Why Congressional Republicans avoid the Obama Eligibility Issue

The Post & Email ^ | 5/2/2010 | John F. Sweeney

[jamese777]

“Its not just “apples and oranges,” its deception and irrelevance. A subject is the property of the state, while in the US, the state is the creation of the citizens, who have the power to revoke it at any time.”

---

Your argument is with the justices who have used British common law as a legal basis for their decision.
However if history serves me correctly, I do believe that British subjects began acquiring protected rights of citizenship in 1215 A.D. when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

[jamese777]

Keep on posting your irrelevant confusion.

Your agenda is clear to all.

---

My “agenda” is to try to get more people on board for a resolution of this issue through the criminal justice system and not the civil suit route that has now failed nearly 70 times. There is only one person who might have legal standing to sue Barack Obama and that person is John Sidney McCain but he won’t sue or even file an amicus brief in support of any suit (neither will any name Republican or conservative).
I favor finding a prosecuting attorney: a District Attorney, a state Attorney General or a US Attorney who is not an Obama appointee, such as Patrick Fitzgerald in Illinois who is prosecuting Rod Blagojevich and getting that person to convene a Grand Jury investigation focusing on fraud and forgery.
With a Grand Jury investigation comes subpoena power to force release of Obama’s records without needing his permission.
Mark L. Bennett, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii would be the perfect prosecutor to do this but he too is unwilling to go forward.
That’s my agenda, resolution of the issue.

[cynwoody]

Nope. They were both legal residents.

OK, you're right.

Wong's parents were subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which meant they could stay if they were already here but couldn't come back if they left and were ineligible for naturalization in any event. The case arose because the government tried to enforce the Act against Wong himself.

[curiosity]

That's a nice summary. Good job.

[danamco]

The old_tired _fart showed me a memo posted on scribd with the uber lib Tribe’s opinion!

Now here’s another scribd’s posting of McPain’s B.C., see link!!

If you cans show me another B.C., maybe we then can talk to on another!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

[danamco]

There is only one person who might have legal standing to sue Barack Obama and that person is John Sidney McCain but he won’t sue or even file an amicus brief in support of any suit (neither will any name Republican or conservative).

Do you have any clue what and where Colon is located on the Globe???

[editor-surveyor]

The isthmus of Panama.

[editor-surveyor]

“Your argument is with the justices who have used British common law as a legal basis for their decision.”

There has not yet been a case where such erroneous deliberations have occured WRT the elegibility of a candidate for the presidency. It is not likely that there ever will be since the issue was decided in favor of Vattel’s arguments twice, and that has not been subsequently readdressed.

Our problem is the reluctance of the court to remove an impostor. Its not that they doubt that he is an impostor; they just don’t wish to set the precident themselves.
.

[editor-surveyor]

“The answer to the article’s question is quite simple: they avoid the issue because there is no merit to it.”

.
On the contrary; they know that he is an impostor and consider the result politically untennable.
.

[tired_old_conservative]

“The old_tired _fart showed me a memo posted on scribd with the uber lib Tribe’s opinion!

Now here’s another scribd’s posting of McPain’s B.C., see link!!

If you cans show me another B.C., maybe we then can talk to on another!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate";

This is the typical ploy of people who don't actually have an argument. They simply write off information by association. In this case, deliberately dishonest association, for if you read to see Tribe's name on it, you also saw Ted Olson's name.

You see, out here in reality that's how things often work. When a man like John McCain wants to get a competent opinion on a subject that idiots will judge solely from the perspective of their unthinking political blinders, he will often get a recognized expert on both the left and the right. If they concur in their opinion, thinking people pretty much accept it. Nobody really cares what the idiots think after that.

And your birth certificate has been credibly tabbed as a forgery long ago.

[tired_old_conservative]

“Do you have any clue what and where Colon is located on the Globe???”

By all means, play along. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that there are a number of Hispanics in Panama as well. If you’ve never been there, that might have escaped your attention.

I was in Singapore last year and was simply astounded to find people of Asian descent there. LOL

[curiosity]

Why are you so emotionally attached to this idea of McCain born in Colon that you would go around hawking a transparently fake document in order to prove it?

Seriously, McCain, as the son of two US citizens, would have been a natural born citizen regardless of whether he was born in the Canal Zone or in Colon.

So what gives? Why are you so emotionally invested in the born-in-Colon story?

[jamese777]

"There has not yet been a case where such erroneous deliberations have occured WRT the elegibility of a candidate for the presidency. It is not likely that there ever will be since the issue was decided in favor of Vattel’s arguments twice, and that has not been subsequently readdressed. Our problem is the reluctance of the court to remove an impostor. Its not that they doubt that he is an impostor; they just don’t wish to set the precident themselves." ------------------------------------------------------- The more conservative, originalist and strict constructionist a judge or justice is the less likely they are to invent powers that the Constitution does not expressly give to the Judicial branch and the Constitution reserves the right to remove a person from office whose electoral college votes are certified and who is sworn in as president to the Congress under a bill of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction in the Senate. The Indiana Court of Appeals' ruling in "Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana" stated the following, and I quote: "The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a "citizen of the United States and a "natural born Citizen" and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants' Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs' arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to 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 . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called "ligealty,‟ "obedience,‟ "faith,‟ or "power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, "Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king. This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as "Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the "Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. I think I'll stop quoting the Court's decision here. Anyone wishing to read the entire decision can read it here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

[editor-surveyor]

But Indiana is not the US Supreme Court, and as I stated, the Supreme Court has already established that the definition in the law of Nations was the intended, and only possible definition.
.

[RegulatorCountry]

You rely way too much upon people not bothering to read the decision through to the end. That's the important part. You know, the court's legal decision?

It's amazing, that it took all that flimflam, flapdoodle and fluffery, just to say that the case was dismissed for failing to state a claim.

Sort of reminds me of Justice Horace Grey's loopy tangents on feudalism and impromptu tour of western civilization, just to pronounce Mr. Wong Kim Ark a 14th Amendment citizen, a classification that is unique to the United States.

[danamco]

And your birth certificate has been credibly tabbed as a forgery long ago.

And so has your dear leader's also been, the one from the illegal alien and usurper. BTW., that is NOT my B.C. I had to show my REAL B.C. for the American Embassy in Cph in 1981. You showed me something from the "trustworthy" scribd, so I found another thing posted on scribd!!!

If you have seen McCain's REAL B.C. could you show it to me, please???

[danamco]

I was in Singapore last year and was simply astounded to find people of Asian descent there. LOL

Well Old and Tired maybe you need some B-12 shots for your pituitary gland & comprehension???

When I first flew to Singapore on my way to Australia, staying there three days, I was NOT at least astounded by finding people with funny eyes. And every-time since then when I would come back to Singapore, they were still there, funny isn't it, yet I am old but not tired!!!

[danamco]

There seems to be different legal opinions, and here is one that differs from yours:

---

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

http://www.law.arizona.edu/Faculty/getprofile.cfm?facultyid=147

[ComputerGuy]

[danamco]

Why are you so emotionally attached to this idea of McCain born in Colon that you would go around hawking a transparently fake document in order to prove it?

Did you say fake document?

Well that must then be similar to your dear leader's, the illegal alien and the usurper's!

Have you seen a REAL B.C. of John McCain??

See post 158!!