Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
Six state and federal courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen.

IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.

Furthermore, in so far as I recall, the SCOTUS has never in its history had a case where the definition of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the United States Constitution was dispositive. Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen" (and did so in accordance with Vattel) but that case did not concern eligibility for the presidency.

37 posted on 01/15/2013 3:57:12 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: justiceseeker93
IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.

Ankeny: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

I knew what Ankeny said from reading it before, and just looked up Tisdale. I don't have time to research the others. But that should be enough to show that courts have, in fact, ruled on the NBC issue.

Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen"

They didn't actually "define" the term, except insofar as "there is no doubt that tigers are cats" is the definition of "cat."

38 posted on 01/15/2013 4:25:40 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: justiceseeker93

Allen v Obama: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”


Farrar, Swensson, Powell and Welden requested a “trial on the merits” and Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili agreed. Judge Mahili said in his ruling after the trial on the merits: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”

US District Court Judge Clay Land said in his ruling in Rhodes v Mac Donald: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”

There have been 23 Obama eligibility appeals or applications for stays or injunctions heard in Justice’s Conferences at the US Supreme Court. All Petitions and Applications have been denied.
When the Supreme Court refuses to grant certiorari or to grant an injunction or a stay, the ruling of the lower court stands.


42 posted on 01/16/2013 1:21:29 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson