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 ...
Even if his father had diplomatic immunity (and again, there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he did), it's immaterial to his son's US citizenship, as his son enjoys citizenship at birth through his mother, and by the fact that he was born on American soil to at least one person who didn't enjoy diplomatic immunity. When an American citizen is married to a foreign national with diplomatic immunity, US courts are under NO OBLIGATION to honor that immunity for the wife.
Thats the law , case closed. You can check it out at USICS."
Wow, that's compelling. /s
In case you missed it, the just announced challenge to Obama’s proofs of eligibility by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, D.O., an active duty officer, won't be able to be dismissed on that basis. If subjected to court martial, Lakin appears to intend to put the burden of proof on Obama in a quo warranto filing.
It isn't clear why you would think that. Because in the Cook case, it was a voluntary offer?
I don't see why that is significant. I assume the military would prefer not to be forced to withdraw an order but I don't see any reason they couldn't do that if they chose to do so.
I'm not a military lawyer; and I have not looked at the military order cases in some time; but I believe they have mooted more than one and I don't recall that any of them were volutary deployment offers. (I take your word for the fact that Cook was but I don't remember reading that in the opinion or thinking it was the critical fact.)
They can drag this out for some time before they are forced to the point of either facing the Presidential eligibility issue or disposing of the case on some other basis but I assume that if they have any way out, they will take it rather than go to trial on the born in Kenya issue.
If only Mr. Morse's opinion (or Donofrio's for that matter) was legally relevant. Alas, it is not. However, there are plenty of Supreme Court and lower court cases that are clearly legally relevant that do use "native born" and "natural born citizen" interchangeably. Imagine that?
Well certainly very interesting that you think all of that. As to the one Euro country I know about, clearly wrong under their law--I could go there and vote with my US Passport; I just didn't know it.
Then I don't know why you resist being tagged as entrenched in your position. You agree that Wong Kim Ark is precedent that will determine the outcome if an NBC case is presented to SCOTUS.
You seem to have answered another question as well, in that you find "born in the US to foreigners = NBC" to be a correct read of the constitution as amended by the 14th, and a correct application of Wong Kim Ark.
Not that you personally endorse the outcome of anchor babies raised in foreign lands to be qualified; but you believe, based on steely-eyed analysis and study, via application of your expertise, that is the correct result.
I'm not going to argue the opposite side with you, in light of your being entrenched, and in light of my view being a minority view.
As for how the Supreme Court decides cases, all one has to know is the 1937 Miller case, and that in 2009, in Heller, the United States Supreme Court said, "The judgment in the [Miller] case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men's federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act." It took that total fabrication and parlayed it into an effective reversal of Miller.
If one gets a citizenship through parentage, as Barack Obama received at birth a British citizenship, it would bring into question for him being a natural born citizen. His allegiance would be partly to the United States, if was born in Hawaii, but Obama would also have an allegiance to England. His allegiances would be split that the founders wanted to avoid for the president of the United States.
The United States fought two war with the English empire to break away from them and their laws. The War of 1812 was partially fought over the British Empire because the British were taking US citizens and forcing them to serve in the English navy because they believed "once a British subject always a British subject." You don't fight a war or two over citizenship and then turn around and leave the question open to having a president of the United States under the allegiance and jurisdiction of another country. The US Constitutional is not the Blackstone Commentaries or common English law. On the contrary, the US Constitution became US common law and not English law.
My point was that your foreign citizenship did not attach automatically by virtue of your birth. You had to apply for the foreign citizenship, and provide evidence that was outside the four corners of your own birth certificate, in order to obtain the birthright citizenship.
KENYA is cited on Obama's birth certificate, right in the field for "Birthplace of Father." I don't think that's a conspiracy to anyone.
Whatever the semantic or original intent of the Founders was at the time of the framing of the Constitution, that gives way to the judicial findings of the Supreme Court. This is the nature of Constitutional Law. While one hopes that Supreme Court jurists would give deference to original intent, as a practical matter of law, it not what they should do or should have done, but what they have done that matters.
What they have done with respect to "natural born citizen", and who is or is not one, is clear. If Obama was born in HI, he is a "natural-born citizen" as that phrase is interpreted today, irrespective if that is counter to original intent.
This is Donofrio's shortcoming. He want to get into a a debate about what the founders intended, and ignore what the Supreme Court has actually done over the years. A competent constitutional lawyer (one who has a history of success at the appellate level) wouldn't make such an amateur mistake.
Mine, my wife's, and my kids' birth certificates all recite birthplace of the parents and birthplace of the baby. From memory, none of the five certificates recite citizenship, for baby, mom, or dad.
The Nordyke twins of Hawaii, born within days of Obama, have produced their birth certificates, but I don't recall what all is on those.
How the hell does an American acquire Kenyan citizenship by marrying a Kenyan?
My point exactly. I have yet to see anyone provide an example of an American birth certificate that lists citizenship of parents (or religion, for that matter. Another oft-cited conspiracy).
Furthermore, parental birthplace is only as volunteered by the parents. For my son's Californian birth certificate, I truthfully listed Colorado as my birthplace and my wife, his mother, truthfully listed Ukraine. We weren't required to provide any documentation to verify our birthplaces and my wife's citizenship was not inquired about. My wife could have just as easily listed "Kansas" as her birthplace and no one would've questioned it and this would've appeared on my son's BC.
Let’s not be stupid about this.
That bridge was crossed a long time ago.
No. I think I was pretty clear--citizenship attaches at birth. It is a common thing in the investment community at this time and many offshore U S investors are taking advantage of this condition.
“But there is a real bottom line here and it is that Obama was born in Kenya, pretty clearly under circumstances in which he was not even a citizen at birth, and there is no way he is a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility question.”
Lots of Constitutional lawyers had no doubt as to how the Heller ruling would come out and were wrong. Now we hear lots of Constitutional lawyers having no doubt that ObamaCare will be upheld. I certainly hope they are wrong, too. That said, I agree with you (as a non-lawyer) that the probability is that SCOTUS would find Obama to be eligible if the HI COLB were to be submitted into evidence uncontested.
You appear to have a surprisingly confident opinion (for a lawyer) regarding what you claim to be proof that Obama was born in Kenya. On what do you base this opinion?
Is it Lucas Smith's Kenya CPGH BC? My non-lawyer reading of the FRE is that this BC wouldn't even be admissible as evidence to challenge the HI COLB (if in evidence) unless it was authenticated by Kenyan authorities, a prospect fraught with credibility problems either way due to corruption and Obama tribal relatives in the government.
Judge Carter said that with equal authentication of BCs between HI and Kenya, he would feel compelled to rule in favor of the HI BC. This logic allowed Carter to make an “even if true” ruling that the plaintiffs could not prevail with the Smith CPGH BC.
It seems to me that only if Obama’s original vital records are called into question, such as amendment of an original Kenya birth location to change it to show HI, could a judge following Judge Carter's logic give priority to an authenticated Kenya BC.
I would be interested on how you came to conclude so strongly that Obama was born in Kenya and whether the evidence underlying your conclusion could meet FRE requirements.
“How the hell does an American acquire Kenyan citizenship by marrying a Kenyan?”
Dunno.
Hostile takeover? LOL.
By naturalizing.
I was wrong. Evidently you just have to register:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a woman who has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the First Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether or not she is of full age and capacity.”
Pretty much. But the requirement is "born of parents who were citizens" at the time of the birth. Doesn't matter if some other nation claims the parents, or the child, as a citizen. But both parents must have been citizens at the time. Naturalized, native born, or natural born, don't matter, just citizenship.
In general the birth must have been "in the United States", however children of diplomats and military are considered "born in the country" becaue they were outside of it in its service, and thus never left it's jurisdiction.
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.