Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It’s very important that these ballot bills get passed. Let’s not take it on faith like Democrats do.
The Chief Justice doesn't really "swear in" the President. Traditionally he administers the oath of office, but that is only tradition. The oath could be taken in writing, and it could be administered orally by someone other than a Supreme Court justice, and that has been the case for many such oath takings. He could even take the oath anytime after the electoral college vote and before Jan. 20th at noon. Then and only the does someone become President. That is, after satisfying all the requirements, of which taking the oath is only one. The others being getting the majority of the electoral votes, being 35 or over, having been 14 years a resident of the US, and being a Natural Born Citizen. Fail at any of those, and you are not President.
There’s been no lack of trying to gain standing, but you can’t make a court take a case that they think is too hot for them to take. The requested remedy is part of the consideration for standing ... of which these courts don’t want to get involved. All we see is that average citizens have no recourse for challenging an ineligible POTUS.
The ultimate recourse is to bring criminal charges on Obama for fraud and to have an honest Congress impreach and remove the fraud from office ... the sooner the better.
You just said that the only reason that the presidents prior to the 14th Amendment were eligible is because no one challenged their eligibility. Were you trying to be funny? I'm sorry if I lost my sense of humor and didn't realize you were trying to be funny, if that is the case, but there are so many crazy assertions going around lately that it is hard to know what is real and what is satire anymore.
No, the Constitution requires birth to citizen parents and birth on U.S. soil. Granny’s permanent address for whom the alleged father was never known to live doesn’t do much to confirm a claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact, it begs further question.
The Governor of Hawaii, The Registrar of Records of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have all confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii, plus he’s got a legal document from the state of Hawaii which says that he was born there.
As you are well aware, that’s been an awful lot to overcome.
Yea, he never said you couldn't post, he just said you couldn't post like a Troll.
That's true. But can someone who is not eligible to the Office of President, be "a President"?
If he's not President, he can't be impeached, but then again, he would not need to be. He'd need to be escorted gently out of the White House, and into federal lockup on fraud charges, pending other possible charges.
Minor v. Happersett said the definition of natural born citizen is extraconstitutional, saying ..."all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
The Governor of Hawaii, The Registrar of Records of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have all confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii, plus he’s got a legal document from the state of Hawaii which says that he was born there.
Well, no actually they haven't. The closest anyone has come was the director of the DOH, but she didn't base her claim on a birth record. Ouch!
Not uncommon in some circles, but by '61 they'd have been extremely uncommon for the daughter of a banker and store manager.
Could you share those numbers, as fractions of total births, or just raw numbers with the total births, I can do division if I drag out one of my slide rules. :) Ditto for out of state births.
(As it happens one the cousins of my granddaughter, born a month after she was in 2005, was a non hospital birth. But it was attended. By an ambulance attendant, somewhere along the side of the road in New Jersey. :) Fortunately, while it was the first birth he attended, it was not her first birth.)
And we have. It says nothing about "Natural Born Citizen", only "citizen at birth". They are not the same thing. In fact all citizens at birth under the statute alone, are really naturalized at birth. Naturalization is the only citizenship power the Congress has. So say the Supreme Court.
3. He could choose not to run at all. We would be rid of him - but he wouldn't have to reveal anything ...
Until the last few weeks, I would have bet on that scenario. But IMHO, they haven't anyone else! Cold comfort: so far, we haven't anyone!
His father immigrated in 1783, and thus would have been a "citizen" by 1791 when James was born, as were all former Colonial subjects of the crown after the Revolution, except those who decided to go to Canada or England.
Not even a nice try. Very disingenuous actually.
Jefferson himself was a "citizen at the time of the ratification" of the Constitution. IOW, he didn't need to be natural born, and was not. He, and his parents, were British subjects prior to Declaration of Independence, which he FReeking wrote. His father was a colonial subject, while his mother would have been a subject of the United Kingdom itself, Ireland being part of the UK at the time, and not a colony like Virginia.
Look at the link below to the 1961 Natality Report:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
Page 43 lists the states where births occurred distributed according to the state of residence. There were two births recorded in Washington state to Hawaiian residents. Then on this same table, there are 58 births to Hawaiian residents that took place in other states. These states include Washington, California, Colorado, Kentucky, Massachussetts (Harvard), Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon and South Carolina.
Page 49 gives a table that breaks down the number of births in each state by race. In the “other” category, there are a couple of footnotes that say 366 births occurred to Hawaiians or Part-Hawaiians living in other states. This is pretty good proof that Hawaii registered out of state births, else how they get these statistics??
Also, about all these tables say they don’t include foreign births. IOW, that seems to acknolwedge that states keep track of that information. I saw a table on a different page that lists numbers of births per month, which leads me to believe that by Aug. 4, there had to have been about 500 foreign or out-of-stae births that would have been registered in Hawaii, meaning Obama’s could have been one of those births.
But that is irrelevant. They are not answering questions about how they did things in '61, the current team is.
Still in this instance, I think they are correct. That is the way it is done for the "standard", "Vital Statistics" type of announcements in very many places, even today. If you want more, you can pay for more, such as one listing the baby's name, maybe the grandparents, etc.
The Hawaiian Uniform Information Practices Act - UIPA is a sweeping state-level FOIA-type law. The DOH is absolutely required to release any documentation that caused them to state that Obama was (a) born in Hawaii, and (b) (as if it were their call) also state that he was a "Natural Born Citizen!"
The Hawaiian state office that monitors implementation of the act has indicated that they must release the documentation. Now it turns out there isn't any? WTH? Over.
The position that they have taken in regard to BHO, Jr.'s privacy is also patently untenable. Once he posted that COLB (or whatever the hell it is) on the internet, all "privacy bets are off." At any rate, the COLB is an abstract. A short-cut, not the whole story.
BTW, FReepers led the charge on the ground there. Amazing that the "Birther" lawyers didn't figure it out!
Except that those born "in the armies" (which would include all the services) and in the diplomatic corps who are counted as "born in the country" regardless of actual physical birth location. That's what "Law of Nations" says, and it's only reasonable common sense.
The thing that’s baffling is the Hi DOH has several legal ways through existing vital records laws and through the UIPA where they could simply release the Obama birth records, unredacted and fully exposed. If Obama was legit, he would certainly give immediate approval, plus there’s no realistic chance the DOH would get into trouble by releasing these records without his approval. Their refusal to do so is pretty incriminating.
I don’t have a problem with that; was just going by the definition offered by the SCOTUS.
Not quite true - if you read the citations by Justice Gray IN THEIR ENTIRETY [Blackstone, Calvin's Case, Dicey, etc.] in Wong Kim Ark, and then read Wong Kim Ark ENTIRELY, you will find that he bastardized and even flat out lied in the opinion.
It is clear from the opinion he wrote that he believed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. The others concurred with the opinion, BUT it is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph :
" ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The single question stated at the beginning of the opinion is:
" ... The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."
NOTICE THAT THEY DECLARED HIM A CITIZEN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. IF GRAY HAD INSISTED ON DECLARING HIM AN NBC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A MAJORITY - SINCE THE OTHER JUSTICES WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH HIM, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED AN "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" TO POSSIBLY BECOME POTUS IN THE FUTURE. THEY "SPLIT THE BABY" ON THIS - DECLARING HIM A CITIZEN, BUT STOPPING SHORT OF NBC.
Now, Justice Gray said in the opinion:
" ... every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ..."
Not quite true, what Blackstone REALLY said was this:
" ... For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."
AND FURTHER:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ..."
NOTE THE CAVEAT "GENERALLY SPEAKING", ABOVE ...
Blackstone admits that there are exceptions - notably, Denizens ...
AND FURTHER:
" ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A Denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown."
A natural-born subject CAN ONLY have one allegiance, but all children born in England (regardless of parentage) are natural born subjects. However, there are exceptions - when the alien parents' country lays claim to the child's citizenship. When this happens, the child is a Denizen.
BTW: Blackstone is a COMMENTARY on the laws of England - and IS NOT the law itself ...
If you read Calvin's Case (1608) and the British Nationality Act of 1730, (which was the controlling English Law) [cited by Dicey] at the time of the framing of the Constitution), you will find that a natural-born subject is both born WITHIN the sovreign's dominion AND under SOLITARY allegiance to that same sovreign. You will ALSO find that this was extended in 1730 to include all children born BEYOND the sovreign's dominion - as long as the father was a natural born subject.
So, with Obama, you have a child born on U.S. soil, a citizen under the 14th Amendment - BUT, he is also a natural-born subject of England [under the British Nationality Act 0f 1948].
These traits ARE WHOLLY incompatible with the Founding Fathers' concept of NBC - Obama is a Denizen (which is probably what we call a dual citizen). He is British by British law and American by US law - BUT HE CANNOT BE NBC !!!
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.