Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by 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.
It did confirm alot of issues you and I personally talked about. I thought it was a good article.
The Constitutional matter in question in the United States contains no requirement of marriage, and so there is no reason to question or explore marriage in the face of acknowledged paternity. Even if there were, there is record of a marriage license, and there is record of divorce.
And, British statutes clearly make exceptions for illegitimacy. So, your void ab initio "issue" is itself void ab initio.
There's no need to be curious, I've explained repeatedly.
I don't care because it doesn't matter. Personally, I have no interest in knowing all there is to know about Obama. I'd far rather I'd never heard of the man at all. So unless it affects something, I don't care to know about him. This doesn't affect anything.
Your constant presence on every single thread dealing with the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of President sort of undermines your sudden, studied nonchalance, mlo.
You're expending a great deal of effort and spending a great deal of time, on something you now say you don't care to know about, and that you claim doesn't affect anything.
Your and RummyChick’s favored “void ab initio” thing appears not to apply here, on the basis of:
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
RegulatorCountry: This language is intended to prevent stateless illegitimate children (non-British mother, no legal father) from being born on the soil of Britain or its colonies as of “when they were born”. This has nothing to do with Obama unless he was born in Kenya in which case he would not be an NBC or even a citizen of the US.
The broad language “children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality” doesn't employ the legally compelling unconditional “have British nationality”. Use of the phrase “can have British nationality” may be conditional subject to the legitimation language of the 1948 BNA which was not repealed at that time.
Also “British nationality” is not the same as “British citizenship” or being a “British subject” and is a more limited rights category of relationship to Britain.
Now now, you took that out of context, didn't you?
I said I don't care about whether he was a British citizen, so an argument about it doesn't interest me.
"You're expending a great deal of effort and spending a great deal of time, on something you now say you don't care to know about, and that you claim doesn't affect anything."
Not true. I spend very little time arguing about whether Obama is a British citizen. Remember, that's the thing I said I didn't care about.
I’m still interested in your response to my post to you and the answers to the questions I posed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2356926/posts?page=1515#1515
You haven’t read up on it if you are going to quote a debate as authority..a debate that doesn’t even have the quote.
You don’t understand the law if you are going to claim that “can have” is the same thing as “will have” under all circumstances.
Furthermore, the law at the time would have required approval based on the true facts. It would not have been automatic. It would have been subject to a process.
Frankly, if you want to continue to be ignorant and misstate the law..I don’t care.
Would Barack Obama have even qualified as a U.S. citizen, if placed under the same circumstance as Marie Elg in Perkins v. Elg? No, he wouldn't.
Where, in Minor v. Happersett, would Barack Obama fall, if one were to apply the following to him?
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first
It's clear that, at a minimum, the Constitutional natural-born citizen status of Barack Obama is doubtful. It can be stated with some confidence, that there can be no doubt, as to the citizenship status of an individual who actually is a natural-born citizen.
PART II. ANNULMENT
§580-21 Grounds for annulment. The family court, by a decree of nullity, may declare void the marriage contract for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the parties stood in relation to each other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever, brother and sister of the half as well as the whole blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the relationship is the result of the issue of parents married or not married to each other;
(2) That the parties, or either of them, had not attained the legal age of marriage;
(3) That the husband had an undivorced wife living, or the wife had an undivorced husband living;
(4) That one of the parties lacked the mental capacity to consent to the marriage;
(5) That consent to the marriage of the party applying for annulment was obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and there has been no subsequent cohabitation; and
(6) That one of the parties was a sufferer of or afflicted with any loathsome disease and the fact was concealed from, and unknown to, the party applying for annulment Case Notes Marriage voidable, not void, of girl under fourteen. 6 H. 289. Requires proper allegation. 7 H. 219. Proper parties. 7 H. 278. Nonassent of a party to marriage is not a statutory ground for annulment. 8 H. 77. Insufficiency of evidence on ground of nonage. 8 H. 360. Held that failure to procure license, ground for annulment. 25 H. 397, rev'g 16 H. 377. Enumeration of grounds does not deprive court of jurisdiction to annul a marriage on some other ground. 26 H. 89; 29 H. 770, 795. *Presumption that marriage was valid; burden on libellant to prove incompetency. 29 H. 716.* Trial court erred in deciding that wife was entitled to prevail on her divorce claim and second husband was not entitled to prevail on his annulment claim where certified copy of judgment of divorce presented undisputed evidence that when wife married second husband, wife had prior lawful living husband and thus did not satisfy the requirement of §572-1(3). 108 H. 459 (App.), 121 P.3d 924. Sections 572-1, 580-1, and this section must be read together; only the family court can declare void a marriage obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and it cannot do so where there has been subsequent cohabitation. 112 H. 131 (App.), 144 P.3d 579. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0021.htm
If he was actually born in Hawaii, he's a citizen at a minimum, even if his parents were not themselves citizens. If he wasn't, he's not, if his parents were not themselves citizens.
If his father or both of his parents were not themselves citizens, then he does not qualify as citizen at birth under jus sanguinis, which was the manner in which birthright citizenship was determined in some of the several States at the time the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, in order to legally qualify for election in those of the several States, the President had to meet the birthright citizenship requirements of all the several States, under elections held in those jurisdictions.
If he was born in Hawaii, and both of his parents were themselves citizens, then Barack Obama was a natural-born citizen, of that there can be no doubt.
If he was born to a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and hence a citizen of Great Britain, then he was himself born a citizen of Great Britain, and remains so, under the British law in effect in 1961. What facts can you add to this? Not hearsay. Demonstrable facts.
Alright. Is there precedent for voiding a marriage that had already been dissolved by divorce, of parties now deceased, in order to render issue from that union illegitimate?
I believe it would not be possible because of the divorce. Collateral Estoppel.
One other thing there are no illegitimate children in Hawaii.
Please elaborate for the benefit of our FRiend.
There is a statute that in Hawaii children of a bigamist marriage are legimate.
it is irrelevant to British law for these set of circumstances
AGAIN,
There are voidable marriages and VOID marriages.
Bigamist marriages are VOID. Getting a divorce does not make the marriage all of a sudden legitimate for immigration law.
I really don’t care what you guys think. I know what I believe.
Neither of you seem to even understand the difference between VOID and VOIDABLE.
You truly don’t have a clue about immigration law if you think someone can lie to get married , get a divorce, and then say..hey look..my marriage was valid because I got a divorce.
I'm still needing to see your source for this, mlo. There is no admission, anywhere, to my knowledge, that Barack Obama retained British citizenship after Kenyan independence. The much-touted FactCheck states that his British citizenship was "short-lived."
For those of you that still can’t grasp the concept of a marriage that is void ab initio..
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0073p-06.pdf
Obama SR was already married. The marriage in Hawaii was not valid.
A divorce does not make the marriage valid.
I don’t care whether posters here are too ignorant to understand this concept.
I believe Rummy Chick and I have gone over this before, I located a chart that stated such..will look for it.
Do you honestly think any court in the world is going to declare Barack Obama a bastard, for any reason at all?
There's still the acknowledged paternity of Barack, Sr. to contend with, so it would be an exercise in futility, either way.
Even if some Orly type were to somehow hoodwink a court in Hawaii to declare a marriage, dissolved by the divorce of now-deceased parties 45 years ago, as void, in order to ... what, make Obama not a British citizen currently? Declare him a bastard so only his mother's citizenship presumably applies to his own, what?
It's just nonsensical.
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.