Posted on 01/18/2010 8:50:34 PM PST by RobinMasters
Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.
"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."
She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would accomplish essentially the same thing as that proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., on the federal level.
The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Spine chilling Analysis and Conclusion by retired Constitutional Lawyer
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2010/01/health-bill-simply-massive-treasonous.html
Let me first qualify my position by stating that I am not a birther. (I used to be until I reviewed all of the facts in the public domain.) I do believe there is reason to question Obama’s status due to his father’s citizenship.
However, Hawaii has not confirmed that the COLB posted online by the Obama campaign (or FightTheSmears or FactCheck) is legitimate or even issued by the State of Hawaii. In fact, they have declined to do so.
They have made official statements regarding their review of the vital records currently on file with the Hawaii Department of Health. However, (to my knowledge) those statements have not been submitted as evidence in any eligibility lawsuit thus far. Those statements should be taken at face value, nothing more, because the Attorney General of Hawaii and the Director of Health do not have the authority to declare that Obama is a natural born citizen. They can legally state only that their records reflect that Obama was born in Hawaii. If their statements were submitted as evidence in a lawsuit, I’m sure the court would grant them sufficient weight under the law.
Thus far I have counted 62 civil adjudications in various lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. No plaintiff has prevailed in any of them including seven denials of granting Writs of Certiorari (agreeing to hear a case before the full court) at the US Supreme Court.
Since we do not know what statements or documents defense attorneys have presented to courts in the vast majority of these cases, it is impossible to know if justices and judges have taken the Hawaii Health Department’s public statements into consideration in dismissing and denying plaintiffs’ claims.
In one bizarre “politics make strange bedfellows” lawsuit, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, the Republican Attorney General of Indiana Greg Zoeller defended Obama and McCain against claims that neither one of them qualified under Article 2 Section 1, Clause 4. In Ankeny et. al. the case against Obama was made on the basis of his father not being an American citizen. Both the original trial judge and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that both McCain and Obama qualify as Natural Born Citizens.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
To date there has been no appeal of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision to a higher court.
I read it the same as you.
But what struck me is that the attorneys have determined (on their own I am assuming) that Brown meets the Constitutional qualifications to hold elected office without Brown having submitted any evidentiary proof, since there are no laws requiring him to submit qualifying documents.
If my assumption is correct, then the attorneys arrived at that decision based on their own assumptions rather than evidence. What convinced them that he is Constitutionally qualified? His current position as a State Senator? The MA SOS certification of his name on the special-election ballot? Public domain information documenting his residency in MA and his apparent age?
It sounds to me like Obama was “qualified” using the same assumptions and lack of evidentiary proof. They apparently deem those assumptions to be sufficient and legal.
The Indiana Court decision, is completely contradictory.
They state:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Yet, the guidance provided by WKA was that a person born in the country to alien parents, was a “citizen”...they never found WKA to the a “Natural Born” citizen. Only, a citizen with the same rights and privileges as an NBC. So, how in the world can the come to their “conclusion” by way of WKA? Completely contradictory.
DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):
According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.
If those aren’t good enough, the Indiana Court of Appeals Court’s decision can be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court and then on to the US Supreme Court. But thus far the appeals court’s decision stands with specific regard to John McCain and Barack Obama.
I read the dismissal.
It was denied for (surprise) lack of standing.
Every case has been denied either for lack of standing or due to the political question doctrine. The only exception is the Indiana case which actually gave the definition of natural born citizen as “citizen at birth.”
Yes, I mistakenly said it was in the court’s ruling. It was actually the defendant’s MTD that stated a candidate has a First Amendment right to run for elected office regardless of whether or not he is ultimately eligible to hold the office. (Page 18 at the link I provided.)
I read the dismissal.
It was denied for (surprise) lack of standing.
Every case has been denied either for lack of standing or due to the political question doctrine. The only exception is the Indiana case which actually gave the definition of natural born citizen as “citizen at birth.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
The persons who would be most likely to have standing in eligibility cases were the only people directly negatively effected by Obama’s election: John McCain and Sarah Palin.
They have not chosen to sue, join a suit or to submit amicus briefs in support of any of the eligibility suits.
The arrogance displayed in this pic never fails to impress me - Obama in a state of ‘heightened’ self-awareness.
69 million votes gets you a security clearance.
Horse, Barn Door. Still, it should be fun to watch the excuses when Obama opts not to run for re-election... and endorses Hillary — Hahahah!
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/natural-born-citizen-at-law/
Do you know for a fact that he hasn't provided a certified copy of his b.c. at some point, to some one? Has he battled it's release in courts? Has he given anyone even a scintilla of reason to doubt that he is not a "citizen" and that he is not past the age or residency requirement?
LOL - what are you waiting for, an engraved invitation?
Git yourself on back here afore you catch your death of ‘liberal’, heheh.
That’s possibly true. I’ve never seen any case law that says otherwise. Keep in mind that an MTD is going to include every possible argument for dismissal - even relatively weak ones.
In the MTD in the Keyes case, the government argued something along the lines that a third-party candidate did not have standing. Which the government attorneys probably really don’t believe, but whatever.
Again, the issue is: Whose job is it to determine eligibility?
No one can answer that question.
From a native (and some of my ancestors were born in Texas during the Republic):
Texas is not where you were born but a State of Mind, Heart and Attitude.
Goes something like this:
“Leave us alone to live our lives in peace and we will get along fine, if that is not satisfactory, we will deal with it.”
Thanks for the ping.
What American wouldn’t be proud to show that they were born in the USA? It’s a privilege and an honor to have been born here. You have to question the motives of anyone who is reluctant to prove their citizenship.
Are you copying and pasting from an OBOT site?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/natural-born-citizen-at-law/
His conclusions were obvious from the beginning of this bill's inception. Further, they were implicit in the nomination and election of Hussein.
Do you believe candidates should be required to submit qualifying documentation only if there is doubt as to their requirements? That's the logic that your questions imply. Haven't we been making the argument that Constitutional requirements should be enforced and not subject to some bureaucrat's assumption?
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.