars whose light began its journey to our telescopes ten billion years ago, our Constitution was designed with the assumption that terms be derived from the common language and common law familiar to its framers. Thus changes in the meanings of words would not affect the principles described by provisions and amendments in our Constitution. Only one word was refined in the Constitution, because its application could affect a new government - “treason.
” The definition of who were natural born citizens has never been changed, in spite of over thirty attempts to amend Article II Section 1, the last by Clare McCaskill and Barack Obama in February of 2008. Clare and Barack called it the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. Had it passed (It didn't), it needed to have been recast as an amendment to take affect. It was intended to render McCain eligible. McCaskill and Obama needed McCain's candidacy to insure that no Republican would raise the eligibility issue. Republicans didn't, and won't. Both parties had ineligible candidates, both ineligible for different reasons. No one ever questioned McCain's allegiance, inherited from his citizen parents. He was born on unincorporated territory - a State Department oversight - an unfortunate legal technicality. Obama was not born to citizen parents. His beliefs were influenced by parents, one, and perhaps both of whom hated our form of government. Our laws and our courts have never convolved naturalized with natural citizens. The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship, but its author, John Bingham, repeated the never doubted definition, expressing the the inheritance of allegiance as "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". They understood and anticipated the damage a President who didn't share our ideology could do.
BTTT!
And their authority comes from US.
I was going by historical facts on important issues...such as Obamacare, abortion rights, gay marriage etc. were taken up by SCOTUS and their decision has been accepted as the final.
Also, SCOTUS can and has ruled many laws passed by congress and signed by president to be unconstitutional and that law becomes null & void.
BUMP. Well stated.
“If the current SCOTUS has not ruled against the current occupier of White House, then implicitly they have accepted him as NBC based on his fake Hawaii BC.”
“Who in your opinion is the final authority to decide who is NBC and TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE the US Constitution?”
The SCOTUS has already told us many times who are the natural born Citizens:
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
“Who in your opinion is the final authority to TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE the US Constitution?”
The final authority? We The People.
78 posted on August 25, 2012 6:59:58 PM PDT by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
This was posted by another Freeper!!
As Vattel stated the Country of the Father is that of the children
Obama’s ...”LEGAL”.... Father was Kenyan .... Therefore Obama is Kenyan ... He is “not” Eligible to be POTUS!!!!...... Too bad the MSM is not doing it’s job to vet Obama!!!
For me the Constitution is very explicit about the term ‘natural’ for POTUSA. It definitely does not use ‘native’. As such it is wrong to substitute one for the other. It can be argued that the SC could/should declare once and for all times an official National context for both terms using all historical basis. However, I tend to think that the SC is caught, and they recognize such, between an actual/explicit Constitutional word/condition which they are powerless to change which they are sworn to uphold versus taking an historical breach of the Constitution’s Founders original writing by their own present day desires or application. I don’t have a good feeling that most if not all SC Justices have the honesty, desire or even intelligence to resolve the issue. As such the issue of the present case with Obama will have to be addressed one way or another by a public vote.
I believe authenticity of all those cases you listed.
So then why is Obama occupying the White House? His father
was never a US Citizen.
That is sad Elsiejay, if true. If being born on our soil was equivalent to being natural born then the children of royalists, who retreated to England during the Revolution, would be eligible to the presidency. Men who saw their families burned to death in churches in the name of King George went out of their way, John Jay and George Washington, to add a useless term to the Constitution?
The words of Congressional Historian and provisional President during the Continental Congress, Dr. David Ramsay, explained that born citizenship was the birthright of the children of those who fought in the revolution then meant nothing. And D’Souza understands so little of our history that he dismisses the words of the author of our Naturalization Amendment, the 14th, which turned slaves into citizens. Bingham testified to the House about citizenship: “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
Would Dinesh be confident that the illegal Sudanese immigrants awaiting orders from the Muslim Brotherhood owed no allegiance to an foreign sovereignty, because his equation of naturalized with natural citizenship would make that anchor baby, having spent his/her youth being indoctrinated with Jihad, eligible to run for president. D’Souza’s new film appears to have exposed lots of valuable information about Barack’s background, though nothing that this reader has heard that wasn't written about years ago by Treavor Loudon at “NewZeal.com”.
From what this reader has heard, D’Souza never mentions the admitted association between Barry and Khalid al-Mansour nee. Don Warden beginning when Barry was at Occidental. Mansour, a founder of the Black Panthers, Wahabi recruiter in the US prison system, attorney for Prince Whalid bin-Talal, largest external stockholder in News Corp, owner of Fox News and The WSJ. Could Dinesh be unwilling to foreclose the possibility that his college might be the beneficiary, as was Harvard after Barry was admitted, of twenty or thirty million dollars. Bin-Talal only offered Giuliani ten million to assuage the sting after most the the 9/11 terrorists were determined to have been Saudis. The source for the involvement of bin-Talal and Mansour is very public; Percy Sutton was old when interviewed by public service television, but quite precise and lucid. Percy was proud of having been the been an intermediary, having been contacted by Mansour to help get Obama into Harvard.
If he indeed made such a statement one might ask if Dinesh is simply taking advantage of the changing political winds. He directly contradicts five Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, and even the author of the case most used by Obama legal activists to cloud the issues around naturalized citizens, Justice Horace Gray's Wong Kim Ark. Gray cited Chief Justice Waite and quoted the correct definition for who were natural born citizens. Gray rendered Wong Kim Ark, born on our soil to domiciled Chinese parents, a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Wong Kim was not eligible to be president. But Chief Justice Hughes, in Perkins v Elk, (1939) observed that Marie Elg, born in New York to newly naturalized Swedish Parents, though she was returned to Sweden as a youngster and raised there, could never have her natural born citizenship, granted by God and not men, removed, and could run for president of the US after 14 years residency and reaching the age of 35 years.
Dinesh, if he made that statement, is not the first “authority” who does not understand our law or history, but one might ask about his motives for being so provably wrong about the legal definition of natural born citizenship.
Legitimacy? Is Trump implying that Barry is illegitimate?
If so, how so?
Possibilities include:
Parents BHO Sr. and SADO unmarried
Parents marriage was bigamous
Frank M. Davis the father
Born in Kenya
If Obama was not born in Hawaii then he was most certainly born in Kenya just like his literary publication says he was. If that is the case then the only way Obama could be a citizen is if he went through the naturalization process and that would be absolute disqualification for the presidency. Since no records exist of Obama being a naturalized citizen and he was not born in Hawaii, Obama is NOT even an American citizen.
The fact that he appears to have a fake SS just confirms the obvious. Obama acquired a fake SS just like many illegals and has been fraudulently representing himself as an American citizen ever since.
I can only hope that Trump is just waiting for the right moment to publicize, as only Trump can do, new evidence so as to get even for the devastating humiliation dumped on him by Barry at the Press Club dinner...and guarantee that Barry as a giant asterisk after his name in the history books!
Preferably this would be after the Dem Convention and the renewed certification of Barry's eligibility by the DNC.
Parents BHO Sr. and SADO unmarried
Parents marriage was bigamous
Frank M. Davis the father
Born in Kenya
A combination of those are also possible.
LOL You really believe that??
What a joke.
Some great arguments here, but it is a proven fact that the Supreme Court of today is as political as the rest of the Government and will decide what is politically the easiest thing to do.
If Justice Roberts didnt prove that to all who are smart enough to put their shoe on the right foot, then you weren’t paying attention.
The Constitution is now just a really old piece of paper.
“but even Dinesh D’Sousa stated that birth on U. S. territory satisfies the “natural born” stipulation.”
I believe he had bigger fish to fry. If he started off that way, the press would have had a field day with him on the birther issue, this way, he could get out the more important information in his movie.
I never thought of the US and colonialism the way he describes it in the movie.
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.