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.

[jersey117]

Justice Alito, please save our country before it is too late. Take the usurper on. Make history!

[Non-Sequitur]

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

If you correctly identify them as obiter dictum, then you also know that under the doctrine of stare decisis, dicta are not binding.

[BP2]

I like to reference the 2008 “DC v Heller” case on "keep and bear arms"
as it gives us the best glimpse as to how THIS Supreme Court decides Constitutional language.

Here are two important pages of the ruling of their rationale —
pay PARTICULAR attention to the highlighted sentences on the page 8 below:

There's only ONE reference used at the time of the Founding that defines "Natural-born citizen" ...
Vattel's "Law of Nations"
(knowing that Obama's father was a British subject,
note Vattel's use of the plural nativeS, citizenS and parentS below):

Now ... there's some that may try to say that our Founders did NOT use Vattel to shape the Constitution.

But the proof that the Founders did use Vattel is overwhelming:

So IMPORTANT was Vattel's book, it was one of the only two books
purchased in the 18th Century by America's new Congress:

No wonder the Left is scared.
They've radically used Alinksy's 5th and 12th rule SO much that it's now easy to detect and defeat:

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Yeah, we can see right through the "crazy birthers" diatribe ...
it's as effective as calling those who disagree with Obama "Racists".
Sorry, those tired excuses are as over-played as Obama's "it's Bush's fault."

All Progressive obfuscation aside ... get this to the SCOTUS under proper Jurisdiction and Standing,
and it's as straight-forward as it can get ...

[EnderWiggins]

"But if you want to be more complete, you must also list that to be eligible for Senator or Rep one must also be an "inhabitant" of the state in which they will be chosen."

And of course, it would be stupid to require the President to be the citizen of "the state in which he will be chosen" since he is chosen in all of them. So, yes, that's more complete, but pointlessly so.

"The real difference is that the framers didn't want the Chief Executive to have any foreign influence or entanglements. For good reason I would add (re: being the Commander in Chief)."

Actually, if you've read the debate you would realize that the framers only debated that issue for Congress, not for the President. So it is not a difference at all. It is absolutely clear that they wanted the President and the Congress to be free of foreign influence.

So they gave them three different tenure requirements to be increasingly sure the more powerful the position became. That's the real difference.

[BP2]

LOL

BP2: Post 80 - “How is “Natural-born citizen” defined?”

WT2: Post 84 - “Look up the US Code”

I’m still waiting for that US Code definition of “Natural-born citizen” ...

Maybe you should use “phone a friend” to get some help ...
because baby, you’re in WAY over your head.

[rxsid]

"But if you want to be more complete, you must also list that to be eligible for Senator or Rep one must also be an "inhabitant" of the state in which they will be chosen."

And of course, it would be stupid to require the President to be the citizen of "the state in which he will be chosen" since he is chosen in all of them. So, yes, that's more complete, but pointlessly so."

------------------------------------------

You took the original point of the discussion, and brought in additional requirements, which were not being discussed. So, to complete what you brought in, I brought in the other requirements.

"The real difference is that the framers didn't want the Chief Executive to have any foreign influence or entanglements. For good reason I would add (re: being the Commander in Chief)."

Actually, if you've read the debate you would realize that the framers only debated that issue for Congress, not for the President. So it is not a difference at all. It is absolutely clear that they wanted the President and the Congress to be free of foreign influence.

So they gave them three different tenure requirements to be increasingly sure the more powerful the position became. That's the real difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I have read the debates (& the federalist papers). Not only were they concerned about the Reps and Senator's, they were also very concerned about the Chief Executor. The reason there was very little debate about changing the requirement from "citizen" to "natural born citizen" is (naturally) there would be very little to no argument about trying to restrict foreign influence or entanglements from within the position of Commander in Chief.

I mean, really. What's to debate there in 1787 America?

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention

[Non-Sequitur]

Bye Bye Birthers - maybe you’ll wiseup, although, judging from the posts I’ve read here, I doubt it

You've got dozens of Birthers blowing kool-aid over their keyboards and rolling on the floor laughing at my being called a Birther. I am anything but. I am the anti-birther. Just ask them.

[MHGinTN]

You're the consummate tweaker (or maybe twink, but we don't want to get personal, what with your conversing with orangutans and all).

[Non-Sequitur]

...or maybe twink, but we don't want to get personal...

ROTFLMAO! Haven't met a Birther yet who didn't jump to personal attacks as early as possible.

[William Tell 2]

My comment wasn’t directed at you. I think I was just reading your post and clicked on the reply button.

These people don’t even realize Obama is going to take them to the cleaners while they’re busy misquoting statutes and misinterpreting USSC cases.

They act as if they’re constitutional scholars because they read some bs on a bs website. I’ve interviewed constitutional scholars about this, their dismissal coupled with the judges throwing the cases out, the USSC not even bothering to review it, independent fairly credible websites debunking it and the government officials in Hawaii disproving it has made me realize how full of crap this whole thing is - no different than the “truthers.”

Let me repeat, there is an important scandal brewing at DOJ with the New Black Panther case and these people ignore reality to chase moonbeams.

They are part of the problem not the solution.

The real disturbing thing is that Robinson is sympathetic to them. This is why I believe it’s time I left Free Republic.

[BP2]

> I don’t have a working definition of natural born citizen
> and neither do you.

Sure I do. I use what our Founders would have used — Vattel’s definition (see Post 143):

“natural-born citizens” are born in the country of parents who are citizens

Because Obama's father was a British subject at the time of Obama's Jr's birth, the president is clearly not a "Natural-born citizen". I don't know how much more clear this can be.

Vattel is THE reference the Founders used to construct the Constitution.

As shown in Post 143, Ben Franklin used the "Law of Nations" to help lay the foundation of our republic while courting France to help finance the rebellion against the Crown. But he's not the only Founder who used Vattel in its early days ...
so did cousins Samuel and John Adams.

In 1772, Samuel Adams wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that "the supreme legislative cannot change the [Massachusetts] constitution."

Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the Massachusetts Constitution on its own.

John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me." These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the Constitution: the Nation, (i.e., the individual States and the people) along with the Legislature.

There is also little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone.

The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a "Natural-born citizen" is that power that governs of his birth of citizens of the State.

Vattel — by including the parents and place in the definition — removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood OR by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

[William Tell 2]

I’ve responded twice bippy.

However, you still haven’t responded to my question which is Where do find “natural born citizen” defined?

Obviously you can’t answer so you try to change the subject. It’ll work with other birthers but only them.

BTW Bippy what kind of tin foil do you use for your hat?

[Reily]

No that won’t work people born in US Territories prior to statehood have all the necessary citizenship qualifications to be president. That argument was tried on Barry Goldwater candidacy and didn’t wash. Barry was born in 1909, Arizona became a state in 1912.

[William Tell 2]

Just as I thought, Bippy, all you do is quote birther websites.

You don’t know Vattel from Mattel.

Who are you trying to kid?

You know what maybe those voices in your head will give you a definition and you won’t have to go run to a bogus birther website.

[William Tell 2]

Another voice of sanity for these loons.

Along with Non Sequitur you are restoring my esteem of Freepers - a little.

[haole]

from what is in the link i posted in the article, it appears that obama did not object to himself being labeled the kenyan born candidate, and later, said, it was not a prerequisite for being a senator.

[Reily]

I am somewhat agnostic on the Obama eligibility issue.
However he is hiding something and I want to know what it is!

There is something very unsettling about this “blank slate” being president.

[STE=Q]

“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?”

Hi Jim!

The following article is both precise and easy to understand:

4 cases define Natural Born Citizen:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

The above article was also posted — and vigorously debated — on Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2425480/posts

STE=Q

[BP2]

> The real disturbing thing is that Robinson is sympathetic to them.

Is this part of the plan — to demonize & label JimRob for your own political gain?!

We expected this to be coming from Democratic strategists, but didn't think it would be coming from within. Maybe you're one in the same... No matter — the rest of us will answer your falsehoods with reason and the Truth. The vast majority here — member and lurker alike — can determine the difference.

He's not “sympathetic” to questioning Obama’s Eligibility. In fact, over the months, he's been nothing but neutral.

Incidentally, what's wrong with the old "Trust but Verify?" Obama has NEVER pleaded Privacy, Executive Privilege or the Fifth — he just relies on his lawyers to fall back on "Standing" as the method to keep his secrets from public scrutiny.

I don't want to speak for JimRob, but I know he values that in a Free Republic, Free Speech is perhaps our most important Right ... even when it's uttered by narrow-minded and confused nitwits like yourself — working overtime today to offer aid and comfort to the Liar in Chief.

> This is why I believe it’s time I left Free Republic.

Come or go if you please. But don't expect to go unchallenged when you spread lies and make illogical, uneducated statements. You'll find a militia of Truth-wielders waiting for you. We WILL call you on any lies or misstatements you make on Obama's Eligibility or any other facts surrounding it.

BTW, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out ...

[BP2]

> You don’t know Vattel from Mattel. Who are you trying to kid?

OH, really?!

I’ve given you NUMEROUS direct quotes from Founders on Vattel —
all you can do is cut and paste Talking Points from Politijab.

Please ... enlighten me on ol’ Emerich.