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.

[Seizethecarp]

"Just as I -CLEARLY- pointed out in Post 143 above, when a proper Obama Eligibility case that has Jurisdiction and Standing in front of Justice Roberts, the SCOTUS will look at sources used by our Founders to define “Natural-born citizen,” just as they used those original documents to define “keep and bear arms" in DC v Heller in 2008.

"Sotormayor is the only difference from the 2008 opinion, and she will vote in the same manor as her predecessor. Expect a 5-4 decision using the concept of "Original Intent" — as opposed to "a living document" — to define "Natural-born citizen"."

BP2:

Thanks to WT2's repetition of the most common false anti-birther/Obot claims we now have one of the best birther threads ever, IMHO! It took 150 years to get gun rights "incorporated" under the 14A, but only in DC, so far. There is a direct parallel to the NBC issue, which has not yet come before SCOTUS regarding a specific candidate or president.

I agree with our assessment as to how Sotomayor would vote, but I question whether she would vote.

Would Sotomayor recuse herself? The de facto officer doctrine might preserve all of Obama's actions as POTUS if he was found ineligible through no fault of his own, thus preserving his appointment of Sotomayor to SCOTUS. Obama might even be allowed to serve out his term if SCOTUS decided to apply a new definition of NBC prospectively and not retroactively.

But if Obama was found to have fraudulently hidden a foreign birth and declared ineligible on that basis, he might be deemed never to have been POTUS. Then Sotomayor's appointment and all of her decisions might be challenged, and Sotomayor might have to recuse herself based on that possibility.

[rxsid]

""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.

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

Where is the evidence that the DOH was "the only source" for the newspaper announcements? I realized that's your theory, but where's the proof?

Were the two papers independently owned or operated? Is it impossible that grandma would "phone it in" to 2 papers?

Did the Obama's ever even live at that address? Let alone, in 1961 when Orland Scott Lefforge is reported to have owned and occupied that residence.

Too many unknowns/contradicting information/possibilities AFAIC.

[rxsid]

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

Exactly!

It can't. Great Britain can only govern the status of its citizens. Not anybody else's.

That's why natural born American citizen status is entirely up to us and our laws. The Limey's don't get a vote. "

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

Precisely my point. Our citizenship laws can not "overrule" or strip citizenship from someone with that foreign citizenship. Unless of course that person voluntarily renounces their foreign citizenship via the Naturalization process. And, similarly, their citizenship laws can not negate ours.

Barry inherited his fathers foreign "citizenship" and there isn't anything our citizenship laws can do to negate that (again, aside from Naturalization, which is voluntary by the person).

Therefore, Barry...even IF born in HI, would have been born with citizenship from two different country's. He would have been a dual national at birth. No chance the framers would consider such as person (post grandfather clause) to be a NBC of the US with such dual allegiance owed at birth (especially when one allegiance is to a crown).

[EnderWiggins]

"Where is the evidence that the DOH was "the only source" for the newspaper announcements? I realized that's your theory, but where's the proof?"

Well those are two very different questions, and I am quite surprised you asked the first since you quoted my previous answer in your post. You might have just been snoozing, so I will offer it again and try to put a finer point on it.

Two different newspapers published the identical set of birth announcements. They included the identical births, with the identical information about them, in the identical sequence. This is powerful (some would say conclusive) evidence that they came from the same source. Because if they got different pieces of the information from different sources, there is no statistical probability they would end up identically in the two papers.

What is the only source that could possibly have had all the information? Certainly Grandma calling in Obama's info would not have had all the other birth information. The only possible source that could have had all the information (to include Obama's) is the DOH.

There. That wasn't hard now... was it?

You then ask a different question... not one of evidence, but one of proof. and that too has an obvious answer. But you have to actually ask the question to people who are in a position to know.

Both the original investigator who discovered the announcements and published them on the TexasDarlin Blog, and a later reporter for a Hawaii Newspaper have asked. And both of them reported that the DOH was the sole source of those announcements.

"Were the two papers independently owned or operated?"

They were independent.

" Is it impossible that grandma would "phone it in" to 2 papers?"

No. But it is impossible that it would then have ended up inserted between the same two other births in the two different papers.

"Did the Obama's ever even live at that address?"

According to WND, Stanley Ann's parents lived at that address at the time. So, the answer is probably yes.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=107337

[rxsid]

You still haven't offered the proof that the records came, exclusively, from the HI DOH. I'm looking for the truth, not opinion that seems reasonable.

Furthermore, while I concede that point #2 may not be a valid possibility (awaiting proof), I'm sure you would concede that point #1 is a valid possibility.

[Churchillspirit]

Excellent point!

[EnderWiggins]

"Precisely my point. Our citizenship laws can not "overrule" or strip citizenship from someone with that foreign citizenship. Unless of course that person voluntarily renounces their foreign citizenship via the Naturalization process. And, similarly, their citizenship laws can not negate ours."

Correct. as you acknowledge in that last sentence, it goes both ways.

We cannot "govern" who they choose to call their citizen, and they cannot "govern" who we choose to call a natural born American citizen.

So a natural born American citizen's status cannot be "governed" by Great Britain. And that is the answer to your question.

"Therefore, Barry...even IF born in HI, would have been born with citizenship from two different country's. He would have been a dual national at birth. No chance the framers would consider such as person (post grandfather clause) to be a NBC of the US with such dual allegiance owed at birth (especially when one allegiance is to a crown)."

Now you have changed the subject.

Dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are not mutually exclusive. Let me give you a very personal example:

I was born on US Territory to two American citizens. By the most strict "Birther" definition, I am a natural born American citizen. But I can even go further. Both my parents were also born on US soil, making them at least 14th Amendment Citizens from Birth.

Yet... according to Italian law, I am also a citizen of Italy. This makes me both a dual citizen and a natural born American citizen at the same time.

My American citizenship cannot be "governed" by Italy. Neither can my Italian citizenship be "governed" by the United States.

Article II is prescriptive, not proscriptive. It tells us what the president must be, not what he cannot be.

He must a be a natural born American citizen. It says nothing about dual citizenship at all.

[EnderWiggins]

Since you don’t believe me, or the original researcher for TexasDarlin, or the newspaper reporter, then you have only one option.

Go ask yourself.

And no, I do not concede that point #1 is a valid possibility. It frankly makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Reily]

I am sorry I think McCain meets the NBC eligibility requirement.
His parents were citizens and his father was a serving military officer,his mother insists he was born in the canal zone. I think law and tradition insist that such offspring are NBC. Yes there is a McCain BC circulating the Internet, I understand that BC is of the same dubious authenticity as Zero's. Anyway I don't think it matters. I think people who make this claim let their dislike of McCain effect their thinking. It is an example of grotesquely bad reasoning to find any correlation to McCain birth conditions and Zero's.
Do NOT INTERPRET anything I have said as being motivated by me being pro-McCain. I most certainly am not a fan !
Anyway I think there have been other US presidential candidates from US territories. For example Charles Curtis was a vice president who was born in 1860 when Kansas was still a territory. (And he was 1/2 Indian; Osage, Pottowamie and something else!)

[rxsid]

"Dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are not mutually exclusive."

How can they not be? Someone born with citizenship from two country's can be a Natural Born Citizen of the US?

"I was born on US Territory to two American citizens. By the most strict "Birther" definition, I am a natural born American citizen."

Not so. If you were born on "US Territory" you were born on us soil...were you not? Therefore, you, in that case would in fact be an NBC of the US.

"Both my parents were also born on US soil, making them at least 14th Amendment Citizens from Birth."

If you where born on the soil of the US (whether a state or a territory) AND your parents were citizens (either NBC themselves, Article 14 or Naturalized) at that time of your birth, you would not have been subject to the laws and/or privileges of a foreign country by way of being a citizen/subject of that foreign country.

"Now you have changed the subject."

No, I didn't. It's related. If he's born with foreign citizenship (subject) AND he IF he was born in HI...he would have been born a citizen of two country's. A dual national. How can a NBC of the US be (also) at birth the citizen of another country?

" My American citizenship cannot be "governed" by Italy. Neither can my Italian citizenship be "governed" by the United States."

Precisely the point. Therefore, how could an NBC of the US, also be under the jurisdiction/control/right to privileges of another sovereign country?

Since it's not explicitly defined in the Constitution, we must look elsewhere. We must look to the framers intent. Did they intend, post grandfather clause, to include someone born with citizenship of another country, to be considered something different than a citizen and therefore a Natural Born citizen? If there is no difference between the two, they would not have made the distinction in the Constitution. They would not have done away with Hamilton's suggestion of "citizen" and gone with "natural born citizen" (no doubt as the result of Jay's letter) They clearly differentiated the two, even within the actual requirement itself.

Furthermore, there are early SCOTUS cases which include, in their dicta, the same definition for NBC (born in country, to two citizen parents):

"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.)"

There is no SCOTUS dicta, indicating that someone born with dual citizenship (or foreign citizenship) is considered an NBC of the US.

[rxsid]

"Since you don’t believe me, or the original researcher for TexasDarlin, or the newspaper reporter, then you have only one option. Go ask yourself."

In the end, your assertion comes down to a "trust me" or "go find it yourself" point. The theory that all newspaper announcements came 100% from HI DOH in 1961 is unproven.

"And no, I do not concede that point #1 is a valid possibility. It frankly makes no sense to me whatsoever.""

Again, that's the point. How in the world could a US NBC, in any way, shape, form, at any time (especially birth)...be governed by a foreign nation or crown?

[El Gato]

a valid point that most, if not all, of the 1790 Act was superseded by the Immigration Act of 1795.

The words/term "Natural Born Citizen" have not been included in any immigration law since that 1790 act, and they have not been in the law since that 1795 act was passed. Congress has no power to redefine the term anyway. But the fact that felt that they needed to do so in 1790 means that, in general "children of United States Citizens" "born beyond the sea" were not included in the Constitutional definition. However some of them probably were, since Vattel says that those born on US ships, or "in the armies of the state" or "in the house of a diplomate" are considered born in the country, and so they are, if they have have citizen parents, "Natural Born citizens".

[Beckwith]

Entire conversation irrelevant.

It’s important to understand that these ads prove nothing. They are not evidence of anything except there was a birth. They would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law. They are not legal documents.

Obama has not produced one shred of evidence, such as witnesses or hospital records, to substantiate the information contained in these ads. In fact, Obama and his mother’s family have pointed to two different hospitals in Honolulu, as his place of birth, while his father’s family points to a third hospital — in Mombasa, Kenya.

Herein lies the problem, and demonstrates the need for Obama to release his bona fides in order to put this controversy to rest.

The ball is really in Obama’s court.

[El Gato]

The one court case I have seen cited to prove it, Wing, says the exact opposite. Shows you how dumb birthers are.

Well, you no have several more, and they are earlier cases than "wing", but even the majority opinion in "Wong Kim Ark" indicates a distinction between citizen child of an alien born in the US and a "natural born" child of a citizen. It states they have the same rights, and both are citizens at birth, but there is still a difference.

Is that roaring I hear and Ozone I smell?

(IOW, stop calling people names, or the Viking Kitties will zot your ash)

Neither you or BP2 have the slightest clue what the constitutional definition is of natural born citizen because it wasn’t defined.

It isn't defined in the Constitution, but neither was "Citizen of the United States" until the 14th amendment was passed. Does that mean the term had no meaning when it is used to require Senators and Congressmen to be citizens for specific periods of time?

[Non-Sequitur]

There is no SCOTUS dicta, indicating that someone born with dual citizenship (or foreign citizenship) is considered an NBC of the US.

And even if there was it would be as meaningless as the five cases that you cited. Because if you know what obiter dictum is then you also know that under the doctrine of stare decisis any comments made in dicta are not binding.

[Non-Sequitur]

How can they not be? Someone born with citizenship from two country's can be a Natural Born Citizen of the US?

In the Elg case the court ruled that the fact that she held U.S. and Swedish citizenship did not impact her status as a natural-born U.S. citizen.

If you where born on the soil of the US (whether a state or a territory) AND your parents were citizens (either NBC themselves, Article 14 or Naturalized) at that time of your birth, you would not have been subject to the laws and/or privileges of a foreign country by way of being a citizen/subject of that foreign country.

Then are you saying McCain is not a natural-born citizen since he was not born on the soil of the U.S.?

[El Gato]

Even if British, or Kenyan, law did not make BHO a citizen of their country, the fact remains that his father was *NOT* a US Citizen, and that is what counts, not British law, not Kenyan law.

[El Gato]

He must a be a natural born American citizen. It says nothing about dual citizenship at all

Exactly, and BHO ain't one.

Because, unlike you, both his parents were not citizens.

[EnderWiggins]

"How can they not be? Someone born with citizenship from two country's can be a Natural Born Citizen of the US?"

Absolutely. Tens of millions of Americans are in that boat... and most don't even know it.

"Not so. If you were born on "US Territory" you were born on us soil...were you not? Therefore, you, in that case would in fact be an NBC of the US."

Wait a minute. That's exactly what I just said. What are you disagreeing with again?

"If he's born with foreign citizenship (subject) AND he IF he was born in HI...he would have been born a citizen of two country's. A dual national. How can a NBC of the US be (also) at birth the citizen of another country?"

Just like me... and you have already admitted that I'm an NBC.

QED: NBC and dual nationality are not mutually exclusive.

"Precisely the point. Therefore, how could an NBC of the US, also be under the jurisdiction/control/right to privileges of another sovereign country?"

You're changing the subject again. Remember the question you asked. It was ""HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"

You're suddenly not asking about the status anymore. Now you're asking about the person himself. And of course we all know that everybody except foreign diplomats is always and completely under the jurisdiction/control of the nation in which he is standing (or in the case of a baby, laying down). You don't 9for example) get to travel to Spain for example and tell the Spaniards, "Screw you. I'm going to follow American law while I'm over here." It doesn't work that way. Citizen or not.

But NBC is a status. And you already agreed that foreign law can't "govern" American citizenship status. They can only "govern" their own.

But they don't get to choose who we consider our NBCs. Only we get to do that.

"Since it's not explicitly defined in the Constitution, we must look elsewhere. We must look to the framers intent. Did they intend, post grandfather clause, to include someone born with citizenship of another country, to be considered something different than a citizen and therefore a Natural Born citizen?"

No. They intended to avoid having no President at all until 1811. Because that's how long it was going to take before the first natural born American citizens (born in 1776) would be 35 and old enough to be president.

"Furthermore, there are early SCOTUS cases which include, in their dicta, the same definition for NBC (born in country, to two citizen parents)."

For heavens sake, please try to stay on one argument. You're changing the subject again.

We've already agreed that I meet that definition, that I am an NBC, and yet I'm still a dual citizen. So none of those citations have anything to do with dual citizenship. You are confusing two different arguments.

"There is no SCOTUS dicta, indicating that someone born with dual citizenship (or foreign citizenship) is considered an NBC of the US."

There is also no SCOTUS dicta, indicating that someone born with dual citizenship (or foreign citizenship) is not.

[EnderWiggins]

"In the end, your assertion comes down to a "trust me" or "go find it yourself" point. The theory that all newspaper announcements came 100% from HI DOH in 1961 is unproven."

Not at all. In the end my assertion comes down to the acknowledgment that you don't trust anyone, so why are you wasting your time here when you could be going to the people who can authoritatively answer your question ans ask them?