Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
Orly's case today cannot prove ineligibility but only demonstrate a failure to prove eligibility. Orly's default judgment will be based on failure of Obama to submit a genuine BC.
If Obama’s BC is fake, then nothing on it can be relied on as genuine including the father, mother, date and location.
If Obama’s BC is fake he still may or may not be NBC depending on who his actual birth father, mother, date and location.
The trouble with the law and lawyers is a total lack of conmmon sense. The founders wanted to prevent the possibilty of someone with divided loyalty becoming the President. The best way to do that is prevent anyone who has a parent who may be loyal to another country. Why is that so hard to understand?
Perhaps you're the epitome and embodiment of people who said "there are other things we can get him on". You can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
This is not about race, it is about upholding the constitution...as clearly interpreted, IMO, in MvH and affirmed in WKA. If properly briefed and argued in the lower courts, five judges will declare Obama NOT NBC...unless he resorts to the “Bastard Protocol” as a defense (claiming his parents marriage was bigamous).
IMO it is not just the accident of Barry's birth that will be at issue, but forgery of his WH BCs and conscious lying about where he was born...IMO that would be Kenya!
Thanks for the pointers!
*****
APPARENTLY, you DON'T know how to read a law case ...
People point to the dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as ”proof” that Ark was declared a natural-born citizen. Nothing is further from the truth.
DICTA are the opinions of a judge that DO NOT resolve or determine the outcome of a case.
For ALL of the dicta in the decision, the CRUX of the case is DECIDED in TWO [AND ONLY TWO] paragraphs. NO OTHER PARAGRAPHS ARE NECESSARY TO THE DECISION. READ the declaratory paragraph at the end of the decision. It MERELY states that Ark was a CITIZEN, by virtue of the 14th Amendment:
”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.”
Now, what is the SINGLE question referred to in the declaratory paragraph? Let us see:
”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 …”
Notwithstanding these two paragraphs, the dicta [written by Justice Gray] in the Ark decision CLEARLY indicates that he EMPHATICALLY believed that Ark WAS an natural-born citizen. SO, WHY DIDN’T he say so in the declaratory paragraph?
There is ONLY one possible explanation. Justice Gray WOULD NOT have received a majority opinion IF he had INSISTED on declaring Ark a natural-born citizen. The OTHER justices WOULD NOT have concurred for the majority IF Gray INSISTED that Ark was natural-born. SO, the Court "split the baby".
Ark was declared to be a CITIZEN, by virtue of the 14th Amendment - and this was the CORRECT decision. BUT, the Court STOPPED SHORT of declaring him to be natural-born.
FYI:
Justice Gray’s reasoning in his dicta INCORRECTLY interpreted BOTH the precedent in Calvin’s Case [1608] AND the citation in Dicey. ADDITIONALLY, Calvin’s Case was correctly decided by Lord Coke's Court - BUT, they ERRED in describing the historical English Common Law.
I was a Klingon for Halloween a few years ago, and I even speak a little of the language. I admire their honor and their bravery. It’s not really an insult to call me that.
Just getting online after work, what was the judicial result of this today?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts?page=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts
Those are, I believe, the longest threads, but there are many more of great substance. FReepers have been on this since well before the 2008 election.
Not even a Bob Bauer cameo, hmmmmm...
It's not about race to YOU, but people who are sensitive to the issue will decide that it is ONLY about race. The courts are incredibly sensitive to issues of race, and they will absolutely not want to take action unless it is absolutely necessary. I personally don't think they give a flying fig for what the law ACTUALLY is, and they are perfectly willing to let it go if it avoids trouble.
If you think about it, everything regarding Obama is about race. I've said many times, if he had been white, he would be an absolute NOBODY. He might still be working at that ice cream stand in Hawaii.
Do you know of a more incompetent person with no actual accomplishments that could have gotten elected who wasn't black? The man is an idiot, but the media cover it up because they are so in love with the idea of a "Black" President.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there are racial implications in any effort to remove or deny Obama the Presidency, and before anybody would want to go through THAT sh*tstorm, they would have to be convinced that it is absolutely crucial that they do so.
Denying him Access on the States ballots is a good way to force their hand. I personally think he may very well save us a lot of trouble since he doesn't even seem to be able to prove he is a 14th amendment citizen. (I favor Canada.)
The term "natural born citizen" has technical application in only one place in the law and that is as a qualification of the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.
Since the Supreme Court has never been confronted with that issue in a case, the issue has never been decided at that level and there is no Decision precedent on the question of what factors (such as citizenship of parents) would dicatate the result.
None of these cases under discussion on this thread, Wong Kim Ark; Minor v. Heppersett; are decisions on that question. To the extent the Court uses the term in those cases, such useage is dicta only and not a part of the holding.
And we should note that among lawyers who are not addressing the Article II question, the term is often used loosely to describe a person who becomes a citizen at the time of birth and as a result of birth, in many cases under circumstances where such person probably would not be held to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of Article II (such as the case of a person born outside the United States who becomes a statutory citizen at birth).
Although it is clear the founders discussed the Vittel concept of Natural Born Subject (and its modification to citizenship) in connection with the language in Article II the primary focus of the discussion was, as is set forth in the Congressional Research Service opinion, place of birth.
Under US Law for example, all persons born in the US are citizens--and the US asserts through its sovereignty over such persons at the time of their birth, the power to tax all of their income throughout their entire life. Place of birth is a problem under US Law and a president who is, as a result of his place of birth outside the US, subject to similar assertions of sovereign power over his person and rights, is not an appropriate person to hold the office of President of the US.
And for that reason, I part company with the CRS opinion (as to the last section thereof) on this question because it is my opinion that a person who is born outside the US is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and is not eligible to hold the office of President.
However as many of you know, I am also of the relatively firm opinion, which as DiogenesLamp suggests above is consistant with the overwhelming majority view of the Constitutional Law bar, that in the present political context, the Supreme Court is almost certain to hold that a person who is born in the United States is Constitutionally Eligible under Article II to hold the office of President, without regard to what the citizenship of his parents is.
That ought not be the law; reason suggests to the contrary; it is a bad result; but that's how the case will come out if Zero proves to have been born in the USA, no matter who his parents were. Doesn't mean I wouldn't make the contary argument if the opportunity presented itself but a realistic appraisel of the law and the setting helps avoid bad decisions on process.
And once determined that a person is a Natural Born Citizen for this purpose, as the ALJ suggested to Orly, other factors such as dual citizenship, or adoptions by non US persons or loss of Citizenship by parental action or otherwise is not relevant with one exception: If a Natural Born Citizen effectively renounces US Citizenship as an adult through the renounciation process with the State Department otherwise, it would be likely that eligibility would be lost.
Or if you worship the Leo - the INS will define it for you.
Wrong.
Leo’s article points out that Obama’s own INS defines NBC as distinct from native born or naturalized...which is consistent with Donofrio’s interpretation of MvH...not yours.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Did you give him a link to the “Auntie” thread? That is one of the best.
That explains a great deal about you.
Good for you
shut up already
such as?
“Did you give him a link to the “Auntie” thread? That is one of the best.”
Thanks much for the links/recommendations, everyone. I guess I know now what I’ll be doing this coming weekend! ;)
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.