News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...

[El Gato]

To your question, there have been many such efforts to put forth a Consitutional Amendment, since 1973, I believe. There have been five since the year 2000 alone.

I was thinking of efforts much closer to the time of ratification. Say pre Mexican or at least pre Civil war. Those 20th and 21st century attempts were likly by persons who never even read Blackstone or Vattel.

So, I don't accept this interpretation, personally. I assume you see the reasoning, as to why I don't. I'm as much a proponent of Vattel as you are, regarding original intent for the term of art natural-born citizen. But, you lose me in seeking to extend this into applying to citizens born abroad.

Only a very particular subset of them, those who parents were in the service of the country at the time. The 1790 act would have made Natural born citizens of all persons born of two US citizen parents , not just a small subset of those abroad in service of the nation. (very small indeed in 1790, we had a very very small Navy no deployed Army at all, and not much of an Army even at home. Diplomats and their US citizen support staffs, probably outnumbered Army and Navy personnel outside the country)

The revised wording in the 1795 replacement act probably had several rationals. One may well have been your concern, another that lack of power to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen, for purposes of Art II, Sec. 1 clause 5.

[RegulatorCountry]

Since, under the assumption of Hawaiian birth, he is a US citizen, he's also free to stay here, run for the Senate again, and/or just rot in place.

So long as that place is not the White House or anywhere in the line of succession, I'm down with that.

[RegulatorCountry]

Maintaining a standing army in foreign states is a relatively recent phenomenon, so I doubt the question or the problem would have arisen, or even entered anybody's mind, prior to, what, WWI? WWII?

I could possibly be convinced to go along with such an interpretation for citizens born to parents in service to the military, if such a citizen were to be born in a foreign state that does not determine citizenship via jus soli.

Otherwise, it's just a nightmare waiting to happen. Actually, it already has happened. We just haven't experienced the full brunt of the foreign entanglement aspect as of yet.

[Sibre Fan]

.. and also with you
(and thank you)

[El Gato]

Maintaining a standing army in foreign states is a relatively recent phenomenon, so I doubt the question or the problem would have arisen, or even entered anybody's mind, prior to, what, WWI? WWII?

Probably Spanish American War, which led to signifigent garrisons, particularly in the Philipines. Plus the Navy was pretty large by then as well. Needed coaling stations all over the world. Still nothing like the post WW-II garrisoning situation.

Otherwise, it's just a nightmare waiting to happen. Actually, it already has happened. We just haven't experienced the full brunt of the foreign entanglement aspect as of yet.

Why? Obama would not fall into that category, and who is likely to be more loyal, someone born to some welfare queen, of whatever ethnicity, or someone born to parents who took the oath to "support and defend". I don't have a problem with having all persons born to two US citizens, at least one of which was at the time serving in the US military abroad being Natural Born Citizens (and reluctantly the diplomatic corps, but they are covered already anyway)

[BP2]

And we have FReepers arguing that we’re really de facto British subjects and have been all along.

No, we would not be subjects of the Crown, but Obama JR would be — and thus ineligible to HOLD the office of President. At least, that's how I think the SCOTUS might view matters if they can be "forced" to rule on a lower court case on the issue.

When the SCOTUS looked at “to keep and bear arms” in "Heller v DC" in 2008, they looked NOT at such decisions like the 1886 SCOTUS case of “Presser v. Illinois” (as Sotormayor did), rather a multitude of “founding-era documents”.

The FIRST two books purchased by the US Congress, and the ONLY books purchase in the 17th Century by Congress, were:

Both books hold the primary references to "Natural Born Subject" (Blackstone) and "Natural born citizen" (Vattel).

Disregarding Vattel's reference (which I very much support on this topic), Blackstone's Commentaries have bearing on Obama's FATHER, a British subject, and Obama JR when born in 1961. Not by today's US statutes, but by way of British common law as applied in the 17th century. As such, Obama JR would still be a British subject unless he took an Oath of Abjuration to the British Crown. This is a variation of Donofrio's original argument.

I'm NOT looking at the laws of the US in post-1788, when the US Constitution was ratified. NOR post Judiciary Act of 1789, partly declared unconstitutional in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Rather those laws used by most of the Colonies before — and between — 1776 and 1788: i.e., common law.

Many parts of the common law as described in Blackstone's Commentaries — dealing with the "natural born" issues — go back to the 13th century (e.g., circa-1330 — 25 Edw. III. ft. 2). Many parts were later modified, but extended subect-ship to the children of the father born "out of the country".

Regarding Blackstone's Commentaries, here's again is the FULL text:

WHEN I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restorationy, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjectsz: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of plftliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. ft. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchantsa. But by several more modern statutesb these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

And Vattel's "natural born citizen", requiring TWO citizen parentS:

Congress doesn't want this hot potato. A good portion of the public has forgotten about Obama's NBC status. But I've noticed that some people see Obama's NBC status as a means to "deal with" many of the non-American behaviors and questions surrounding him — A MEANS TO AN END.

The SCOTUS is the only entity seen as the least-partisan to tackle this issue which grows as Obama's popularity shrinks. I see at least ONE of the suits (Donofrio, Taitz or others — all very different in methodology and rationale) breaking into the Judicial system once Jurisdiction and Standing have been established.

[Vendome]

“And we have FReepers arguing that we’re really de facto British subjects and have been all along.”

Who is stupid enough to write anything like that? They should not be driving. They are a danger to themselves and others.

Can’t believe anyone would write that or believe it.

[RegulatorCountry]

Can’t believe anyone would write that or believe it.

I did. Give it your best shot.

[Vendome]

Serious?

Where is the post. I want read it in context.

Do you drive? LOL

All kidding aside, I would comment after reading your reasoning.

[RegulatorCountry]

In order to understand context, you'd first need to understand just who I was referencing, as far as FReepers.

I was not referencing BP2.

It's not a reference that could be placed into context on the basis of this thread alone. To do that, you'd have to view every thread in which I've participated, wherein others have contended that United States v. Wong Kim Ark defines citizenship at birth in the United States by the English common law concept of natural-born subject.

I do drive, yes. But, I don't drink and drive.

I don't even drink and FReep. It appears that you might, though, Vendome.

[etraveler13]

Thanks for the information.
Have you found anything that relates to a child being born a US citizen, and a parent from another country adopting them, where there is no dual citizenship acceptance from either country? I have spent most of the day looking.
I realize your point, and concur, based on what I have found so far, that it is difficult, but not impossible to lose US citizenship. But, the requirements of Indonesia are very stringent, so I question just how this was handled? It seems apparent that Soetoro did Adopt Obama, and change his name legally in Indonesia, and so far, I have seen nothing to refute it, but cannot find how the US feels about the result of him being an Indonesian citizen (adopted), and no dual citizenship being allowed.
Your comment that I must believe that US law trumps Indonesian law, seems improper in the world view. There had to be some agreement for this to be harmonious.
Everything I have read about adoption today, in Indonesia as well, is that the welfare, and well being of the child is first and foremost. It is when you get into the political side of the issue, that it heats up. I have no doubt that Soetoro wanted what was best for Obama, and needed him to be in school, private school was expensive, and adoption by a father of a 5 year old automatically made that child a citizen of Indonesia. Was there a loophole?
What if Obama was born in Kenya? How does that affect his british status? or does it. Now there is talk, and I don’t believe it, but read it on AXJ, that his grandparents adopted Obama...the confusion just grows...

[Vendome]

I do drink and Freep but, on a personal don't take it personal.

Had I known you were the one contending we are English, if that is what BP2 said, correctly, I would have researched what you are saying, as I don't think you would.

Would you?

and I don't need to read back through the big post or re-read US vs Kim Ark.

It would not even apply if your argument is “We are all British subjects”.

No way in hell are we de facto British Subjects. We have plenty of Ice in our drinks and the beer here is served cold.

And our food is outstanding compared to theirs. Though, there is a pub a couple doors down from the Ruebens Hotel on Buckingham Palace Road that serves great fish and chips.

Seriously, was BP2 accurate? Would you really argue we are de facto British. Again, I offer as proof, our superior teeth.

Let me know what it is that offended you.

I am sure you could provide a synopsis for consideration and we could clear up any misunderstanding.

I am going for drink and I will be back in little while.

Thanks, and I am not trying to be insulting with the above, just providing some levity to lighten the air between us.

[RegulatorCountry]

Read the last couple of hundred replies on this thread ... heck, read just the replies from today alone, and let me know if you come away with the impression, that I believe we’re all de facto British subjects, Vendome.

[AmericanArchConservative]

LOL!

What’s really sad is that the old rascal comes from good patriot stock. I believe he is descended from Col. Byrd of Colonial times...

Some of my family served with/under Col Byrd and other revolutionary luminaries - including one who actually marched above Winchester with Col. George Washington in the French and Indian wars (there are some of the Slaughters, Websters, and Spencers mingled in, but the Lee/Lightfoot families of Virginia are the major part of my family tree - so intertwined through multiple marriages across several generations, the two cannot be disentangled entirely.

A.A.C.

[Vendome]

Wait, so you don’t believe that we are de facto British subjects?

If not then why take me on?

Isn’t your beef some argument with BP2? or do I have read all that stuff and take valuable time away from flaming some NoOb’s.

I am having fun with Parsy and a few others. Heck Parsy is reliving the 70’s and 80’s and just plain being funny.

[EDINVA]

See my reply to RegulatorCountry’s reply (@ 1532 or thereabouts). For all his ‘issues’ I do believe Bobby Byrd loves this country and honors the Constitution. More than can be said for others who-shall-not-be-named in the line of succession.

I think you are thinking of Harry Byrd, former VA gov and senator (not related to Bobby) who comes from that long line of FFVs. Harry and the “Byrd Machine” ran VA for a several decades, and I am sure Bobby played on that name connection (tho he wasn’t born a Byrd). Not unlike the current Sen. Warner of VA played on his predecessor’s name, tho not related.

[RegulatorCountry]

Good night, Vendome.

[Vendome]

See you tomorrow.

[BP2]

Understand that the etymology of the word “embassador” has changed over the centuries. BUT, it would most likely apply to Barack Obama SR, as understood by the common law of the 1700s.

In more recent times, “embassador” means an appointed representative of a government in foreign affairs of state.

Trace it back, and you'll find it means “a messenger, servant, vassal,” a “dependant” and “tenant who pledges fealty to a lord”, as does the word “SUBJECT”. Embassador (and ambassador) is very close to a slave, in linguistics, at times and locale interchangeable with the word “SUBJECT”. It likely originated from the Celts then the Romans, probably in Gaul.

Going deeper, in Latin roots, ambactus is “a servant, vassal,” from Celtic amb(i)actos. It passed through Provençal or Spanish into French, as embassator. It entered English in Chaucer's time, from the French (hence ties to Vattel, as well as Blackstone).

The common law “contract” between the KING (via the Crown's various means of “protection”) and FATHER (the "Subject" via taxes and subjugation) and his children is automatic and irrevocable except by direct intervention by either party (e.g., banishment by the King, or "Oath of Abjuration" by the Subject). Note this "contract" extends to the child, BY DEFAULT — as a child does NOT have the means to protect himself. This is done by the FATHER, through the King.

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

SO, a man who was a subject to the British Crown would pass on this relationship to his child under common law ... NOT of the US, but of the British Crown (the United Kingdom) ...

... if granted permission (in this case, via a student Visa) from the British Crown to visit a foreign land (the United States) ...

... regardless of WHO the MOTHER is ....

... and REGARDLESS of where the child was born.

- OR -

[Vendome]

What is up with these family photos? They are totally devoid of emotion between people who mean something to each other.

I have yet to see a picture that is not stilted or looks staged, like these people have no interest in each other or are quickly performing for the camera.

Am I missing something besides sleep?