EnderWiggins, er I mean Edgar Winter
Posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”
The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.
You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site. We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
If he was born in Kenya, he is not a US citizen of any type, because he would not be a Natural Born US citizen, nor has he been naturalized.
The courts pick their desired result and then find a reason to get there. Unfortunately in this case, the ineptitude of the attorneys involved heavily influences the desired result.
Of course it was defined. Just because a definition isn’t included in the constitution doesn’t mean it has no meaning. The Constitutional Term Natural Born Cititzen means today exactly what it meant at the signing of the Constitution. The only way to change the qualifications for president is to amend the comstitution!
Check out this thread for further enlightenment, and especially beginning at post #940:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2450158/posts
~~PING!
The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
EnderWiggins, er I mean Edgar Winter
There is a legal requirement to be a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen a person must be born under the sole jurisdiction of the united states. if one of your parents is a alien, you inherit that alien citizenship regardless of the place of your birth, there is no escaping his reality. Thus you were NOT born under the SOLE jurisdiction of the United States.
In obummer’s case, he Admits his guilt in the open, which does not negate it. He was born under the British nationality act 1948, the jurisdiction of another nation. Ergo, he is not, never has been, indeed, he never could be a natural born citizen.
We have an unconstitutional government. Don’t wonder for an instant why that “government” is acting so across the board unconstitutionaly. It isn’t boing by the constitution. We need to throw o out of office and into A jail cell.
HHmmm Weren’t you asking what was in the air? Is this it?
Yeah, but don't tell him that! It's liable to reveal him as a cherry picker as to which parts of the Constitution are important to uphold.
"IBTAT
In Before The AFTER-birther Trolls."
Nice!
Well, that's reassuring! I mean, it's not like some terrorist with no criminal background (i.e. fingerprint check negative) could enter some bogus information into the "kiosk."
/s
Many laws implement, define and restrict what might be otherwise be considered a Constittional right. FFA is an example."
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
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 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages."
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
The same defintion was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:
"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
“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
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
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 based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.
Well, then we have a problem don’t we?
Our form of government is the Constitution, as, since marbury v. Madison, interpreted by SCOTUS.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
To have any person try themselves to define the meaning of the term Natural Born is for them to set themselves up as a Dictator, in that they, not the courts would dictate what a law or constitutional provision really means.
Fail.
You described a citizen not a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizen has been described. See the link starwise sent you. That thread is AWESOME deep in it’s research.
WTF!!!! I thought they lost their right to an extension for failure to respond?
This is BS, straight up!
There are two kinds of citizens, Citizens at the moment of birth, (Natural Born) and those made citizens later by opperation of law and application, persons “Naturalized.”
A natural born citizen is described in USC 8, sec 1401.
Trying to restrict the Presidency to only those born physically in the US would be a huge mistake. What of the mother were traveling and had a premature delivery. What about children born overseas on US military bases, what about kids born off-post in Europe, what about a child born on a fireign-flagged ship on a voyage from New York to Miami?
“Natural born” means a citizen naturally at the moment of birth, not naturalized later. It does not signify born physically in the US.
To think otherwise is foolish and to ignore the law.
What foolish man?
I am not basing my opinion on Apuzzo or Donofrio or anyone else. I base it on my own readings and research.
I will often look at the work of others, which leads me to other research and other sources (original) and I go from there. I don’t spout the talking points of someone else. I am a pretty damn good researcher in my own right.
It is MY conclusion that Natural Born Citizen is: A person who was born to two parents who were citizens at that birth, and born on the soil of our territory.
Certainly your half hearted attempts to disprove that have failed. The ONLY source that is going to disprove me is SCOTUS.
They do not have a case before them. YET. When that happens, I feel certain what the outcome will be. The Same as what I stated above.
Obama is an usurper, and that isn’t a birhter opinion. Thats a constitutionalist opinion. I am not a birther, I don’t care where Obama was born, from the instant the sperm hit the egg, he could not have been a natural born citizen.
UNLESS..... his parentage is NOT what is shown on his COLB. That’s is the only reason that his long form is of any interest to me. But given what the world has of the cretin, and we must go with what we have, that means he is NOT an NBC and should be removed from office post haste.
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.