Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
In WKA, the state argued WKA was not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The original case, heard in California, had argued WKA wasn’t a citizen under the 14th, and the Supreme Court specifically held that he was.
Both the original case and the argument to the Supreme Court claimed the US was ruled by Roman law and the idea that citizenship followed parentage, not birth location. It sought to overturn the basis for citizenship that had been used for over 100 years. That was rejected then, as now.
They did not, however, specifically hold that he was a natural born citizen. Even if they had, they could, in theory, overturn that decision now - the Supreme Court reserves the right to reverse themselves.
It probably is worth noticing that the dissent in WKA complained:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Actually, by treaty, Elg WAS considered a citizen of Sweden by the USA:
” The treaty manifestly deals with expatriation and the recognition of naturalization by the respective powers. The recital states its purpose, that is, “to regulate the citizenship of those persons who emigrate” to one country from the other. The terms of the treaty are directed to that purpose, and are appropriate to the recognition of the status of those who voluntarily take up their residence for the prescribed period in the country to which they emigrate. Article I of the treaty provides:
“Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.”
Ten courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. No Court has ruled that he is not a natural born citizen.
Barnett, Keyes v Obama (CA)
Rhodes v MacDonald (GA)
Ankeny v Daniels (IN)
Taitz v Obama [Quo Warranto] (DC)
Tisdale v Obama (VA)
Swensson, Powell, Farrar & Welden v Obama (GA)
Allen v Obama (AZ)
Pupura & Moran v Obama (NJ)
Voeltz v Obama [original jurisdiction] (FL)
Voeltz v Obama [reconsideration] (FL)
“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, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”-—Allen v Obama
So it’s possible he could have given consent for his mother to fill out the paperwork for him? What I am getting at is that we can’t rule out that his mother and Lolo could have taken him to a embassy/consulate and told little Obama on the side to renounce his citizenship. At that age, Obama would have listened to his parents. Lolo could have set it up. He or Obama’s mother could have had contacts there for all we know. After all, Obama’s mother is documented as wanting to stay in Indonesia indefinitely with her new husband. Again, none of this can be ruled out.
So there is no settled case that specifically addresses the question of whether the children of foreigners, provided they were born on US soil, qualify under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS?
Elg did not renounce her U.S. citizenship when she moved to Sweden to live with her parents. Elg’s father did renounce his U.S. Citizenship after he moved to Sweden.
Elg was informed by U.S. authorities she would be admitted to the U.S. as a citizen by returning to the U.S. at the Age of Majority (21 years old at that time).
Obama’s mother did not renounce Obama’s U.S. Citizenship. She was required to inform the U.S. State Department when she planned to return to the U.S. and declare all family members included on previous passports who have naturalized in a foreign state on her 1967 renewal application. The questions asked by the U.S. State Department on passport renewals are not idle curiosity. They are establishing facts and intent.
Obama’s mother established intent when she answered on her passport renewal she planned to stay in Indonesian indefinitely. She established a fact her son naturalized in a foreign state by amending her passport renewal to exclude him.
Establishing intent to not return to the U.S. and the fact the U.S. Citizen has naturalized in a foreign state is all the SoS needs to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
U.S. Policy at the time of Obama reaching the Age of Majority in 1979 (18 years old) was he would have until 6 months after his 18th birthday to recapture his U.S. Citizenship. The recapture of U.S. Citizenship must be applied for at a consulate of the U.S. and an loyalty oath stated.
Obama chose not to recapture his U.S Citizenship within 6 months after his 18th birthday. Instead, he waited and began the process of naturalizing as a U.S. Citizen. He completed the naturalization process. Obama became a U.S. Citizen in 1983. He is ineligible for POTUS because he obtained his U.S. Citizenship by completing the naturalization process. He lost his natural born citizenship status, forever, when he was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968.
A Certificate of Loss of Nationality would have been issued and it would be available for release under a Freedom of Information Act request.
The Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is a form of the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the United States Department of State which is completed by American citizens seeking renunciation of citizenship. The form is prescribed by the Secretary of State under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
In order for a renunciation of citizenship to be proper, three criteria must be met:
The citizen has unequivocally admitted in writing an intent to lose U.S. citizenship.
The renunciation was made at a U.S. diplomatic office outside the U.S. and before a U.S. diplomatic officer.
The renunciation must be made voluntarily. Grounds for arguing that renunciation was not voluntary are financial hardship (e.g., the need to get a job in another country) or family pressure.
Alternatively, the State Department may argue that U.S. citizenship has been surrendered due to the person making an oath of allegiance to a foreign state voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, such that:
The person has signed an oath of allegiance to the foreign state, renouncing allegiance to all other states.
The person is clear that they know exactly what they are doing.
CLNs are issued at a U.S. embassy and citizens who receive a CLN surrender their United States passport. In order to be successful, renunciations must meet all criteria and be sworn by official witnesses to have occurred.
Case law shows that in order to avoid legal complications it is vital to obtain a CLN and not just meet the criteria.
In this case I believe they determined that the orders given to Mr. Lakin by his superior officers were lawful. And Lakin agreed with that in his plea.
In this case I believe they determined that the orders given to Mr. Lakin by his superior officers were lawful. And Lakin agreed with that in his plea.
No, they could not. At 6 or 8 or 10, you cannot sign contracts. You can not fill out paperwork knowingly rejecting US citizenship.
If you want to spend the rest of your life searching for paperwork filed with the State Dept, where Obama at age 7 rejected his US citizenship, good luck! But if you ever find any, no court will uphold it.
Do you have kids? Can a 10 year old sign a binding contract on his own behalf?
You are a nut. No one loses their citizenship by being taken overseas as a child. Obama would not have needed to ‘recapture’ his US citizenship at 18, since he was living here and already considered a US citizen by EVERYONE!
Damn! You birthers live in fantasyland! The idea that Obama became a naturalized citizen in 1983 is just nuts!
He NEVER lost his citizenship! Not in 1968, not ever. As a minor, he could not!
Correct. WKA did not specifically HOLD that WKA was a NBC. Therefor, it is not binding on lower courts to rule Obama is a NBC.
However, since the clear guidance in WKA is that WKA was a NBC, contrary to the argument made by the state against him, no court will reject that guidance and substitute its own theory. That is why every court has rejected the birther case.
Never the less, first you said this:
“At a minimum, it would require Obama to have gone to an embassy in a foreign country, and then fill out paperwork and swear he was renouncing his country.”
So you have admitted that there are regulations that allow him as a kid to fill out paperwork to swear and renounce his U.S. citizenship.
You then say:
“no court will uphold it.”
Well if there are regulations in place that allow him to renounce his U.S. citizenship, even as a kid, then the court must uphold it.
Sounds like the Constitutional case of presidential eligibility has not been specifically adjudicated as such. If it were, the question would center on divided loyalty. I.e.: why would the Framers either reserve the presidency to citizens with undivided loyalty [the children of US citizens] or why would they specifically open the highest office of the land to persons with de facto divided loyalty.
Iow, what advantage would the Framers have seen in enshrining the right to the presidency to persons of innately divided loyalty? Sure, a person with one US citizen parent could be loyal to the US. Or he/she could be loyal to their other half. Or as in Obama’s case, the person might love his foreign half and outright hate his US half, and use the office of POTUS to destroy the country from w’in.
So what logic would the Framers have used to argue that persons with fundamentally divided loyalty should have equal access to the presidency? Has a court specifically offered an opinion on what have motivated the Framers to invite the children of foreigners to occupy the office of POTUS? If so, what was the argument put forth to explain why the Framers thought this was a good idea? Are they just considered too stupid to have foreseen an Obama-like figure, who would so prefer his foreign half that he would use the presidential office to destroy the Union? It might not be put so bluntly, but that is the bottom line. Has any court specifically addressed it?
Here is the original lower court ruling in Wong Kim Ark:
The Wong opinion starts on page 382.
All of the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court can be found here:
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/case.htm
BTW, here is Judge Morrows statement on the Minor decision:
“But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”
The liberal wing of FR weighs in.
From the FOIA request it has been shown that Obama’s mother continously renewed her passport from 1965 until the 1980’s. So she never gave up her own US citzenship. So why would she give up her son’s US citzenship?
Those are all lower cases but one thing is for sure:
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”.
Can someone under 18 or 21 do one of the following:
Get issued a cert of loss of nationality?
Renounce their citizenship?
Have a parent go with them and do it at the consulate?
On that last one, how do they show they weren’t coerced by the family member/parent?
You’re to stupid to realize you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
A passport is certified proof the person named in the passport is a citizen of the issuing country. Why would the State Department ask a U.S. passport applicant where they are going and when they plan to return the U.S.?
HINT:It’s to establish intent to maintain your citizenship.
In 1967, Obama’s mother told the U.S. State Department she planned to stay in Indonesia indefinitely on her passport renewal. That’s a big mistake if you want to maintain your U.S. Citizenship.
What is the reason for the State Department to demand a passport applicant to inform them if they or a family member have naturalized in a foreign state?
HINT: It’s not idle curiosity. It’s to establish the fact the U.S. Citizen has dual citizenship and will not be stateless if a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued.
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.