Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

Amazing isn’t it? I remember when the opposing partiy would let a lame duck president die on the vine. The GOP-e are empowering him.

If you ever needed evidence they are both against us, there it is.

"Agreed...totally ridiculous thread and diminishes FR. Obama was elected twice, he made court appointments, and there is no turning back. We can rant and rage all we want, but that’s the way it is. Don’t let it ruin your life."

What diminishes FR is the failure of so-called conservatives such as yourself to protect and defend the Constitution. You need a sarcasm tag after your screen name.

You nailed it my friend!

"21 court rulings have declared Obama to be eligible for the position he holds....."

All of which were lower courts. The Supreme Court has admitted they are avoiding the issue.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

It’s arguments based on ... reality that don’t do so well.

I don't know. This Court seems determined to invent its OWN reality, and since they have the power, it then becomes reality for all of us. The Constitution, that document they're sworn to uphold, as Justice Roberts notes in his dissent, seems to be a purely theoretical exercise to them.

There are several levels of qualifying. The first level is a major party’s nomination or achieving Independent candidate status on a state by state basis. That usually involves collecting registered voter signatures.
The second level of qualifying is being cleared for the ballot in each state and in the District of Columbia. Usually a state’s Secretary of State or other Chief Election Officer performs that function. In most states citizens can challenge the eligibility of a candidate’s name to appear on the ballot. These are “eligibility or ballot challenge lawsuits.”

The 20th Amendment and federal law speak ONLY to failing to qualify as president-elect, after the general election. Once the president-elect’s electoral votes are certified there is no longer a President-elect. So there is a period from Election Day until early January when the Joint Session of Congress is convened to determine if the president-elect has “failed to qualify” under the 20th Amendment.

Presidents-elect (the apparent winner of a majority of the votes of the electors) qualify when their electoral votes are counted and certified at the Joint Seesion of Congress which meets for that purpose.

A President-elect can fail to qualify by death, infirmity or if there are written objections to the certification of electoral votes and those written objections take the president-elect below the 270 electoral vote threshold. In that instance, a qualified Vice-President-elect would become Acting President until and if the objections are resolved. If they are not resolved, the House of Representatives would then elect the president from among the top three candidates in electoral votes but in 2008 and 2012 only two candidates received electoral votes.

Justice Clarence Thomas joked with Congressman Jose Serrano that they were evading the issue of whether someone born in Puerto Rico could be president. Congressman Serrano was born in Puerto Rico. Justice Thomas told Representative Serrano that he could be on the Supreme Court because there was no natural born citizen requirement.

The Supreme Court has denied 26 appeals.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY RULINGS
1) Anderson v. Obama (Cert* Denied)
2) Barnett, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
3)Barnett v Padilla (Cert Denied)
4) Berg v. Obama, et. al. (Stay Denied & Cert Denied)
5) Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission (Cert Denied)
6) Craig v. United States (Cert Denied)
7) Donofrio v. Wells (Application for Stay Denied)
8) Dummett, et. al. v Padilla (Cert Denied)
9) Fair v. Walker (Cert Denied)
10) Farrar v. Obama & Kemp (App. For Stay & Cert Denied)
11) Herbert v. United States, et. al. (Cert Denied)
12)) Hollister v. Soetoro (Cert Denied)
13) Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
14) Keyes v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Cert Denied)
15) Lightfoot v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
16) Noonan v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
17) Paige v. Vermont (Cert Denied)
18) Purpura v. Sibelius (Cert Denied)
19) Rhodes v. Mac Donald (Injunction & Cert Denied)
20) Schneller v. Cortes (Emergency relief & Cert Denied)
21) ex. rel. Sibley v. Obama (Cert Denied)
22) Sibley v. DC Board of Elections (Cert Denied )
23) In re: Voeltz (Cert. Denied, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Denied)
24) Vogt v. Obama/In re: Vogt (Cert Denied)
25) Welden v. Obama (Cert Denied)
26) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Application for Stay Denied)
*”Cert”= A Petition for a “Writ of Certiorari” which is a request for an appeal to be heard before the Court. It takes four Justices to agree to grant a Cert Petition, known as “The Rule of Four”.

“I’m going to say ‘itseddlelaw’. How ‘bout you?”

“Yes, and I shall say it is a wise thing that you say ‘itseddlelaw.”

“Darth! Darth Vader! When will they get it right???”

Text of Twentieth Amendment, Section Three

"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Your statement: "The 20th Amendment and federal law speak ONLY to failing to qualify as president-elect, after the general election. "

The bold text I posted shows this to be untrue. It clearly states as one provision, the possibility that a President had not yet been named or "chosen" from the results of the election. The next sentence is another entirely different occurrence, a "failure to qualify" by the President-Elect. In fact the individual who becomes the President-Elect does not exist until Congress authenticates the results of the Electoral College. Once they bang the gavel on January 15th, the election is over. It is only then that the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three comes into play. A President-Elect is required to "qualify" or Congress must name a replacement who does "qualify".

"Once the president-elect’s electoral votes are certified there is no longer a President-elect."" Presidents-elect (the apparent winner of a majority of the votes of the electors) qualify when their electoral votes are counted and certified at the Joint Seesion of Congress which meets for that purpose."

This is not true. A President -Elect doesn't exist, legally, until this portion is completed.

" A President-elect can fail to qualify by death, infirmity or if there are written objections to the certification of electoral votes and those written objections take the president-elect below the 270 electoral vote threshold. In that instance, a qualified Vice-President-elect would become Acting President until and if the objections are resolved. If they are not resolved, the House of Representatives would then elect the president from among the top three candidates in electoral votes but in 2008 and 2012 only two candidates received electoral votes."

All hokum. This is part of the Congressional acceptance phase which ultimately names who the President-Elect is. Nice mis-representation though.

Uncle Sham, I believe you are 100 right, but the rule of law only works if the citizenry is made up moral people willing to follow it (the rule of law).

I can prove that Obama is illegal just using the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and have made this case many times on this forum.

OK. Prove it! And by that I mean actually PROVE IT and not just by repeating the speculations and sadly, the way too often easily debunked and often wild conspiracy theories based on the musings and postings of yourself and people on the worldwideinterwebs and or some half baked real estate agent / dentist / part time correspondence school attorney (yes, by that I do mean Orly Taitz /s ).

Do I have doubts as to whether Obama’s Hawaiian BC is legitimate? Sure, well maybe I do. But truthfully a lot of it and at least some of the people pushing the idea seem to far too often also seem to fall into and be in the very same groups as the 9-11 Truthers and Sandy Hook Hoaxers and the Moon Landing Was Fake brigades – in other words – often lacking a lot of credibility IMO and some stemming from professional cranks with their own credibility issues.

The reality, whether we like it or not, there is no real solid proof of Obama’s ineligibility to serve as POTUS nor has any legitimate legal challenge to his eligibility has ever been presented and more importantly, no challenge has ever been taken up by or affirmed by any court – state, local or federal.

Officials of the state of Hawaii has certified that his BC is legitimate and therefore his citizenship and eligibility, (whether or not you or I agree or interpret who is a “natural born citizen” is a different matter), but even more importantly, Congress has confirmed many if not most of his nominees including Kagen and Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, and did so without ever questioning his eligibility to do so in the first place, to nominate them or any other appointee - so in other words, the point is now way past moot.

If Obama’s nominees were illegal because he was not legally eligible to serve as POTUS in the first place, Congress should have, would have, could have, might have acted then, but they didn’t.

And I’m not even sure you fully understand the intent of the 20th Amendment or particularly the 3rd clause. The main purpose of the 20th was to move the term of POTUS, the inauguration date up from March 4th (or actually in actual effect from April) to January 20th and thus effectively shortening the prior much longer and unproductive “lame duck sessions” that hampered the Government for several months every 4 years and were no longer as necessary as they had been prior to modern modes of transportation, back in the days “when any newly elected official might require several months to put his affairs in order and then undertake an arduous journey from his home to the national capital, but it eventually had the effect of impeding the functioning of government in the modern age.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Historical_background

It also addressed the issue of what would happen if the President and or the Vice President elect died before being to officially take office, or if by January 20th, there was still a question or dispute as to the outcome of the election as in the result of the Electoral College, i.e. that “eligibility” question, not per se the question of whether the POTUS elect was a “natural born citizen” or meeting the age and residency requirements in the first place – the eligibility criteria set forth in the Constitution, but as to the question of Electoral College outcome, whereas by if by January 20th what would happen if there was no clear winner who had been certified. At least that is my read of it. YMMV.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The bottom line is that Congress did not enact its powers under the 20th A and the 3rd clause in either 2008 or in 2012 to question Obama’s eligibility because Obama had already been deemed to be qualified to serve by both his party and in every state in which he was on the ballot. And FWIW, as far as I understand, it would be up to the individual state election laws to determine who was or wasn’t eligible to be on the ballot, although Congress in certifying the votes and results from the Electoral College, would have the last say if a legitimate question as to eligibility arose, but Congress didn’t act so again, the point is now moot and Obama’s SCOTUS picks, having been confirmed by congress, whether we like it or their decisions or not are not “illegitimate” just because you deem Obama to be a usuper in your non-legal and non-binding opinion.

Liberals think that Roberts and Alito are not legitimate because President Bush was appointed not elected.....both sides have issues with the justices in one way or the other. Yes did this stink? Yes. But liberals thought Citizen’s United stunk so we get some and we lose some.

Yep, people seem to forget that. I would also add that if McCain had won the election in 2008, that the liberals would have suddenly have become “birthers” and would have claimed that all his nominees were invalid because he was not a “natural born citizen”. I also seem to recall some speculation both from the right and left that Romney really wasn’t a “natural born citizen” as well. I would hazard to guess that if Carly Fiorina were to somehow get the GOP nomination, that some on the left would call for the immediate repeal of the 19th Amendment – LOL!

Yes, the President-Elect stops being the President-elect and becomes the President at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, on January 20th of the year following a general election.
The rest of your post is just arguing using different words what I already said, so yes, I agree with you.
The bottom line is we haven’t had a president-elect since January 20, 2013.
There are even those (not me) who believe that a reelected incumbent is not a president-elect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect_of_the_United_States

“Yep, people seem to forget that. I would also add that if McCain had won the election in 2008, that the liberals would have suddenly have become “birthers” and would have claimed that all his nominees were invalid because he was not a “natural born citizen”. I also seem to recall some speculation both from the right and left that Romney really wasn’t a “natural born citizen” as well. I would hazard to guess that if Carly Fiorina were to somehow get the GOP nomination, that some on the left would call for the immediate repeal of the 19th Amendment – LOL! “

There was Senate Resolution 511. It affirmed that John McCain was a natural born citizen and eligible even though born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The sponsor was Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) with Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama, Coburn (R-OK), Clinton, and Webb (D-VA)) as co-sponsors.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

The issue for Mitt Romney and some birthers (mainly people who wanted a true conservative rather than the creator of Romneycare) was that his father, George Romney was born in the polygamous Mormon enclave of Colonia Dublan, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico and under the Mexican Constitution, was born with Mexican citizenship as well as U.S. citiznship.

“The bottom line is that Congress did not enact its powers under the 20th A and the 3rd clause in either 2008 or in 2012 to question Obama’s eligibility because Obama had already been deemed to be qualified to serve by both his party and in every state in which he was on the ballot. And FWIW, as far as I understand, it would be up to the individual state election laws to determine who was or wasn’t eligible to be on the ballot, although Congress in certifying the votes and results from the Electoral College, would have the last say if a legitimate question as to eligibility arose, but Congress didn’t act so again, the point is now moot and Obama’s SCOTUS picks, having been confirmed by congress, whether we like it or their decisions or not are not “illegitimate” just because you deem Obama to be a usuper in your non-legal and non-binding opinion.”

Very well said.
I would add that any citizen in some states and only registered voters in other states had the right to challenge Obama’s eligibility in courts of law and also before State Election Boards. Many people chose to do just that. There were more than 200 legal challenges to Obama’s qualifications. In not one single challenge was he ruled to be ineligble and in 21 challenges the courts explicitly ruled him to be a natural born citizen.
For example, in Arizona: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
And in Georgia: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012

The Twentieth Amendment clearly says "shall not have been chosen", (an Electoral College 270 vote issue) and the word "OR" shall have failed to qualify" indicating that these two are separate in meaning. Why would they use two terms for the same result of not being chosen or qualified if they meant the same thing? They used each term for a reason. It states that whoever ends up being appointed President, whether they were in the election or not, still has to "qualify". This proves that the word "qualify" has no connection to election results.

I have proven that to be a legal President, one must "qualify" to Congress or it is the duty of Congress to name a replacement. I have also proven that the eligibility requirements prohibit anyone who hasn't qualified from serving as a legal President. You need to offer proof that he did in fact qualify to Congress, something that to this date has gone unproven. No qualification, no legal President. Who did he qualify to and when?

These type of post are distractions and do not bring us together.

D@mn straight we should all get together even if we are wrong. It is never what is right, but what is expedient.

For those of those that never bothered to look into what authority the Courts actually have, download Mark Levin's Friday show, Congress has the power to abolish all the inferior courts if they want to. Newt suggested this at one point in his run for president and it went nowhere, ever wonder why?

Thankfully, he only has 1 1/2 yrs left

There was Senate Resolution 511.

Had the same legal effect as declaring June 12 the love a turtle day.

The whole court is illegitimate and should be abolished.

Can you point to a congressional record of the procedure where qualifications were discussed somewhere in the past?