Posted on 12/08/2009 12:18:05 PM PST by vharlow
The Post & Email can confirm this afternoon, that Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon are representing a group of Chrysler Automotive dealers in seeking legal redress to their loss of their franchises following the direct and unconstitutional involvement of Barack Hussein Obama in the Chrysler reorganization.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Thanks but I am still not getting the connection in the direction going from Obama’s ‘authority’ to his ‘eligibilty’.
I certainly understand the reverse direction going from ‘eligibilty’ to his ‘authority’.
I mean I can see the dealers questioning his constitutional authority and I would back them on it.
But the question of eligibility is not settled so we have to assume he was eligible and that he has presidential authority, but it is certainly questionable whether presidential authority allows Obama to act in a manner that might have contributed to those dealers losing their businesses.
BTW I have always questioned Obama’s unwillingness to provide a copy of his long form birth certificate.
So When Obama retires from the US presidency and if he decides to run for president of Kenya, because after all he has a birth right to do so as he was born with Kenyan citizenship from his Father, that's fine with you? Or maybe a Kenyan Ambassador?
You don't mind being governed by a dual citizen? Not a problem for you? I guess its not like he would run the country into bankruptcy .... so maybe its not a big deal... oh, wait....
When did “Natural Born Citizen” become the legal equivalent of “Dual Citizen” When Tiger woods son comes back from Sweden in 40 years, is he entitled to run for President too? I guess so. If there is any thing left in the treasury we can have him piss it away.
Actually, natural born citizen has been defined by Congress using public law.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): 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 restoration, 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 ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: 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 postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 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 merchants. But by several more modern statutes 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;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King's protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:
People can talk about Vattel, Blackstone, Edwards and on and on and try to tell me I'm dead wrong until they're blue in the face.
It doesn't change this:
Or this.
Ping me when you win a case.
“Did the Treasury Department act unconstitutionally in the manner in which it dispositioned certain federal monies?”
That is the question the court will have to answer.
“...the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.”
The White House literally tore up legal contracts between Chrysler and dealers, a clear violation of the law.
“...the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.”
Those auto dealers damn well have standing, as they have suffered grievous economic harm at the hands of Obama.
The above quotations were taken directly from the article:
Just because it happened, doesn’t make it legal or right.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/the-obama-administration-the-fuller-court/
Eventually the truth comes to light and justice is served. Will it happen soon, I’m not holding my breath.
I will however, not sit silent and let the truth be swept under the rug, nor will millions of others who know the truth.
The former Chrysler dealers lost their businesses through illegal and unconstitutional acts ordered by President Obama.
Because they have standing on this issue, the Chrysler dealers want their businesses returned to them or they will press this civil lawsuit. (Some of those businesses have been “given” to Obama supporters.)
Due to the nature of the lawsuit, Obama will have to prove he has the authority to what he did: tear up the legal contracts between Chrysler and those auto dealers.
What is unique about this lawsuit is that Obama has to prove he is eligible to be President rather than a challenger proving that he isn’t eligible.
This could very well end up in the Supreme Court because of Obama’s overreach towards complete power.
Your son is a native born citizen BY LEGAL STATUTE. He is not now, nor will he ever be, eligible to be President.
There is no ‘right’ to be President. One must meet the eligibility requirements. Many citizens don’t meet the requirements. And yes, it is the law of the land no matter how hard you try to pimp it otherwise.
For president, one must be atleast 35, been in the country for the 14 prior to the election and must be a natural born citizen to be able to qualify for the authority to run the nation. These qualifications are not despensible, they must all be met and if even just 1 of the 3 qualifications is not met, then the person does not qualify for such authority.
So, by what qualifications aka warrant does Obama have the authority to hold the office of POTUS & the authority to be making the decisions he does?
The answer: NONE!
I understand the ‘authority’ aspect of the legal angle.
But I still don’t understand how to go to court and challenge ‘eligibility’ based on actions that are unconstitutional.
I am not trying to be obstinate, just trying to understand the legal underpinnings.
As an example, say Clinton had directed the EPA to regulate all of our CO2 emissions or had caused Chrysler dealers to lose their businesses. I could understand that such actions are not legal and that the ‘authority’ could be challenged. But eligibility? I don’t get that.
However, if a president was not eligible and a lawsuit to address this ineligibility was advanced, then once ineligibility was decided, THEN all ‘authority’ would be invalid including past directives and orders.
But I don’t see how these Chrysler dealers can challenge eligibility. I can see a challenge to ‘authority’ but not eligibility.
If they are indeed challenging ‘eligibility’, I would love to see their legal filing.
Let me try again now that I know the specific misunderstanding...
To have standing you have to have been ‘injured’. When you research the way the dealer closings went down per the Obama administration, there was one clear concise link...most of them were either dealers who are registered Republicans or dealers who were outspoken against the Obama administrations policies on the economy and a lot of them (those in the lawsuit) were of the most profoitable and independently run ( not in need of govt subsidies).
The dealerships that remained open and that were close to those (the most profitable & economically viable) that were shut down, all had one very important tie... A direct connection to Obama & the Democrats via political donations & political appointments.
Hope this helps.
patlin,
If that is Donofrio’s argument, then I wish him the best but I feel he is stretching it and will not be successful on these grounds of ineligibility.
Believe me, I would wish that there was a way to get at the longform birth certificate but I don’t think this angle will succeed. Here’s why I think that:
According to your summary, the dealers appear to be harmed by what appears to be partisan favoritism. They appear to be more than harmed, they were actually ‘demolished’.
In order to bring a cause of action against the persons responsible for thie ‘illegal demolition’, there has to be a set of statutes to reference, and that would include motives and actions that were clear and direct in causing the harm.
And if the harmful actions were not clear and direct, then there is a good chance to show that the effects were entirely partisan by outcome. That’s discrimination in theory.
In such cases of this kind of partisan discrimination, the plaintiffs would seek restitution and damages.
Now further, if it can be shown that Obama was aware and did not move to stop this illegal partisan abuse, or if it can be shown that he was directly involved, then there is a case to sue him directly and to sue his office for a civil infringement action. There is an idea that if Obama was deliberate in his motivation to harm those dealers, then the cause could be penal and could be grounds for impeachment.
So I can see how a lawyer could address this wrong by filing against the illegality and partisan discriminatory actions of government officials that are implicated. But I still see no clear path to challenge eligibility.
In the Keyes case, it certainly seemed plausible that he could bring suit against Obama’s eligibility but the problem for him was that he could not show harm, because he was such a minor candidate that there was no conceivable way that the election outcome could have been any different. So Keyes lost on ‘standing’. I don’t like that outcome, and I believe it should ‘just be’ that a candidate for office should produce documents to show eligibility including at the top of the list a long form birth certificate.
I hate this whole business of seeing persons lose case after case on the eligibility issue because Obama could end their uncertaintly in about 5 minutes and he chooses not to. That tells me he is a creep. Because if he indeed was born in Hawaii, then he should permit his long form BC to be made public.
The Left is having a field day with walloping those who challenge eligibility. The image they project is of a bunch of juveniles jumping up and down thumping their chests while hollering “Birther! Birther!” in lieu of “Loser! Loser!”. It hurts.
Donofrio had a better tactic of challenging the department official in Hawaii under the laws of that State for revealing their deliberation in writing that they had ‘determined’ Obama was a natural born citizen. But I think he was stumped in that effort.
No, because under the immigration laws of the time, she wasn't old enough to pass on her citizenship to him automatically.
But the idea that he was born in Kenya is so absurd, I don't see how anyone could even consider it with a straight face.
That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the constitution or in US case law to support it.
He lost his Kenyan citizenship in 1984, so no, he can't run for president of Kenya.
You don't mind being governed by a dual citizen? Not a problem for you?
Whether or not you or I would like it isn't relevant. You can't just change the Constitution on a whim just because you don't like some provision within it.
Congratulations. You have just answered the birthers' question of why he refuses to release the long form. It's amazing how so many people are too blind to see it.
You don’t need to be pinged, you lurk at FR wearing your Obamanoid kneepads, quick to leap onto any thread discussing Obama’s ineligibility. Is taunting now one of Axelgreasy’s instructions to you pukes? ... You use the tactic so liberally don’tchaknow. ... Ah, but you’re protected at FR!
do you think he was really born in Hawaii?
If he was born in Hawaii to 2 parents who were not U.S. citizens, does THAT make him a natural born citizen?
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.