Obama Got Served

American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

[Sallyven]

[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...

[Fred Nerks]

Methinks there’s a chance several of the signatures are hers - it’s the documents they appear on that are suspect.

[TheConservativeParty]

Totally agree. The contract of We The People with our gov’t has been forever voided as far as I am concerned. The day Roberts swore in a totally ineligible (for multilple reasons) usurper...that was it for me. The Constitution died with that event. So many knew he was a usurper, yet no one in power had the guts to do anything. It’s been a 4 year heartache, and he’s done way more damage than I ever thought possible back when he was elected.

[Greenperson]

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/top-fourteen-signatures-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoro-doe/

More signatures.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

For about half a year no one answered this question. [Probably because I tended to ask legitimacy defenders] ...

So theoretically, our Founding Fathers were not concerned that a British noble might groom a son who is born in the US to be President, right? So a duke might serve his Majesty by raising a son in the US [such as his second son], and then prepare him to lead our nation. And our Founding Fathers had no fear whatsoever of that happening?

[BTW — the Romans suffered under Etruscan kings which is what led to their ancient revolution — our Founding Fathers were well aware of that. Then there’s the matter of the Prince of Wales. I don’t think our Founding Fathers were such fools that they never pondered that trick.]

[edge919]

The Minor NBC definition was exclusive: “as distinguished from foreigners or aliens.” Waite continued to explain how foreigners or aliens could become citizens. He reviewed every combination of parents and place of birth from which one could become a citizen. The only circumstances which were characterized as “natural-born citizens” were those involving citizen parents. What would be the point of applying the characterization to only one set of cirumstances if it could be used for others??

[little jeremiah]

I agree with you 100% including your tagline, but many Repubs are as well.

[rxsid]

IF simply being born in the U.S. is enough to be considered a "natural born Citizen", then the current Dauphin of France (as considered by the Legitimists) Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would be considered POTUS eligible.

French Royal Family
Legitimist

Prince Louis was born in New York City, 2010. Yet, his father is a French and Spanish citizen (but not a U.S. citizen) and his mother is Venezuelan.

If the French decided to have another restoration of the House of Bourbon, the King of France would be considered POTUS eligible.
Imagine if Louis Alphonse were to be elected POTUS 1st (not possible? look what happened in 2008)...and then the French decided to restore the crown...wow!

Imagine that. The King of France and the President of the U.S. as one in the same.

Coat of arms of the Dauphin of France.

I believe the founders and framers would be repulsed by the notion that such a foreign prince is eligible to be this nations Commander in Chief.

[Fred Nerks]

That woman sure had a lot of different names. Identity problem?

[GregoryFul]

From the Minor USSC opinion:

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 [p168] 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.

So it is in doubt whether children born within the jurisdiction of the US to alien parents are citizens, but the use of citizens and natural-born citizens is ambiguous. Since the paragraph seems to be defining NBCs, one could take that it is in doubt as to whether this class is NBC as well.

Like I said, it is stupid that NBC is not clearly defined, it is high time for a stated qualification for president of the US to be clearly defined - don't you agree?

[edge919]

No, one has to misread what Waite wrote. If he left out the phrase "as citizens," then you might have a point, as that would completely change the meaning of the sentence to what you want it to say:

..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 ... children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

By saying "as citizens," Waite makes it clear that he's NOT including this class as NBCs. Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning citizen parents or the citizenship of the parents if BOTH can be regarded as NBCs?? Why make any distinction at all??

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Yes, and I think that they covered such a contingency. I believe it was on their minds at the time. [Regarding royalty or nobility from outside the US being dubbed “eligible”.]

[GregoryFul]

Clearly, Waite is voicing a disagreement among the authorities of the day, and the characteristics that they are using to partition the citizenry into different grades of citizenship. Huh?

I think that if there is a question, and obviously there is, NBC should be defined unambiguously. NOW!

[edge919]

Clearly, Waite is voicing a disagreement among the authorities of the day, and the characteristics that they are using to partition the citizenry into different grades of citizenship.

It's not just Waite. He was joined by all of the Supreme Court justices in his decision. Second, it's not necessarily that he's disagreeing with authorities, because some of them may have been correct, such as those referring to their own state laws. What Waite is doing is explaining exactly what the nomenclature of the founders was. The lengths "some authorites" go to is not strong enough to make anyone a citizen without resolving doubts. As proposed by Waite, the only way to solve those doubts is to a) go by the relevant statutory laws; b) apply the 14th amendment to those it would apply to; or c) determine whether the parents were citizens or not. If the criteria of c is met, then the child was a natural-born citizen, but not so for a and b. How much clearer does that definition have to be??