I've been mulling this over since I heard that the final case was thrown out of court in California about a week ago.
I can't think of a worse person to have handled the challenge of Obama's eligibility than her.
Whenever I saw her on TV, or in a news clip online, I cringed, i could never understand her......
Do I think the 'Birth Certificate' that a man swore was legitimate under threat of Perjury in CA court was legitimate? Truthfully no.
And here's why.
Obama has done such a great job of LOCKING his records away, to include his long form birth certificate, mind which I have said probably DOES exist, but he should provide it upon request, because its a matter of HOW it was obtained and what it says that could 'prove him ineligible'. If hes locked his records away tighter than a drum, I have to say right now that him forgetting to 'lock' and secure a document away like this one, and the footprint on it would make it easy to verify or prove fake or authentic, would be a HUGE blunder on his part. I think that maybe it was obtained on 'pretense' of being authentic, however, I have to say I can't see a man as 'smart' as Obama, and all of his lawyers that he pays big bucks for, overlooking this.
But given that a buffoon like Orly Taitz took this case on, I have to say I'm not surprised.......I think this whole election just reeks of 'cheating to win', and no party is above or below cheating to win. Its happened in the past, it will happen again in the future....
I think there is merit that Obama should show his LONG form, locked away birth certificate.....but knowing Obama 'was born' in Hawaii where its easier to get a birth certificate than anywhere else, and he moved to Chicago, Ill, one of the most if not the most politically corrupt state in the U.S....I can't say I'm surprised he locked away what people have a right to ask the U.S President, or a candidate for.
And truthfully, I blame the GOP as much as Pelosi for not verifying that Obama was properly vetted! They should have known, should have questioned, should have cared......
Instead someone like Orly Taitz is trying to carry the burden of a 'small number' of people who still sign petitions and believe the courts will listen to her. She seems to forget the judges that will likely hear her are judges that are liberal and will find any reason to dismiss it. Legitimit or not.
I thought the lawyer most qualified to handle the fight was Philip Berg, a Democrat but as we close this chapter there are things that he's doing in office, whether there legally or not that are more upsetting than the birth certificate and that si putting our soldiers lives in danger in Afghanistan.
Mooch
(just because I've resigned on this issue, does NOT mean that I believe that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. The only way I'll ever fully believe that is 'IF" he shows his long form birth certificate! Which you and I know won't happen.
Until then I guess African is a Nationality........NOT!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40 ( 1 removed by Mooch -. )
---
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
“all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”
---
Paul, the United States Constitution DOD NOT incorporate Vattel’s book into law just because Vattel uses a common legal term as the title to his book.
Sheesh. Talk about reaching.
Cite please, Alferd.
"Paul, the United States Constitution DOD NOT incorporate Vattel’s book into law just because Vattel uses a common legal term as the title to his book."
The usage and capitalization prove it was a reference to the law (and it had nothing to do with Vattel other than the fact that it was he who compiled one edition of it).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
-------
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
It should be noted that premeditation and conspiracy to perform many acts, were formulated and discussed in interim between November 6 and January 20. None of this was spur of the moment. These guys who climb to the top and push a candidate up there are not amateurs. They don't play games, they play for keeps. All of the misdirection and deflection to Orly Taitz serves the usurper well.
Have you not figured out yet that the Republican and Democratic parties are two sides of the same coin? There is a greater power at the helm who steps in when it's in their interest.
The powers that be didn't want it discovered - that's why so much money is being spent to maintain the coverup. There is very little difference between the two parties; they're different sides of the same coin. Obama is just a pawn in a very serious game - one that we're about to lose if we aren't careful. Course there are those who are complicit in the takeover - are you one of those, Alferd?
Paranoia will destroy ya. . . .
Are you aware that, as President of the DNC at the time, Pelosi signed two different letters verifying Barry's eligibility - one with a paragraph indicating Constitutional eligibility and one without and that these two letters were sent to the various Secretaries of State. So far, nobody knows why but it sure is suspicious.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm
Mooch
The above reference should be translated into today's english. It's clear as mud. While true the man is a citizen it remains a fact that his father was NOT and therefore under our laws and the laws of his father's citizenship in Kenya he remains a dual citizenship. This decision or writing does not define Natural Born at all, it says a preson who is born of parents who are citizens or naturalized citizens is a natural born citizen. That does not apply in Obama's case.
> This decision or writing does not define Natural Born at all, it says a preson who is born of parents who are citizens or naturalized citizens is a natural born citizen.
I hate to argue with compatriots (it's hard enough debating the libertards) but that was not a decision - it was a non-binding opinion (resolution). It does not in any way define or alter the definition of 'natural born citizen'. It is also wrong as indicated by several SCOTUS decisions, the need for the grandfather clause and the referenced Law of Nations.
“all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”
This statement would indicate that Obama is not natural born since his dad was not "in the allegiance of the United States".
----
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
2. Civil actions like Orly’s have always been doomed and are either a mistake or PSYOPS by Obots. Like the high profile Citizen Grand Juries these efforts kept the issue alive until it is time for the coup de grace.
3. Criminal actions in all 50 states are in process but will not be revealed until the procedurally correct time to do so. Or to make clear a standard protocol of intelligence work; never let the subject know the direction or strategy of an investigation beyond that which keeps him looking over his shoulder. Remember Butch and Sundance saying, “Who are those guys?”
The top hits on my blog are
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/outrage-you-are-not-going-to-believe.html
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Nothing like a little paranoia to get your day started, eh?
Obama was over 35.
Obama lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
Despite was birther idiots will claim these are the true constitutional requirements for President.
It's in the Constitution. It's short and sweet. Obama is obviously qualified as he meets all the requirements described in the Constitition. As Judge Carter wrote in his opinion, some Swiss writer's musings have no authority in the United States, nor are those musings in any way referenced in the Constitution. I'm sure if the founders wanted to invoke a certain philosopher they would have cited him and his writings specifically. Judge Carter shot that birther delusion down, as will every judge in the United States.
I am a naturalized citizen. My little brother is American born. He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his American birth certificate. Nobody has ever or will ever quiz him about the immigration status of our parents. Hence despite birther stupidity and wishful thinking, there are only two classes of citizens in this country: Natural Born and Naturalized. My little brother and I represent those two classes. There is no other class. Obama obviously did not naturalize, consequently he is natural born. In fact the term Naturalization should clue you in as to what the founders intended. Naturalization is the process by which one becomes "natural" legally if not by birth.
No one has cited any individual person. The founding fathers referenced a body of law known as The Law of Nations. Please review Article I, Section 8.
"Judge Carter shot that birther delusion down, as will every judge in the United States."
You may be right. The question is why? Who is putting on the pressure?
"My little brother is American born. He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his American birth certificate. Nobody has ever or will ever quiz him about the immigration status of our parents."
Unless he runs to be our POTUS, there will be no reason to question. If he does, they had better check or we'll be right back here in another Constitutional crisis.
I understand your feelings but that doesn't change the law. Hopefully we'll get it resolved so that we can all know that the law is being observed and that the man sitting in the Oval Office is truly our president.
My little brother in just like Bobby Jindal. There is absolutly nothing that would keep Jindal from running for POTUS, and if successful, becoming POTUS. The entire Republican establishment, including Rush Limbaugh, agree that Jindal can be POTUS.
Even sons and daughters of Mexican illegal immigrants can become POTUS.
Try again, birther.
The appeals court will not touch the case itself, it will only look at her behavior as it applies to the sanctions.
------------- ---------------------------------------------
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.
Then have your congressman initiate impeachment proceedings, birther. Good luck.
Nothing would give me greater plesure than to watch a bunch of idiot republican congressmen try to impeach Obama based on birther nonsesne.
It would be the ultimate death of the republican party.