there is still room in the legal process to put him in a position where he will need to tell people he is a fraud and explain why he is still defending the fraud
Check out David's # 1214.
Thanks, David.
I get your point about Minor. To me, the fact that it was a mainly woman’s suffrage case and not a citizenship case makes me wonder why it was used in the GA case. Truthfully, I can’t see where SCOTUS has ever dealt with the NBC issue head-on.
At any rate, I don’t see any litigation aimed at removing Hussein moving forward. But the idea of knocking him off enough state ballots to hurt him in terms of electoral votes still has a possibility of catching on.
Well I have read through every post subsequent to my 1161 and yours is the only one that is really specific enough to respond to. Good job.
I shouldn't have started with a blast at the general sophistication on this kind of issue and apologize for doing so. But look, I have addressed this issue a number of times. Instead of living in the world of hoped for legal results, if we are going to address this problem through the legal system, it is much more productive to deal with a realistic appraisal of the situation.
The real bottom line is that if this case ever gets to the U S Supreme Court on facts that prove he was born inside the United States, he will be held eligible under Article II. I don't like the result any better than anyone else does and I have a fairly sophisticated way to deal with the situation but I don't have the resources to implement it yet.
No, the people on the other side are no better--they don't have a realistic understanding of the legal situation either. But they also don't know Zero as well as we do--they are really living in a dreamworld.
You are correct about Minor--it has no application in the Georgia case. The reason it gets cited is because people who are not real lawyers love the dicta which couples the term "natural born" with two citizen parents. Makes everyone feel better but doesn't help the argument to the judge who does know that it is dicta and is unhappy to be required to deal with lawyers who don't know what they are doing.
You are also correct, the Supreme Court of the United States has never dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue. But you should also know that the issue has been on the table in the academic setting extensively in the period beginning in 1962. And in the earlier period, there was extensive discussion about how the rule would be applied and why--law review editors looked at these arguments and many of us are still around and remember the substance of the discussions.
So when we say that there is a pretty clear center of gravity in the Constitutional Bar about the outcome of these arguments, that view is not driven only by Liberal bias. I view myself as being pretty hard core and my views really haven't changed during the period.
In fact, you could lay the correct foundation with the right client to address the proposition that he is not eligible. If you could prove that he was not born in the US, or if you could put him in a situation where he had the burden of proof and he was not able to prove that he was born in the US, you would achieve very satisfactory results. You could not only kick him out but you could also overturn a number of his more egregious acts.
I don't think that is going to happen because unfortunately there is some legal record that indicates that there is a birth record for him in the United States (not in the state of Hawaii). Maybe it is fraudulent as the Hawaii record is fraudulent--I tend to doubt it.
However, there is still room in the legal process to put him in a position where he will need to tell people he is a fraud and explain why he is still defending the fraud--that we might be able to do with the system. We just need to be effective in our use of legal resources and our record so far does not look very good.
Remember, here, we are not excluding him from the ballot for electoral college votes yet--the case at hand is only about convention delegates. But to the extent we exclude a number of key states from sending Zero delegates to the convention, we have made some progress in opening up the record.
So if you were the attorney handling these ballot challenge hearings for plaintiffs, what cases would you cite to declare Barack Obama ineligible for Article 2 Section 1?
Ok.
Ther IS a SCOTUS case which clearly and specifically defined Natural Born Citizen, and someone with your gift with words should be able to get it.
“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
What is the simple breakdown of this holding?
A person born in the country to TWO parents who were citizens is a Natural Born Citizen. The court HAD to define the term, because they used it as justification for denying Virginia Minor’s claim to 14th Amendment citizenship in order to secure the right to vote. They denied her case, because she had no claim to 14th Amendment Citizenship - so said SCOTUS.
So the court separated quite clearly Natural Born Citizen from Citicen - which would be a person born in country to a mother who was a citizen and a father who was a foreigner, a person born OUT of the country to two parents who were citizens. Everyone agrees that a person born out of country to parents who were NOT citizens had no claim to citizenship at all.
It is THAT simple.
138 years ago the Supreme court decided this, and THE LAW STILL STANDS. The unanimous decision has NEVER been overturned, IT IS STILL LAW!
Either people obey the law or they do not.
Obama is NOT obeying the law, he took an oath he had NO RIGHT to take, thus he is not bound by ANY oath to the Constitution.
That OUGHT to scare the pee out of every American.
there is still room in the legal process to put him in a position where he will need to tell people he is a fraud and explain why he is still defending the fraud
Check out David's # 1214.
Thanks, David.
Just like every gun right case prior to Heller had no application to personal gun rights to self-protection?
The Liberal Bar, as you say, has a consensus that the NBC language in MvH is dicta, but the Liberal Bar also had a consensus that the right to keep and bear arms was a right only of well regulated state militias and NOT an individual right. The Roberts Court disagreed. The Roberts Court is NOT the Liberal Bar.
Let's not also forget that the Liberal Bar thought that affirmative action was constitutional and not reverse discrimination. The Roberts Court disagreed.
Let's see what happens!
>>> I shouldn’t have started with a blast at the general sophistication on this kind of issue and apologize for doing so. <<<
I thank you for your gesture of goodwill.
The reason that anything at all, is getting done, or may get done, is because people are taking action. They are moving the proverbial atomic particles, that are standing in their way or aligned against them, clear the hell out of the way! In other words FORCE! Why? Because Soebarkah is playing the Chicago way. Ya’ don’t bring a stick of bubble gum to a knife fight, and ya’ don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
I’m not a learned scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so I don’t pretend to be one here either. I do know that NBC applies to only two elected positions, out of a population of over 300,000,000 people. Were our population to swell to 600,000,000, 900,000,000, or 1,200,000,000, the NBC clause would still only apply to just two people or two elected positions. TWO! T-W-O! TWO! Not native citizen, not naturalized citizen (or statutory) but natural born citizen. It’s not complicated!
I don’t have the exact NBC clause verbiage memorized, but born in the good old US of A (cue the Springsteen hit) of citizen parents. Well, yer’ parents have to be citizens AND every human (at least for the time being) has two parents at one time or another. Using a little lawyerly vernacular there (thank you very much.)
Finally, allegiance to our country. Is it too much to ask for a little loyalty? Exhibit ONE: See the effect in the ‘One’ residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Now you may be thinking or I may have proven that I am a simpleton, but I think I get WHAT THE FOUNDERS MEANT by the institution of the NBC clause. I hope that I haven’t been too loquacious for today’s readers.
;o)
freepersup
“In fact, you could lay the correct foundation with the right client to address the proposition that he is not eligible.”
The burden of proof of eligibility is entirely on Obama. He declares himself eligible with the issuance of a statement of candidacy. If challenged, it is up to him to prove he is eligible.
It’s the same principle as prima facie evidence. Evidence should be taken at face value to be true and accurate unless it is challenged. If challenged, corroborative evidence is necessary.
Obama’s problems with POTUS don’t begin for him until he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, moved to Indonesia and naturalized as an Indonesian National. After he returned to America, he used the naturalization process to become an American citizen. The proof is with USCIS and SSA. Continued probing of any state DoH records is useless and a waste of time.
Any chance we could get him on a perjury-like charge similar to what was prosecuted with Clinton? Has he ever been under oath when he has provided information that would normally be used to verify eligibility and which is technically wrong?
How about technical issues related to fraud? For instance, I’m sure the President receives some kind of health, and/or life insurance. Can he be prosecuted for fraud if the information he has provided the government FOR that insurance is not accurate?
Could he be taken down like Capone for some sort of tax evasion scandal due to the Social Security number inconsistencies?
I’m beginning to wonder if the thing we will have to use to expose him might have NOTHING to do at all with his eligibility, but in a technicality where the repercussions for perjury and/or fraud are explicitly laid out - something that’s a condition of employment, or benefits, or something of the like that would constitute a felony and is ongoing, or can be specifically proven.
Honestly, I’m curious to see what, if anything, Sheriff Joe announces in the next week or so. I’m wondering if looking at this from a slightly different perspective than bringing a lawsuit will bear fruit - the criminal angle on Obama’s activities might be even more interesting and compelling than his most recent attempts at fraud (which I do believe he IS guilty of in several ways - even if it’s never proven).
*****************
One other question I have (a rather silly one I should know the answer to personally)... I remember talk about this years back when I was working for a 3rd party on a Presidential candidacy, and I saw it mentioned here in the last few days as well. Does a candidate need to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states to qualify - or in just enough states to mathematically have a chance at actually being able to win a majority? I do know that Presidential Electors are not bound to vote for the “winner”, but instead can vote for whomever is on their state’s ballot when they actually sit down and vote some days after the election. I can’t remember if it was a *required* things in regards to ballot access, or if it was a *crazy to bother if you’re not on all 50 states as a 3rd party* type of thing? (Thanks in advance for any answers on that question, or the stuff I wrote about above. It’s been hard for me to stay up-to-date lately.)