Posted on 11/28/2008 9:26:02 AM PST by Deepest End
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554 Greenwich, CT 06831 Party name: Cort Wrotnowski Attorneys for Respondent: Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316 Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
I agree. Leo has his own volunteer nationwide researchers digging up everything. It is energizing!!
I am impressed with all these industrious gifted people:
-Leo, Cort, citizens, Lawyers petitioning the courts
-Writers on these threads at FR
-Listeners who call internet radio like Plains Radio
They are all climbing up this mountain without oxygen. I hope more participate and share information.
The truth will shine through.
One more time because I am tired of seeing this BS rumor crop up on FR, John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen. He proved it at the start of the campaign when the libs tried to take the heat off of Bozo and forced McCain to show his BC etc., of course they didn't do the same for Bozo.
He was not born at a military hospital. i am not trying to disenfranchise the children of military personnel. The Constitution is not clear.
I respect McCain’s service, I wasted a lot of my money trying to get him elected. His stupid McCain-Feingold campaign finance law helped defeat him - for that stupid law he is a MORON.
As soon as he lost he and Linday Graham rushed to meet with Obama. My guess is they are planning to push foward on amnesty.
I am really sorry we did not get Thompson-Romney as the ticket or Romney-Palin or whatever.
(e) certified copies of admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and
Several of the documents you say he needs to produce, such as those listed above, would not be in his possession if he is a Natural Born citizen. Do you have a certified copy of Citizenship? I don't and I was born in the US without a doubt. Also he wouldn't have a document swearing his allegiance to the US, a natural born citizen wouldn't have those two documents. He would only have those if he was NOT a natural born citizen and wanted to establish he credentials as a naturalized citizen. His school records also have very little to do with his citizenship, but it would be nice to see his grades and find out just how he afforded Harvard.
All he really needs is a vault copy of his Birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. If his name is Soetoro on that document then he is guilty of lying when he signed up to run for President because he answered no when asked if he ever had any other names.
The law is clear. If you have two US citizen parents and are born on the moon you are a Natural Born citizen, no matter where you are born. One US parent you are not a US citizen unless that parent meets certain residency requirements, which Bozo’s mother did not, if you are born on foreign soil. McCain was born to two US parents, I did not say in a military Hospital. I said on a US military base, on US territory, with TWO US citizen parents(once again)and with his father being a Naval officer. Any of these qualifies him as a Natural born citizen. I have no love for McCain and only voted for him because of Palin, but he is indeed a Natural Born citizen. The only thing not clear is your thinking, the law is very clear on the point of two US citizen parents!
The Framers put SCOTUS there to INSURE the other branches did NOT do this to us and also to protect the Constitution. If SCOTUS punts then they serve no purpose. I sincerely think that Scalia and Thomas definitely “get it” as does Robert & Alito and probably the rest. They are very smart people. They have to know the gravity of this.
I posted this on another thread earlier, but think it is worth repeating. I think there is a tendency to view Supreme Court Justices as meek and mild individuals who tend to cower in the face of tough decisions. This really is a misconception, in my opinion. Now, do they sometimes decide to pass on cases that we think of are of dire importance? Sure. Ripeness, standing, judicial efficiency, etc. are sometimes used as scapegoats to avoid hearing a particular case, but that does not mean that the driving factor is fear or apprehension of making a tough call. Instead, it may be for a reason that is not entirely clear to those of us who aren't Con Law buffs.
However, it is well known that the US Supreme Court is very jealous of its power and is not inclined to curl up in the fetal position and relinquish ground because of threats/fear of negative public reaction.
While the Executive and Legislative branches, particularly on the left side of the aisle, are often all to eager to further dilute the US Constitution in order to advance their ideological schemes, the Judiciary derives its power from that very text. Through their power of judicial review, the USSC acts as the guardian of the Constitution and checks attempts by the Congress to overreach.
That being said, allowing Obama to skate through by turning a blind eye would be a fatal wound to the Court's power. I don't see them flushing their own power just to avoid what will surely be an unpleasant time of social tension (to put it mildly).
The Court has taken strategic opportunities to expand the power of the Judiciary and is widely viewed as the most powerful branch of government. They have battled overzealous presidents (most notably FDR) who sought to steal power away from the Court. They know the risks of a man who views the foundation of the Republic with such flippancy and disregard and I think that anyone who believes that the nine of them will hide out in their chambers fretting over all those hurt feelings while they torch the sole source of their power is mistaken.
The Court isn't naive. They are insulated from political brinkmanship. They don't fear hissie fits from the population at large, from congresscritters, or from prima donnas in the White House, including the One Who Must Not Be Named. They are extremely intelligent (although we may not always see it that way). And most of all, they are no strangers to power grabs... in fact, they are leaps and bounds better at seizing territory than the bumbling idiots in the other branches. In fact, they seem to grab every chance they get (isn't that actually the typical criticism of the judiciary from conservatives).
I could be wrong just as easily as the next guy, but I think there is a better chance that they choose to flex their muscles instead of kneel before the Executive Branch.
As an aside, it may be worth noting the utter disdain that the Court as a whole has for Biden. His behavior in leading the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings was abhorrent. He was an absolute jerk and it is no secret that the Court at large viewed it as a slap to the Judicial Branch. Remember, the Court is only divided on issues so long as they don't impact their power (Scalia, Ginsberg and Thomas are all very close personal friends, believe it or not. Rumor has it that Ruth and Antonin and their spouses even attend concerts and eat diner on a very regular basis). If it looks like the Executive is trying to make a play on the Constitution, they will probably stick together.
Clarence Thomas Stands up to Chuck
I don't think that is a man that has a lot of fear in his soul. Add the fact that Bambi insulted Thomas' "judicial accumen" at Saddleback, and I think its safe to say that Clarence isn't a big fan (at least on a personal level).
Sorry, Clarence Thomas link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiQlx8W2R8
bump that
I think God is about to take center stage. We will see many people flooding the churches and many others will begin persecuting Christians. Already happening on the west coast. I never thought I would see that!! We must remember GOD is greater than all this.
You may think that you are not disenfranchising the children of military personel, but you are if you continue to insist that they must be born in a military hospital.
In fact, I have friends who were stationed overseas, had babies (both mothers and fathers American citizens) at hospitals other than military because the military hospitals relocated them to local hospitals, or, as in one case, from Italy to Lebanon!
The law is not clear.
“He said he had been upset because the SCOTUS clerk had given him the run around. He said he had an almost calm or peaceful feeling just before he checked the docket and saw the case finally docketed at SCOTUS. He said it was a very strange sensation.”
-
Isn’t it an amazing testament of courage?! I know this feeling. It’s in God’s hands now. We must watch and pray!!! Keep spreading the word to all friends and family. Keep signing those petitions, calling our Congressmen and hounding the media. We will not relent. We are on a mission.
Outstanding post Shady Ray. You said it far more eloquently than I. I read another article on a blog by an attny recently speaking to this situation. He said SCOTUS guards their power especially against the Exec Branch.
I have seen a lot of posts here where people say SCOTUS will do nothing. The actions by Obama’s groups esepcially against Hillary in the caucuses have been outrageous.
Leo last night said on Plains Radio to not pigeonhole liberal Justices and Conservatives. He pointed to a John Paul Stevens opinion that supported Leo’s case and he was a bit suprised but he said SCOTUS will usually follow the Constitution as they should. We still get occassional nonsense where they talk about intl law etc.
My mother was a war bride, but she became pregnant with me before she married my father, an American GI. I was born in Germany in 1947 at her home with a midwife in attendance. I am a natural born American citizen. I could even run for president! Well, those drugs back in the ‘60s might preclude that ... but, still. :)
Thanks. I know of the others, but this particular case was new to me, too.
It isn’t what is or is not true, but the seriousness & number of complaints & charges filed...oh, wait, HRH Lord President Elect Barabbas is a dem, so nothing matters.
At least no to Justice Sleepy.
I've got nothing but respect for McCain. Our country cannot repay him enough for his sacrifice. I don't care for his politics, but I respect him greatly.
However, for the sake of argument, Panama had always been under a land-lease until the US gave it up in 1999. It was NOT US Soil.
Section 303(b) INA (8 U.S.C. 1403(b)) states that: Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. A citizen is not, necessarily, a Natural Born Citizen.
McCain
Natural - YES
Born - NO
Citizen - YES
Also, for the sake of argument, let's say that Obama's birth certificate IS genuine (which I SERIOUSLY doubt):
Obama
Natural - YES (?)
Born - YES
Citizen - YES
In Obama's case, Dual Citizenship arguably is a conflict with what our Framers intended to guard against "divided loyalties."
In Roger Calero's case, also listed in Donofrio's case -- it's FAR easier of a "clean kill":
Calero
Natural - YES
Born - NO (Born in Nicaragua in 1969)
Citizen - YES
“If Obama was born on US soil, he is a natural born citizen thru jus solis. It wouldn’t matter who his parents were except if they were diplomats accredited to the US.”
NOT EXACTLY ...
PLEASE cite me Supreme Court case law that supports your assertion ... you can’t - ‘cause there ain’t any.
The 14th Amendment states:
“1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
WHERE does it say “natural born”? - NO WHERE! It SAYS “citizens”.
NOW:
Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by Law Of Nations.
Rep. Bingham said it means “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.”
It does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice (per BLACKSTONE) but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
A natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
I HAVE, MANY TIMES, QUOTED BLACKSTONE ON THIS, BUT HAVE FOUND OUT THAT JOHN ADAMS HELD VATTEL’S “LAW OF NATIONS” IN EVEN HIGHER ESTIMATION ...
Law Of Nations:
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Favoritism?
Control?
To be angry, white men?
From Wiki:
It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who was born in New York City) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
That's correct. We will agree to disagree. I see no difference between a native born Amcit and a natural born one. There is certainly no distinction the way they are treated under the current laws of the land.
That said; please explain to me if your argument is true, why is it that BHO continues to obfuscate, and hide his actual Certificate of Birth, issues by the State of Hawaii? If you are correct, this would all go away, if he was actually born in Hawaii.
As I have indicated on this thread, that is indeed the mystery and the cause of all this speculation and legal actions. He could make it all go away in a NY minute by producing his COLB.
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.