Posted on 09/10/2009 4:54:47 AM PDT by kellynla
Americans’ who do not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen won a huge decision in California as a judge set three court dates, one of which will require the President to prove his citizenship.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in Southern California, it is the first time the merits of the President’s citizenship will be argued in open court.
The first obstacle the plaintiffs will have to overcome is an October 5 motion to dismiss as well as the arguments on the issue of discovery. From there the plaintiffs will have to navigate a pretrial hearing before Judge Carter will hear the case tentatively set for January 26, 2010.
According to Jeff Schwilk, who was in the courtroom, the judge was solid as a rock. “The audience of about 45 was nodding and giving thumbs up to each other on almost all of his decisions.”
“He (the judge) is determined to get Obama to prove he is eligible,” Schwilk explained. “Things are going to move very fast.”
However, Judge Carter hasn’t ruled on the discovery motion, which is the right to see the President’s still-concealed records. Judge Carter didn’t rule on the motion to dismiss either.
The next few weeks will tell if the California plaintiffs will actually be able to challenge President Obama in open court.
The lawsuit claims President Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia or Kenya. This would violate the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, it says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The records put forth by the President show that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth took place in Hawaii.
“It’s pretty close to check mate, but of course the Obama team will try to come up with something to get their way,” Schwilk finished.
It seems we have under 15 years until the collapse occurs, unless God sees fit to pull this sorry mess out of the dumpster.
God helps those who help themselves.
I think you'll find they voted for the Obama-Biden ticket. No choice to say vote for McCain for President and Biden for VP.
He was on the ballot I cast. I didn't vote for him but I did see his name there.
It might be different in different states, but on my ballot, you only voted *once*, not once for President and once for Vice President. That's because you weren't really voting for McCain and Pallin or Obama and Biden, or whatever other "tickets" were on your state's ballot, you were voting for electors for those tickets.
That is one possible wedge that could get Biden also declared not to be the Vice President. Although I don't think so. The states selected the electors by whatever method they chose, it's just that all chose the same.
I seem to remember that in at least the two Presidential elections I first voted in, before moving to Texas, the electors names were on the ballot, along with the ticket they were pleged to. Maybe not though, 1976 was a long time ago. It was also the only year I voted on a paper ballot, using an ordinary pen or pencil. No machine, no punch cards, just 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper, with boxes that you would put an X in to mark your choice. In '72 we used machines and voted in the Methodist Church around the corner (literally!). In '76 I lived in a town of less than 300 people, and voted at the Volunteer Fire Department's facility.
Thank you for the response. Second question.
Is that where the marriage took place?
I, on the other hand, believe that they are craven political creatures, and that they will rule that “native” and “natural” are intended to be synonymous, addressing the same issue.
I believe:
1. Humans are totally depraved.
2. Power corrupts
15 years before the collapse? More like 15 months or even 15 weeks.
More to the point, she is talking about a Certification of Live Birth, not a Certificate of Live Birth, and that "Certification" has been proven to be a forgery by Polarik.
You are correct when you indicate she did not say that the birth itself took place in Hawaii, although she thought that was what she was saying. In other words, you might say that her clumsiness with the language defeated her attempt at trickery.
3 USC 19 says:
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.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
...
(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that— (1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.
This would seem to be a "failure to qualify" situation, at least for President. For the Vice President, it would have to be an invalidation of the election for which there is no provision in the law, but that doesn't mean it would not be done by the Courts, especially in such extraordinary circumstances
But there is no provision in the Constitution, or the law, for a special election.
Notice the law says the Speaker would have to resign. Too bad, so sad. Of course she could, and if she had a lick of sense, would, turn down the "opportunity to serve". But her having a lick of common sense is questionable
I hope he carries an M1911A1 and and some variety of M-16/AR-15 with him wherever he goes. AND has a platoon of retired Gunnery Sergeants accompanying him, appointed as temporary "officers of the Court", so they could ignore California gun laws.
Because with Obama's Presidency we've now opened the door to a President whose mother or father could be an Austrian Nazi or a Russian member of the Politburo or someone in the Taliban.
Oh it means something, it will be up to the Courts to say what that is.
What is defined is “native born” (iirc.) It has to do with age, years residence, etc.
No "native born" is not even used in the law. The law, passed under Congress power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, defines who is a citizen at birth. (they redundantly include those born in the United States, the 14th amendment defines them as citizens anyway).
But none of those define "natural born", and that is the term the Constitution uses, but not in the 14th amendment, just Article II section 1.
Interestingly the law also defines naturalization, (how it can define a Constitutional term, I haven't a clue) as making an alien into a citizen *after* birth. How they can have a section of the same part of the US code that defines citizenship *at* birth with that definition, I'm also not quite sure. Of course all they would really need to do would be to remove the offending definition, or at least change "at birth" to "upon birth" or some such. It's a small detail, but I wish they would be consistent.
Regarding one parent + born on US soil being the basis for NBC status? Perhaps you are well versed in case law and know this for a fact, I do not.
When reviewing what the Founding Fathers intended a President's loyalty and allegiance to be and to what country, they were clear that the President be loyal only to the US and not have a divided loyalty from having dual nationality parents.
Moreover, though this is not as true as it was then, the nationality of the father carried greater weight at that time. In that day, it would seem likely a child of a non-American father would possibly have dual citizenship or more likely be considered a citizen of the father's country. Either way, while that child might very well be a citizen, he or she would not be a NBC and therefore not eligible to be President as intended by the FFs and stipulated in the Constitution.
obama's background has the additional citizenship possibilities from his step-father and his lack of a paperwork trail makes me wonder how he declared himself to the various schools he attended and to any scholarship boards who might have helped finance his education.
His actions and lack of actions make me question his past and laugh at his campaign promise of transparency. I was born and raised in America and people who say one thing and do another are called liars even if they are also called the President.
I don't blame anyone in the military to question his authority to give them orders. War often requires a soldier to kill another human being, but the soldier can take some solace and refuge in his or her belief that they are following just orders from someone Constitutionally eligible to give them those orders.
obama is giving our soldiers reason to doubt, to lose their faith and to question. To continue in this way as he seem content to do, obama is showing his lack of integrity and character and acts like someone with something to hide.
An honest and straightforward man would be **HONORED** to promptly prove he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.
So?...What does this say about those who defend Obama’s stonewalling?
Hamilton was not anymore foreign born, than many other citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He was born in a British Colony, just like bunches of Irishmen, Scots, and Englishmen, who moved within the British Empire to the 13 lower North American British colonies.
If they wrote the clause for Hamliton, then they defeated their own purpose by excepting citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
They did write the clause, at the apparent urging of John Jay, later the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to exclude foreign influence from the positon of Commander In Chief, which latter turned out to be the President. (That was not settled yet when Jay wrote to Washington with his suggestion. in fact having a single Chief Executive was not yet settled)
Let’s pray we get our day in court....good news, but I’m not holding my breath, although, as each day passes and the country moves more and more against barry hussein, I do feel that “hope & change” kicking in!
BTTT. That was an interesting research result.
Or a Kenyan Birth Certificate. But it would not need to be Kenya, any place outside the US would give the same result. Canada for example.
Wrong. Impeachment does NOT come into play here. barry committed fraud and was NEVER eligible to be POTUS. No impeachment required...just our military going to the White House and grabbing his sorry a** out of there in cuffs.
The real crisis is the constitutional crisis this creates. There is nothing in the constitution to tell us what to do and there has never been anything like it before....new territory.
That puts you in the position of arguing that foreign law somehow determines whether or not someone is a natural born US citizen. If, for instance, Kenya or the British Empire had a strict juris solis law and Obama was born in Hawaii, he'd have no divided loyalty, legally speaking.
On the other hand, there's my case. My great-grandfather emigrated from Italy in 1913. My grandfather was born in 1920. My great-grandfather became a citizen in 1943 (a year before another of his sons was killed in Normandy). Now, under Italian law, since my great grandfather had my grandfather before renouncing his Italian citizenship, he passed it to my grandfather. And my grandfather never specifically renouned his Italian citizenship (since he never knew he even had it), so he passed his it to my mother, who never renounced it (since she never knew she had it). And she passed it to me. If I jump through some hoops and come up with some documentation, I can get an Italian passport. There are companies, in fact, who will help me do this. This isn't the same as applying for Italian citizenship. Under their law, I already AM a citizen.
Now, I was born here. Both of my parents were born here. All four of my grandparents were born here. I have a US passport. But a quirk of Italian law says I'm a citizen of Italy.
Can I be president, or does foreign law control?
That puts you in the position of arguing that foreign law somehow determines whether or not someone is a natural born US citizen. If, for instance, Kenya or the British Empire had a strict juris solis law and Obama was born in Hawaii, he'd have no divided loyalty, legally speaking.
On the other hand, there's my case. My great-grandfather emigrated from Italy in 1913. My grandfather was born in 1920. My great-grandfather became a citizen in 1943 (a year before another of his sons was killed in Normandy). Now, under Italian law, since my great grandfather had my grandfather before renouncing his Italian citizenship, he passed it to my grandfather. And my grandfather never specifically renouned his Italian citizenship (since he never knew he even had it), so he passed his it to my mother, who never renounced it (since she never knew she had it). And she passed it to me. If I jump through some hoops and come up with some documentation, I can get an Italian passport. There are companies, in fact, who will help me do this. This isn't the same as applying for Italian citizenship. Under their law, I already AM a citizen.
Now, I was born here. Both of my parents were born here. All four of my grandparents were born here. I have a US passport. But a quirk of Italian law says I'm a citizen of Italy.
Can I be president, or does foreign law control?
Glad you found that...Politics is starting to give me a headache...hehehee
I really thought that there had to be a special election in there for this situation...
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.