Posted on 02/15/2010 2:06:27 AM PST by FTJM
According to the Constitution, the courts don't get to remove presidents. Only the congress can do that. Even if the birthers really came up with the goods, the Supreme Court would merely cite Article I and toss the case over to Nancy and Harry.
As has been documented many times on this site. BHO’s mother was too young to pass citizenship on to lil’ Barry according to the Nationality Act of 1952. We didn’t start doing the anchor baby crap until 1986.
You clearly did not read HI Law 57. They would have given a foreign born Barry an actual, 1961 HI birth certificate based on the statement of 1 relative. HI has had a history of doing just that (see Sun Yet Sen). Think cheap labor. Think federal money. Think statehood. All playing a part of the corruption in HI.
That happened on Inauguration Day when he raised his hand to take that oath to that very Constitution that he knew that he was violating by his pretense of qualification to the office of POTUS.
And welcome to Freerepublic, Obamabotroll.
He had a stack of 15+ years old outstanding Cambridge parking tickets paid ~10 days prior to announcing his campaign in 2007. This was an important clue that Obama is a dishonorable schmuck. His stooges floated the excuse that lots of people have outstanding parking tickets. Thus, it was acceptable.
The story is not quite over because there are still lawsuits against BHO’s eligibility. The Quo Warranto provisions apparently can take care of the situation you cite as closure in that these apply to situations where office holders hold office because of fraud. I would guess that in case of Quo Warranto an issue might well be why were the facts about BHO not questioned or debated; granted such an issue might be so troublesome that courts will comtinue to stay far away. Perhaps Dr.Taitz’s Quo Warranto along with other’s pleadings will be a new story in USA history.
What’s really fishy is that the social security number assigned to Barack Obama “appears to be associated with someone born in the year 1890.”
Scores of Democrat trolls have signed up over the last 2 years claiming to be conservative for the only purpose to vehemently oppose questions about Obama being a legitimate president, and as a consequence, were banned. However, old timers like BrowardChad have continually enjoyed posting here expressing their opposing viewpoints. I do not have to remind you that FR is a conservative forum where I believe the majority of its members approve of questioning this president constitutional viability as reasonable.
Re: he was born in Hawaii which makes him a natural born citizen of the United States.
Being born in Hawaii makes him a 14th Amendment, “native born” US citizen. At birth he was also a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.
Barack Obama is a citizen “by statute.” He is not a “natural born” US citizen and is not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueFourCases.htm
Prove? That may happen in the future whether Obama legitimately holds office or not. It's curious when people take the side of someone who lies to you almost everyday but selectively take his word as the truth. Your guess very well may be in error.
One of the UCONN’s Undead Revolution responds to Red State
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm undeadrevolution Said:
I was going to post this comment over at RedState after someone had sent me their latest article. But I can’t be bothered with registering, so I’m just going to post it here.
I had a lot more research I wanted to add, but we agreed to save that for our own additions.
This is his article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/02/14/my-final-thought-on-the-birther-issue/
And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized:
—————————–
There seems to be a lot of historical groundwork you haven’t taken into account here as to citizenship in this country.
In fact, by your logic, we have returned to the monarch structure of England whereby birth makes one a subject of the king, irregardless of parentage per International Law and the domicile clarification clause per Justice Joseph Story’s Conflict of Laws – so cited in these Supreme Court cases, albeit heavily discarded here and in many similar elementary interpretations across the internet.
My question to you would be how do you justify this interpretation against scholared jurisprudence of the day? They do not coincide with your interpretation at all, so how did you arrive there?
If the Founding Fathers disavowed birth allegiance alone, and they did, how do you justify your interpretation of Article II with Wong Kim Ark as it relates to ascending to the presidency?
It is one thing to call a think-tank crazy, but it is quite another to dismiss the background of the law which upon its face, would question Obama’s legitimacy and has a place to be answered, regardless if he thinks he shouldn’t be questioned as his recent comments reveal.
However, that place is not here and is not to be adjudged in your article and certainly not because Obama said so.
With all due respect, that place of judgment belongs to the United States Supreme Court under a republic form of government this site alludes to protect.
I’m afraid this is a matter of law, not your opinion. We are not a banana republic. You also seem to be lacking in historical knowledge of that law and at odds with the republic’s history you purport to celebrate.
But allow me to educate you in a snippet of that review in law, regarding Wong Kim Ark, which seems to escape the superficial interpretations out there and apparently now, embraced in your own article.
“At some stage the Fourteenth Amendment not only permits them to become citizens, but declares them to be so, in such sense that no act of legislature or Congress can deprive them of that right. When does that time arrive? Upon principle and authority, it should arrive when national domicile and intent on the part of the father concur with the place of birth of the child to fix its status.
That the facts may in some cases be difficult of determination, is unimportant. That is often true in any question of domicile.” Ide, 1896, summarizing International Law and Justice Story’s conclusions in conjunction with the Founding Fathers’ intent.
So as with the above testament to the Founder’s ideals, so it is with Obama when one is asked a simple question of birth allegiance.
When one answers that his birth allegiance is one of dual-nationality, the public does not have a right to inquire as to the legality of that notion?
I’m afraid George Washington himself would accuse that messenger of being no patriot at all.
Notwithstanding, this argument is a constitutional one and if the Tea Party does not embrace questions against the Constitution, then it is a political party unto themselves, which I don’t believe they intended to be.
With that said, a mere showing of a birth certificate does not suffice when answering the question behind the intention of Article II, which proclaims that none but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, may ascend to the presidency. That determination of facts belongs to the Supreme Court, but the right to ask it, is so stated in the Constitution. For even Bill Clinton stated:
“The Constitution decides who is eligible to be President. And THEN the people decide among which candidate they prefer.”
In other words, the Constitution declares who is eligible, not the people by way of opinion, and certainly not in articles such as yours. And there is a history to that Constitution, whereby subsequent laws have been made and enforced, that has largely been ignored here and elsewhere.
Do you label Mark Levin a birther too when he said, “Obama should not be able to hide it”, when speaking about documents that would prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible?
I submit you wouldn’t smear him, a constitutional lawyer with a profound regard for the Founding Fathers and yet, not a birther. Levin is smart enough to separate the media’s label of those who emphatically believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii with the eligibility requirements under the Constitution. It’s not one and the same.
I dare say on both sides of this modern-day argument, lie some pretty obsessed people, lawyers included, with pitchforks in hand, and most of them are embarrassing our Constitution, including you.
I have no doubt that they probably make guys like Mark Levin cringe and rightly so.
However, just because you disagree with the motives of some of the insane lawyers we’ve seen take up the cross of this subject, doesn’t mean that some of us intend to be intimidated by the fallout of their actions.
YOU seem to be very much intimidated by the antics that have gone on and therefore, instead of clarifying the problem, you elect to distance yourself from the Constitution completely and embrace the left in their living-Constitution a/k/a “anything goes” interpretations.
Congratulations on taking that bait.
I think I’ll think for myself and do the required study of the Founders before I reach one of the many elementary school opinions out there, like yours, who didn’t do much studying at all.
Steve
UCONN – UR
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
I italicized the passage from the article. So 'another...person' are you the author of this article?
Oh come on!
There were rivers of ink (or electrons) spilled before the special joint session that certified Obama's election.
Almost every Member of Congress or Senator had at least HEARD of the controversy. President of the Senate Cheney, who signed the papers, knew all about it. President-Elect Obama had an unprecedented meeting with the members of the Supreme Court prior to his inauguration.
If one Member of Congress and one Senator had signed an objection, there would have been a floor debate. None did so.
If Vice President Cheney had objected, there would have been a floor debate. He did not do so.
If Chief Justice Roberts had been concerned, he could have demanded documentary proof. He did not do so.
This question is, at its root, a nonjusticeable political question. ALL of the political branches, including the Electoral College, the Congress including ALL Republicans and the Republican Vice President/President of the Senate had the opportunity to object to Obama's certification and they did not do so.
The doctrine of nonjusticeability of political questions is fundamental to a Republic. The breach of this doctrine in Bush v. Gore was a serious error, which will not be repeated. This question has been over for more than a year, and I see no possibility that an Article III court would intervene at this point.
It's over.
A statement verified as developed and approved by Mark Bennett (R)Attorney General of the state of Hawaii:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Your first cite...TUAN ANH NGUYEN and JOSEPH BOULAIS, PETITIONERS v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE word for word!
Poor you...apples and oranges.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a question not resolved by a majority of the Court in a case before us three Terms ago. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998). Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 (Children born out of wedlock) governs the acquisition of United States citizenship by persons born to one United States citizen parent and one noncitizen parent when the parents are unmarried and the child is born outside of the United States or its possessions.
Snip...Boulais and Nguyen’s mother were not married.
Are you saying that Anne Dunham was never married?
Next post, next case.
World Net Daily found an entry in the Polk Directory for Honolulu, from 1961, indicating that the Dunhams, and Stanley Ann, lived at that address. But the only address shown in the guide for BHO, was the same one he had before ever meeting Stanley Ann, and continued to have until he graduated from U of Hawaii. Ownership records indicate, as you say, the house was owned by a U of H proffessor and his wife, both conveniently dead. They also were able to get transcripts from the U of Washington, indicating that Stanley Ann was registered there for the Fall 1961 term. Only part time, and probably night classes, but registered and completing the course. They also show the Seatle Polk Directory guide indicating that Ann Obama was living there at the time. Thus destroying the "Senior left Ann and little Barry to go to Harvard" narrative, she left Hawaii well before he did, and did not return until well after he had left. They also got a statement about periods of enrollment at U of H for Stanley Ann. They could get those, and her UofW transcript, because she is deceased.
Yes, but the XII Amendment, read together with the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877 does not say, "The President of the Senate, prior to signing the certification, shall contact philman_36 and, based upon philman_36's opinion, shall certify the vote, or not".
It doesn't say that at all, does it?
Neither of the plaintiffs were granted citizenship.
Scalia, and Thomas, chose to re-iterate, and emphasize, the Court's stance on non-interference with the delegated powers of Congress to define citizenship.
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.