Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
Obozo had dual citizenship at birth: US and British and he may well have been born in Kenya. No court gave relief against his presidency.

I thoroughly agree with the last three paragraphs. Also, anyone born here or born to an American citizen is a citizen and subject to the laws of the US. If residing abroad, that person would also be subject to his/her country of residence. The exception as to those born here is that children born to foreign diplomatic personnel are immune from US jurisdiction. IIRC, if a foreign diplomat robs a bank here, we can turn him over to his embassy and demand that he be removed from the US by his nation of citizenship. If an ordinary non-diplomatic foreigner robs an American bank, he will not be an American citizen but he will be subjected to our laws.

Dual citizenship is not a simple concept for many Americans. The late actress Elizabeth Taylor was British by birth, American by naturalization and also an Israeli citizen who converted to Judaism and became also Israeli after marrying Eddie Fisher. I believe she held all three citizenships until her death.

Assuming that Congress may determine the electoral count and the qualifications of the president-elect, one other question remains: Does an action seeking a mandamus lie in such cases? That will depend on whether Congress's authority is discretionary or ministerial. If ministerial (mandatory outcome), mandamus lies. If not ministerial, courts can order the exercise of discretion but not dictate the specific choice to be made. That was, at least, the common law of Connecticut when I practiced there and obtained several writs of mandamus and I cannot imagine why the feds would have different standards..

351 posted on 01/22/2016 5:20:45 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline: Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society/Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
Diplomats are like an extension of the king. We can't step on his toes, and he "is" the nation, so wherever the king goes, his nation is there. That's the ancient "law of nations" thing.

On the interplay between Congress and SCOTUS in case of a question on eligibility (assuming they don't all just avert their gaze), there is first a question of SCOTUS taking it up. I think they should, so as to have a check on the NBC clause. Others say that Congress's assertion is conclusive and not to be questioned. I think that opens a door to a rogue Congress.

Your remark covers the nature of the remedy. I don't think SCOTUS has the power to mandate Congress do anything, so a writ of mandamus is the wrong vehicle. All SCOTUS could do is declare the president-elect unqualified. Then it's up to the president elect and Congress to either abide by "the finding" or not. Wouldn't be the first constitutional crisis, but it would be volatile, for sure. I think that volatility is why SCOTUS, like Congress, abdicates its duty.

The players have worked under a dysfunctional system for so long, their only hope is to fool the people into thinking this (averting of gaze) is upholding the constitution.

Makes me want to puke, sometimes. Then I realize family is more important than nation. If the public won't fight for the nation, why should I even care?

354 posted on 01/22/2016 5:38:02 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson