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.

[EnderWiggins]

"Are you saying your a Darwinist who believes the holocaust was caused by 2000 years of Christian European antisemitism?"

No. Are you?

Because if you are start a thread and that will be the third subject I argue about here.

[DaveTesla]

Say, do you use the same screen name on the Huffington Post and N.Y times?

[DaveTesla]

"Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats."

So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural
born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?

[EnderWiggins]

"So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?"

That is the law. Yes.

[DaveTesla]

I provided you a link as proof but you refuse to read it.

John Bingham, the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bingham had repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

ON MISREADING JOHN BINGHAM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Copyright © 1993 by the Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.;

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps you should inform the Yale Law school and the Yale Law Journal that they are in error.

[EnderWiggins]

"Say, do you use the same screen name on the Huffington Post and N.Y times?"

No. I don't even read or post at either of those sites.

[DaveTesla]

"So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?"

"That is the law. Yes."

No it's not. Like Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London and many others
it is a perversion of the Law and nothing else.

[EnderWiggins]

"I provided you a link as proof but you refuse to read it."

I've read it Dave. But it has nothing to do with what we are talking about, and it does not contradict what your other reference proves; that John Bingham did not write the citizenship clause.

The reference you give in that last post (again) is all about the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, not the Citizenship Clause. Bingham did write the second sentence of Section One, but it has nothing to do with citizenship.

It amazes me the difficulty you guys have keeping your own arguments straight.

[EnderWiggins]

"No it's not. Like Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London and many others it is a perversion of the Law and nothing else"

Now see... here is where we almost agree. But not in a way that helps your citizenship claims.

Roe v. Wade is rather obviously (IMHO) bad law, because it bases its reasoning on the assertion that the Constitution contains a "right to privacy." Hell, I think my privacy is very, very important... after all, I'm a libertarian. I would have loved for there to be a right to privacy in the Constitution. But the sad and simple truth is that it is not there. So I call BS on the court decision in Roe v. Wade. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

So, how can I be a hypocrite and turn around and say that the children of aliens are not natural born citizens because the Constitution defines NBC as requiring "two citizen parents?" Even if, like you, I would love for the Constitution to contain that definition, the sad and simple truth is that it is not there. So I call BS on the Birther definition of "natural born citizen." There is no requirement for two citizen parents in the Constitution.

I come down on two different sides from you because I am being consistent. As far as I can tell, you are contradicting yourself.

[DaveTesla]

“I come down on two different sides from you because I am being consistent. As far as I can tell, you are contradicting yourself.”

No I am not. You have completely discarded the framers
intent (sort of like disregarding the Federalist Papers)
regarding Dred Scott.

You have completely have disregarded the framers intent
by trying to minimize and discredit their intent even
though the original intent is a matter of record.

You try to discredit Bingham by the simple change of 6 words (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and you try
to change Foreigners, aliens, families of foreign diplomats to Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats to suit
your purpose. It's just your opinion and much has been written by the framers to show that their intent was
otherwise. This is why it took half a century for the courts to change the meanings into something they were not. Just wait till the framers were dead and claim they meant
something else. Like committing an illegal act to gain citizenship. The framers must be rolling over in their
graves. In essence you are doing exactly what Roe v. Wade did.

[EnderWiggins]

"No I am not. You have completely discarded the framers intent (sort of like disregarding the Federalist Papers) regarding Dred Scott."

Nonsense. I care about the framers intent just as much as you do. But the Constitution does not mean what it does not say. And Bingham was not a framer of Article II, nor of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

"You have completely have disregarded the framers intent by trying to minimize and discredit their intent even though the original intent is a matter of record."

I am the only one in this thread who has posted a single comment by any of the framers regarding what they thought of jus sanguinis vs. jus solis. And James Madison rather unambiguously came down on my side of the argument. As such, I am the only one here actually defending whatever "original intent is a matter of record."

"You try to discredit Bingham by the simple change of 6 words (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and you try to change Foreigners, aliens, families of foreign diplomats to Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats to suit your purpose."

The latter is not a "change," it is simply proper English. And the former is simply assigning credit where it is due.

"It's just your opinion and much has been written by the framers to show that their intent was otherwise."

Oh? So I guess then that you can do what Red Steel and others cannot? Show me the writings or record of a single framer that says "natural born citizen" means born on US Soil to two citizen parents? Please?

When I asked Red Steel, he said it wasn't necessary. I took that to mean he couldn't. Maybe you can do better?

And... here's a really good hint:

Neither Emmerich de Vattel or John Bingham were framers of the Constitution.

"In essence you are doing exactly what Roe v. Wade did."

Right back at you. You are the only one of us trying to twist the Constitution into saying something it does not say. If you can insert a requirement for "two citizenship parents" then abortionists can insert a "right to privacy."

You need to reflect on the first rule of holes.

[STARWISE]

Thank you for your service!

You’re entitled to your opinions, of course.

But, alas ... what I smell are distraction, diversion,
circular argumentation, and redundancy. Those are some
of the well-known trademarks of 0bots, and FR’s been down
this road many times.

Where else would the moonbats come to muckrake and disrupt,
but the #1 conservative/anti-O policy site on the web?

This issue, whether begun by the PUMAs or not, obviously
has substance for many of us and millions of Americans,
especially those of us who’ve been researching for the
last 2 years all the minutiae involved in -0’s origins,
families, alliances, personal record gaps and concealments,
and, of course... primarily ... his stated father .. a
Kenyan/UK citizen here on a student visa when he consorted
with and impregnated Stanley Ann with -0, wherever that
was and wherever -0 was born.

I believe it’s a simple point really: your US citizenship
status is what it is at the moment of your birth ...
whatever the citizenship status at that moment of your
actual parents and birthplace.

In the case of parentage ... one foreign citizen parent
and one underage US citizen parent do not make for a US
NBC child qualified to be POTUS.

Let’s say Hugo Chavez came here for a UN conference, and
while here, engaged in a tryst with a young American woman
and impregnated her. She gave birth here and truthfully
named Chavez as the father on the documentation.

Is it your opinion that, when that child grew up, he
or she would be Constitutionally eligible to run for
and become POTUS ?

And the Founding Fathers specified natural born citizen
status ONLY for POTUS, not senator, not representative..
and for a solid reason: primary national allegiance only
to the USA for the highest, most powerful office in the
land and Commander in Chief of our military.

If you, as a former military officer, educated at West
Point, disagree with that premise, I feel sorry for the
lack of depth, cognizance and knowledge of American history
you obviously gained from your prestigious education.

The fact that this issue for POTUS has NEVER come before
a court for determination and resolution does not diminish
its validity and vital importance, if we are to be a nation
of laws. We’ve never had a pretender who boldly names his
father as an African citizen at the time of his birth,
flaunting the US Constitution, in the WH before.

If that doesn’t disturb you .. you a former military
officer, sworn to defend the Constitution .. well all I
can say is that is pretty pathetic.

“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blofficeroath.htm

This pursuit for the truth will continue, whether you agree
with it or not.

You may want to reconsider wasting your time here.

Again, I laugh at your Tea Party ridicule. Ask former Gov.
Corzine, former Gov. Creigh Deeds, and Martha Coakley about
that .. just for starters. You need to bone up on your research.

[mad_as_he$$]

From the way I read it the case is on appeal to the appellate court of the state. Next stop after that is the Supreme Court of Kalifornia.

[Frantzie]

I wonder what the next step is after CA Sup Court? SCOTUS or some Fed Appeals Cort or nowhere.

Is this the Gary Kreep case?

[Velveeta]

It is almost impossible to graduate from a real Service Academy (as opposed to state schools like VMI or the Citadel) and not serve in the Military. There is a minimum 5 year obligation after graduation. I was commissioned in the Field Artillery, am an Airborne Ranger, and commanded a battery in the 82nd Airborne Division Artillery. I served 9 years.

Then you're an honorable man, IMO.

This thread is fascinating. You argue well, as do my fellow freepers.

Carry on and welcome to FR.

[mad_as_he$$]

You cannot jump courts unless a higher court reaches down and takes the case. If he filed in the Supreme court now they would just push him back to a lower court.

[Red Steel]

In that example you keep giving, you bet they did. De Vattel was opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. And we instead have the 2nd Amendment. You can’t reject de vattel any more forcefully than that.

LoL again. You're staying true to form , except and funny, that the majority opinion of the court used de Vattel in their case [a footnote] in the right to bear arms over the DC Democrats who were against Heller. To repeat, de Vattel is used to uphold the 2nd Amendment not against it.

Then as far as I can tell you were actually making no point at all. The 1792 Edition does not even contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” Here again is what that edition says:

However, de Vattel does use the "Les naturels" which is "naturals" in French. The Founding Fathers had no problem reading Vattel's original French version. And as usual, you avoid the definition that follows. See below:

In that example you keep giving, you bet they did. De Vattel was opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. And we instead have the 2nd Amendment. You can’t reject de vattel any more forcefully than that.

LoL! As I have previously pointed out that de Vattel was used in the SCOTUS majority opinion to make their case of the right to bear arms. It's a non-sequitur anyways you using this as a rejection of de Vattel's definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution.

And you , again, seem to completely miss the point. No matter how high their esteem, they still rejected his opinion on the right to bear arms. And since he offered no opinion on the definition of “natural born citizen” they didn’t even have to actually reject that. You can't really reject something that doesn't exist.

You seem to miss the point to why the graphic was posted in the first place, to show you that 1797 publishing of de Vattel was not the copy on-hand for SCOTUS and the government, but a 1792 de Vattel published issue, making your 10 year "natural born citizen" cite nonsense and suspect at best.

As to your continued convoluted effort to pretend Wong Kim Ark says the opposite of what it actually says, it does not matter how you interpret it, or how I interpret it. It only matters how other courts interpret it. We have had just such an interpretation handed down to us just a few months ago in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

A state case in Indiana that doesn't resolve anything and that it avoids Stare decisis handed down by the Supreme Court. A state case that punted the issue rather than hear the case on it's merits. Oh please...

Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

The Indiana judiciary avoided the relevant point when Justice Grey made the distinction between a citizen of the 14th Amendment and a natural born citizen. As I pointed out to YOU in a previous post on this thread.

Here's a 1952 Supreme Court case where it cites the facts of the case that Indiana failed to head:

- - - - - - -

"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law.

Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was

Page 343 U. S. 720

convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932.

First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Kawakita facts are the same as with Wong Kim Ark born to foreign nationals in the United States and a 14th Amendment citizen, and as you see, the Supreme Court does not confer natural born citizenship status on Kawakita because he is not. The Supreme Court has been consistent when using the phrases 'native born' vs 'natural born' in all their cases. That a 'native born' is born to the soil, and that a 'natural born citizen', is born to the soil and has citizens as parents.

[Velveeta]

As one who is 2 years older than Barry and a native born, 14th amendment citizen, this is something we all knew at the time. It was taught in civics class and reiterated to my folks upon their naturalization. We, I - had all the rights of a natural born citizen, except the right to President and VP eligibility. My sibling born after my parents naturalized, is a natural born citizen. I had dual nationality at birth, my sibling did not.

[Red Steel]

Oh? So I guess then that you can do what Red Steel and others cannot? Show me the writings or record of a single framer that says "natural born citizen" means born on US Soil to two citizen parents? Please?

I have shown you that the Founding Fathers read and praised de Vattel before 1787, and also signed the US Constitution. You state that because de Vattel was not debated or mentioned in the Madison's Notes, therefore, his definition of citizen is not the meaning and intent behind the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. That is just a leap in conclusion that does not hold up to scrutiny.

[Frantzie]

I know - I was just wondering what the path may be from CA Court of appeals on up.