Posted on 04/01/2010 9:08:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.
The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
ping...
He could have been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom and he still wouldn’t be eligible because of his Kenyan/British father.
How is this different from "citizen attorney" Leo Donofrio's previous comprehensive explorations of the definition of natural born citizen, you know, those definitions that have gotten nowhere in court?
I totally agree with this -
(But I sure am curious what all the secrecy is about that birth certificate)
The foundational view of the Natural Born Citizen clause is an interesting legal argument. As an abstract proposition, it ought to have significant merit and it is an argument that certainly ought to be made to the Court if the issue ever gets there.
That said, like it or not, the Supreme Court of the United States is a political quasi legislative body exercising its power in the framework of judicial resolution. Decisions accommodate a wide range of considerations of which historical foundational principals are not any where close to the top of the list.
The prevailing view is that the Natural Born Citizen clause is out of place generally in the modern internationalist environment. It is not viewed as open to the Court to simply hold that the Constitutional provisions does not exist but the interpretation of the provision is going to take place in the context of a national vote that installed Obama without any real inquiry into this issue which was well known at the time of the vote.
The argument simply fails to take account of the fact that since this clause was installed in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Court is going to hold that whatever conditions other than birth in the geographical territory of the several states were originally incorporated in the Natural Born clause, those conditions were removed by adoption of the 14th Amendment.
I assume the Court will stop short of holding that at this point all that counts is citizenship at birth as defined by Congress. I think if squarely presented with the issue by a litigant with standing, it is reasonable to believe that the Court will see the clause as requiring birth in the geographical territory of the several states but even that is by no means certain.
I can tell you from first hand knowledge that the Obama forces are well aware of the threat posed by this issue and by state action to lay the groundwork for ballot challenge in the event of a 2012 reelection campaign. A case that reached the Supreme Court on any of the related issues other than birth location which was decided against the plaintiffs would be an obstacle to subsequent state action to exclude Obama from the ballot on appropriate grounds.
It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar.
Don’t hold your breath on the Supreme Court correcting this problem.
The FightTheSmears website comes right out and confirms that Obama had dual citizenship at birth and then states he is a “native citizen of the United States.” It’s telling that there is no mention of the “natural born” constitutional requirement. They’ve been implicitly threatening to incite race riots should anyone make an issue out of it.
True, but now a bunch of freepers will arrive to tell you that you are a "Birther" - which shows their superior intellect and discernment.
Odds are you are one of those loopy "Deniers" and maybe even a "Breeder".
Gotten nowhere because the courts have REFUSED a hearing of those arguments. That’s not a rational honest judgment of these arguments at all — it is a presumptive rejection based that the courts ‘has no venue’ to hear these arguments.
Since that type of wholesale rejection in MANY courts is a complete failure of ANY court to hear the complaints of the citizenry, that itself, imo, creates the conditions that lead to insurrection and riot, and the preclude such insurrection and civil disorder ITSELF is a basis for a court to hear the arguments, even if all other precedent says they have no jurisdiction. These are the underlying reasons for court actions under doctrines for habeas corpus, mandamus and ‘hue and cry’.
You'll not find a court in this country that will affirm Donofrio's definition of natural born citizen.
I disagree that the issue was well known by the voting public. It isn't well known today. The issue was obfuscated by ginning up "Kenyen birth," and scant attention was paid to the question of dual citizenship at birth. The public was lulled into "birthplace is determinative" by the suit challenging McCain.
I figure the Court will avoid the issue by ruling lack of standing, or not judiciable (the constitution empowers Congress to hear the evidence and make eligibility decisions).
The result of applying Wong Kim Ark as finding Natural Born Citizenship regardless of parentage or child-rearing location is something that most Americans would reject. But the proponents of the NBC by birth location alone (see 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark) assert a rule that permits an anchor baby, raised in Mexico, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, etc. (wherever the parents have citizenship and allegiance) to be eligible for presidency, by moving to the US at age 21 (or any time later) and waiting 14 years before running.
Actually, thanks to the MSM's singleminded pursuit of putting Obama in office, it was only well known among news junkies like us. The average voter had utterly no clue then, and has no clue now. That would be entirely different if he were a Republican; the MSM went after the non-issue of McCain's citizenship two or three times. But it is what it is.
I think the only type of action that has even a small chance of getting to SCOTUS is a challenge to his military authority or a challenge to a law he's signed. The former is already underway.
When Donofrio gets published in the Staford or Michigan Law Reviews, perhaps then serious people will start listening. I won't hold my breath.
As it stands, not a single earnest conservative legal group - and there are dozens of such well-respected groups - has taken up this "crusade", not the Federalist Society, not the Thomas More Legal Center, not the Landmark Legal Foundation and not even Judicial Watch. Again, why is that.
Wasn’t it discussed that his registration at 18 for the selective service had been FIXED before one of his elections? I would think if that could be proved it would be great. I was always under the impression you couldn’t hold a govt. job if you had not registered?
While I doubt any type of information is going to make a difference. It would be nice to put on the record another act of fraud.
In the same manner President Arthur's claimed "Canadian birth" clouded the issue. The focus should be on his dual citizenship - as claimed by Opossum's S'upportive" website FightTheSmears.org.
Who gives a crap what names the 'Rat media and "holier than thou" Pubbies try to hang on us? I want to see the damn birth certificate...NOW!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This is my interest in the issue: regardless of Obambi's eligibility, this whole question has demonstrated that there is no adequate procedure to vouchsafe the Constitution's requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.
Going on some schlub at Party HQ saying, "Yep, he's eligible," doesn't cut it. Has Congress ever even set out what it thinks makes a person eligible for POTUS under the Constitution? No. So how in the world is there even a reviewable standard that is applied by schlub down at Party HQ when putting names on the ballot?
To prevent this garbage in the future, it simply seems prudent for Congress and/or the States to enact procedures for reviewing eligibility, including a standard, a process for appeal and a remedy.
Interesting that you think that. How about an action challenging the legal efficacy of an action required by the Constitution to be performed by the "President"--such as the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice? An action in the nature of a Quo Warranto challenging the authority of the Justice to sit on a particular case?
Observe that a number of military officer challenges to existing orders have been filed but so far, no one has been able to get one to issue. At the point where that case reaches the judge, they withdraw the order and moot the challenge.
That's way above this layman's head. I was voicing my opinion based on the fact that obviously no court is going to take up the issue based solely on, "Hey, he shouldn't be president." A challenge to some action of his is required.
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.