Courts can remove ineligible chief executive - Precedent cited in appeal (certifigate)

WND ^ | 2/1/10 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the presidency.

The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.

[William Tell 2]

Citizenship is defined there. You tell me where natural born citizen is defined.

While you’re at it tell me why the Hawaiian government, numerous federal judges, and the McCain campaign not to mention numerous scholars are all in on this grand conspiracy?

[ichabod1]

Maybe Glenn Beck’s red phone actually rang, but he can’t admit it.

[txoilman]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

I’d like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.”

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.

[txoilman]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

I’d like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.”

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.

[wintertime]

Rosie O’Donnell who said Bush knew about 9-11
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How could Bush prove that he did **not** know about 9/11? How could he prove a negative?

Ah! But...Proving a positive should be an easy thing to do. It is **easy** for a citizen to prove that they are a **natural born citizen**. If Obama is a natural born citizen the documents exist! He refuses to release them.

An honest man would be **honored** to promptly prove with all the evidence and the **best** evidence that they were a natural born citizen and eligible to be president and Commander in Chief of our troops.

So?...Why isn't he? Why is he using tax money and DOJ attorneys to prevent this easily available proof? It is utterly unreasonable.

And...If he is doing it to stick to the birthers, the American people will **not** be amused that he wasted court time, DOJ attorney time, and tax dollars to play a practical joke.

By the way, I can **easily** prove that I was born to a mother and father that were citizens of the United States of America, and that I was born in the Frankford Hospital and Dr. Hibbs was the attending physician with nurses as witnesses ( little foot prints and all).

Also...I am 63 years old but there are a fair number of people still living who would be **pleased** to testify that they visited my mother and me in the hospital, brought meals to the family, and attended the Christening. ( We can **easily** produce a church record of that too!)

Obama is behaving **irrationally**!!!...and...therefore, we have good reason to pursue this! Personally, I have complained to my representatives and I have asked them to follow up on it, and to change our state laws such that all candidates must prove they are eligible. With more than 50% of Republicans and 30% of the general population not even believing that Obama was born in HI, I'd bet my 401K that their offices are getting these phone calls every day.

This issue isn't going away. Pallin was right. She doesn't need to bring up Obama’s eligibility. Others by the thousands upon thousands **will** bring it up. And...No, we don't need Rush, Beck, OReilly or any of the other Fox people. We now have the Internet. This isn't going away!

[BP2]

> Federalist Society citizenship experts
> Heritage Foundation scholars

Got Links for these experts and scholars so we can read what they REALLY said?

And are they talking about “Citizen” or “Natural-born Citizen”? You seem to be confused on the two citizenship statuses.

> every federal judge

Really? EVERY Federal judge in the Judicial branch?!
I didn't know there were that many cases ...

LOL. You keep making these sweeping generalities.

The cases have been dismissed because of jurisdiction and
standing, not on the merits of the case.

> the Hawaiian government

Fukino?! Bwa-ha-ha. Are you serious?

> snopes
> factcheck

LOL — Snopes and FactCheck? Again, Bwa-ha-ha. Are you serious?

Your Talking Points are really, REALLY old.

> are that they all stupid

As said previously, the dismissed cases are kicked up the food chain to the next higher court as they lack jurisdiction and standing. Only the SCOTUS can make such a ruling, but it must get there with due process and the plaintiff arguments must be structured properly. Each case is improving on the previous, picking at the scab that is Barry Soetoro.

The rest of the players off your Talking Points are misinformed on this issue, as are you.

You should be a little more critical of what you hear in Gibb's daily press briefings ... LOL.

[William Tell 2]

No wonder you people believe in conspiracy theorie, you’re illiterate!!! US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t say what you claim it does!! It says the exact opposite.

Read the opinion for goshsakes instead trying to act like your a Constitutional scholar and making a fool out of yourself.

“Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. ..The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ ...The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States....

Justice Gray then says:”The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion”

Now which word don’t you understand??

[BP2]

> Citizenship is defined there. You tell me where natural
> born citizen is defined.

Bwa-ha-ha !!!!!! The rest of us are laughing at you.

You don’t even know the difference, do you?

STRIKE ONE.

What’s your working definition of “Natural-born citizen”?

[Drew68]

And I see the word "parents" (plural) is the key. If both are constitutionally required to be U.S. citizens for Obama to be a "natural born citizen," then Obama is out of luck. Can this requirement be proven?

Jim, with all due respect, the "requirement" that both parents be U.S. citizens in order to convey natural born status is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of birthers for a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet. It is found nowhere in the Constitution or any established case law. Indeed, all current efforts to find Obama ineligible on the basis of his father's Kenyan citizenship have been met with failure in the courtroom. On the contrary, the USSC decided the very opposite in United States v. Kim Wong Ark (1898), holding that being born on American soil is enough to convey citizenship regardless of parentage. More recently, Ankeny v. Daniels used the Ark ruling to affirm that Obama meets the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement per the constitution. Ankeny has yet to be appealed.

Will an appeals court uphold Ankeny? My money says yes. And the Supremes? The conservative Chief Justice of the highest court in the land swore Obama in to office knowing full well that his father was not a U.S. citizen, a fact that has been a matter of public record for years and was contested by none of Obama's primary or general election opponents. That's a pretty tall order counting on SCOTUS to suddenly find Obama ineligible on the basis of this dubious citizenship requirement.

I have no doubt that as soon as I post this reply, you will be inundated with pings accusing me of being an "O-Bot", troll or someone employed by Soros and/or the Obama administration. This couldn't be further from the truth. Obama is a disaster of a president and he's a disaster for this country but these eligibility challenges will not be this nation's remedy to his administration. They'll continue to go nowhere. It is my sincere belief that allowing conservatism to be co-opted by birthers, and by association the various grifters, scam-artists, felons, disbarred attorneys and other shady characters who have anointed themselves "leaders" in this movement will only benefit the Democrats by giving them the ability to paint Obama's legitimate opponents as nothing more than unhinged cranks and conspiracy nuts.

You can guarantee that should any of these eligibility lawsuits survive a motion to dismiss, vast segments of this country will forget their displeasure with the current administration and rally to Obama's defense. And just as Bill Clinton succeeded in portraying himself as the victim of a Republican witch hunt, so too will Obama, forcing conservative leaders to set aside their efforts to fight Obama's socialist legislation and scramble to distance themselves as far away as possible from the likes of Orly Taitz, Phil Berg and the others pursuing these cases.

Just my $0.02.

V/R
Drew68

[TChris]

Thanks for clarifying.

One could still hope that the current SCOTUS might recognize that the previous rulings were erroneous and reverse. Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

[rxsid]

"I think Obama was born in Hawaii—the newspapers seem proof enough "

1. If the announcement's were in fact generated by way of info coming from the state of HI (i.e. filing of a birth certificate)...you are aware that foreign born baby's were eligible to apply for, and receive, an actual Hawaiian birth certificate?
Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I". With that in mind, it's possible that a foreign born Barry Soetoro could have had a Hawaiian birth certificate generated for him by way of an application from 1 family member (grandma no doubt). The announcements (which of course only announce that he was born, just not where he was born) and then generated from that.
or
2. Is there credible documentation that the process of generating those newspaper announcements was in fact ONLY from government docs (like above)? Or, did they also accept "phone in's" by family (or friends) wanting to announce a birth...like so many other newspapers allow for?

[EnderWiggins]

"2. Is there credible documentation that the process of generating those newspaper announcements was in fact ONLY from government docs (like above)? Or, did they also accept "phone in's" by family (or friends) wanting to announce a birth...like so many other newspapers allow for?"

The problem with the "phone in "theory is that the two different newspapers published the identical announcements. All the same babies were listed in the same order. They must therefore have both come from the same source.

And the only source that had all the information in those announcements was the DOH.

[William Tell 2]

Ohhh I get it. The Hawaiian government, the federal judges who have repeatedly dismissed these stupid suits, the Supreme Court, legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation, citizenship and immigration law experts of the Federalist Society are all stupid.

But you, Larry Johnson, who started this rumor and whose previous claim to fame was writing a NY Times editorial in July 2001 that foreign terrorist were not the most significant threat to the US and Phil Berg, who is not only a birther he is a truther, are all smarter than the rest of great unwashed.

You are the height of arrogance.

So genius you really believe Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Fukino, McCain, Judge David O. Carter, are all in on this conspiracy.

I bet you think UFO’s kidnapped people and in Bigfoot too huh?

[AmericanVictory]

Try reading the brief from the Hollister v. Soetoro case that is posted here.

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“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.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.

[EnderWiggins]

What’s with all the asterisks?

[Velveeta]

You left out this part:

From US v. Wong Kim Ark

'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' '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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.'

[rxsid]

SCOTUS dicta on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" (i.e. two citizen parents, born in country):

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The Constitution requires a "Citizen" as part of the eligibility requirement for federal Rep's and Senators. It also requires a "Natural Born Citizen" as part of the eligibility requirement for POTUS and Commander in Chief (of the military). The framers, clearly, made a distinction between the two.

[William Tell 2]

I don’t have a working definition of natural born citizen and neither do you. Don’t make the same fool mistake the other guy did quoting this US v. Kim Wong Ark case. It doesn’t say what the idiot birther website claim. It claims the exact opposite seem my post and post 109.

Every time you open your mouth you make a bigger fool out of yourself. All you do is try to mimic Rush Limbaugh with the Bwahaha stuff and repeat what the “birther” websites say.

[William Tell 2]

Helllooo the Supreme Court justice who wrote the opinion said that natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution.

What more do you need to know?