Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant's(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF GEORGIA
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The Plaintiff, David Welden, respectfully submits this opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Statement of Facts
For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.
{{{ JUMP TO PART C }}}
C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law
The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.
Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.
In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4
The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.
D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution
The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.
Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.
The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.
The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.
E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented
The Defendant asserts that the issue raised by the Plaintiff has been defeated by “every judicial body ever to have considered it,” citing dozens of cases. See Def.’s Mtn. at 5-6. However, unlike the instant case, every one of the cases cited was based upon an assertion that the Defendant was not born in the United States, or is not a citizen for some other reason.
The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).
F. Substantive Question for this Court
Despite all of his attempts to misdirect this Court from the one substantive issue presented, the Defendant has failed to present grounds for dismissal. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court consider his simple yet critically important grounds to prohibit the Defendant from appearing on the Georgia ballot:
It is undisputed that President Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge Mr. Obama has never denied the fact that his father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor has he ever made any statements contrary to this fact.
The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding.
Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the Defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the Defendant cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot. §21-2-5.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Complete Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss below and here. Prior reports on the Georgia ballot challenges here.
ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Welden v. Obama - Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - Obama Georgia Primary Ballot Challenge - 12/19/201119 Dec 2011: Wash Times Ad - Obama SSN Fails E-Verify System - Support New Article II Super PAC Org
95 comments:
Bravo! That was a joy to read.
"Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875)."
Unless you are a lying Foggy-OBots as they can contrive BS from anywhere.
This was a pleasure to read.
Perfect! The Birth Certificate was a canard all along. This document clearly lays out the truth without blemish. All challenges to Obama should be laid out in this manner imho.
I wonder why did did not also include the more recent Senate Resolution 511 which seems to reaffirm that decision since his (citizen) parent(s) took a priority position in it's elegibility of McCain.
Wow! So very well written, concise, and to the point! Mr. Irion is spot-on. And he's correct in suggesting that Barack Obama, the candidate, DOES NOT understand the safeguards of our U.S. Constitution---and he certainly knows nothing about States' rights in the governance of the election process. And he's also correct in stating that Minor v. Happersett "stood" for all these years---since the late 1800's---WITHOUT any subsequent U.S. Supreme Court "questioning".
More from the Opposition to Dismiss:
"Argument and Authority
The lengths to which the Defendant [Obama] goes to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The Defendant asks this Court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion:< Barach Obama is not Constitutionally-qualified to hold office of President of the United States."
I want to sing! I want to laugh! I am going to have a good night sleep tonight. I have been waiting for so long. This feels like I am 14 again and first time in love. Justice if I live to see my grandaughter that will be here name. Justice Georgia.
Yooohoooooo OBots, especially the one who can't understand or properly read correctly US Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett. That would be you clowns in Foggyville:
"...The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding"
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (passed again in 1870 after the 14th Amendment in 1868) IS STATUTE LAW
1866 Civil Rights Act
14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
CHAP. XXXI.
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."
Luria v. U.S., 1913
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
The United States does not officially recognize dual citizenships
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Obama Agrees That Natural Born Citizens Require Two US Citizen Parents
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”--Barack Obama, SR 511
Kagan has a very very long history with AKA Obama before 2008, and had represented him regarding his fudged citizenship for years.
Kagan should be recused from Obamacare decisions, and she should not even be on the Supreme Court at all (neither should Sotomayor) since AKA Obama was never a legal president to begin with.
1) Kagan has been representing Obama in every petition attempting to prove his citizenship.
2) The reason Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court in the first place was to protect his murky background as she always has.
3) Kagan was also the Solicitor General for every suit against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of his natural born citizenship.
Obama owed her and the nomination was the payback that just happened to work fine since at the time the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. As you might have assumed, all of the Supreme Court requests regarding his being a "natural born citizen" (eight of them) were either removed from the dockets, denied to be heard based on "standing" which is a bogus application of a rule. What "standing" means is that if a crime (Obama's usurpation) has aggrieved all Americans, then none in particular has any rights to sue. And so of the eight eligibility cases which have arrived at the Supreme Court dockets, not a one of them has been heard or adjudicated -- what a surprise.
The reason why none have been heard is that the Supreme Court has already ruled Obama not eligible to be president (1875, Minor v. Happersett and Luria v. U.S., 1913). Unless these were overturned, the SCOTUS holdings stand and Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States. He is only a usurper.
Check out any of these websites for the Supreme Court Docket to search for some of these hearings and surprise, surprise, Elana Kagan was the attorney representing Obama.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
Kagan was also Supreme Court Clerk prior to the inauguration, when another ineligibility case was pending. Obama, in an unprecedented allowance and completely unethical move, met with all but one of the Supreme Court justices while the first ineligibility case sat in the docket files prior to inauguration. This case was vanished by Elana Kagan, the first of eight which would disappear.
Take That! F.U. Obama!
Obama met with Roberts before the unauguration:
http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/05/03/souter03x.jpg
Clarence Thomas said, "We're evading the eligibility issue..."
WHO made SCOTUS into a brigade of criminals?
John Bingham, Father of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Congressional Record
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen..."
New York Post:
A child born of an alien is not a natural born citizen.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/attorney-leo-donofrio-new-york-tribune.html
Barack Obama admits he was born a British Citizen on fightthesmears:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
John McCain is a "naturalized" citizen, not a natural born citizen. He gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."
If You Have One US Citizen Parent, You Are A Naturalized At Birth US Citizen. If you have NO US Citizen parents you may be able to naturalize by oath, which requires one to abjure all other citizenships.
Jus soli only does not a US Citizen make.
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf
Article I defines the requirement for Congress/Senate as 7 or 9 years a US Citizen, respectively.
Article II defines the requirement for the Presidency as a natural born citizen AND 14 years a RESIDENT (not US Citizen).
Why the difference? Because though all natural born citizens as a subcategory of US Citizens, are "Citizens" ---- not all US Citizens are natural born citizens.
When asked to differentiate between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, the anti-constitutionalists ALWAYS fail.
And, let’s not forget:
snip: “Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.”
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate
God love Van Irion and his client.
@RS
Have you read what the Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana said about Minor v. Happersett?
Have you read what Northern California District Court Justice Morrow said about the Minor opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case?
Also have you read Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark? He also mentions Minor v. Hapersett. And he also mentions the definition of "natural born Citizen. But not at the same time.
The STATUTE which made McCain a naturalized citizen (not natural born citizen) :
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
No statutory naturalized citizen is ever a natural born citizen; natural born citizens are citizens by nature, not by statute.
Obama, if born in Hawaii to one US Citien parent, was only ever a naturalized at birth statutory US Citizen.
@Anonymous
Have you read what the Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana said about Minor v. Happersett?
Give it up OBot. I don't recall those clowns every mentioning Minor v. Happersett. Ankeny has been taken apart so many times that it is a joke.
Have you read what Northern California District Court Justice Morrow said about the Minor opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case?
No, but I have read the 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark backwards and forwards from front to end. There is no mention of Justice Gray ever stating Wong Ark was ever a natural born citizen OBum.
Gray blabbed ad nauseam of natural born SUBject to the British crown in the British empire, which is NOT the same as an being an NBC. He put a square peg in a round hole making Wong Kim Ark a US citizen.
So Foggy-nut are you a "SUBject" sport? LoL. Do you owe fealty to a king or vassal somewhere? So FoggyBot, you are a feudal tenant showing your fidelity to your lord Obama. So you like being a natural SUB-ject for OBama. As in being ...
"The latin Prefix 'Sub' can mean 'under', 'beneath', or 'below' (such as in the Word 'Subconscious'), 'inferior to', or 'part of' (such as in the Word 'Subhuman'), ..." Get BOwing to OBama LoL.
Being a natural born SUBject is being SUBservant to royalty. The rest us will be US citizens and US natural born citizens.
Also have you read Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark? He also mentions Minor v. Hapersett. And he also mentions the definition of "natural born Citizen. But not at the same time.
Yes Village OBot I read the dissent too. Yeah, Wong Ark was NOT an NBC let alone a US citizen.
And quit spamming ORYR with your dumb nonsense.
This is great anybody but Orly Taitz now I see why Gary Kreep sued her she fucks everything up she touches whether its on purpose or accidental remains to be seen but good job Van Irion for taking on this lawsuit.
Orly seems nice but has such a poor track record of success as to merit the query as to whether she is just controlled opposition. She's hard to understand and sounds like a shop vac. She could at least get someone else to read her materials.
Excellent! This is exactly what is needed to slap down the bogus POTUS' re-election swindle. Now that the 9th Circus Court has ruled that challengers have standing so long as action is taken before a president-elect is inaugurated, the need to strike is now!
To the Obot idiots. A lower court's opinion has no authority over a supreme courts ruling. Furthermore if Obot idiots like Fogbow want to talk about dicas then try looking at other Supreme Court jutice opinions... see article link.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
@dust
Orly is a naturalized American. She does not know the nuances of the Constitutional Protections.
Interpretation, not merely rudimentary interpretation is mandatory.
Rather her case is cluttered with dicta, believing something will stick as precedence.
Mr. Irion is a SPECIALIST WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. Hopefully, he will carry the burden now: just recruit a colleague from each state by referral who specializes in Obama's specialty: Constitutional Law (Martindale & Hubbel)
Can you imagine Obama is your professor? Get a tuition refund !
Thank you Mr. Irions for cornering the enemy and blocking the exit.
Obamaroids risk calling these plaintiffs "birthers" at their own risk.
Oh wow, this is excellent! About fricking time too!! This needs to be done in all 50 states IMO as of yesterday.
Kudos to the great state of Georgia for showing us all the way!
"3) Kagan was also the Solicitor General for every suit against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of his natural born citizenship. "
Absolute 100% lie. She was SG on NO "eligibility case" against Obama filed with SCOTUS.
This has gong around the bush many times, and is verifiably and demonstrably false.
What is so exciting about this?
It is just this guys opinion. And the judge was pretty specific about what he wanted in case law. Guaranteed he will read the Minor decision. And he will come to the same conclusion as the Indiana Court of Appeals.
@RS
Haven't read Ankeny!
Here is what they said after citing the Minor case.
"Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”"
Great response Mr. Van Irion!!!
Looking forward to Atty. Mark Hatfield's as well.
Could it be that this finally gets resolved right here in GA?
The Defendant makes the illogical argument that 69 million people voted for Obama....so that makes him eligible. Nothing could be further from the truth and facts. This is not a "popularity contest", its a Constitutional question.
The Defendant has to twist himself into a pretzel of legalistic gobbledygook nonsense to make his case.
Epic FAIL of monumental proportions..
This seems very well written and argued. In circumstances where we are talking about following the law, this appears to be a no brainer. The only place I wonder about attorney Irion's argument is section E, pages 8-9, "Contrary to the Defendant's Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented". Here, Irion discusses the basis for the suits not being the same as the issue at hand. These issues however where never the subject of the courts' actions - the cases never reached the merits but where rather decided on technicalities, i.e., standing. Not sure this weakens his argument, just seems like he is pointing out something that is not factual or relevant in rebutting the defendant.
I do not know the makeup of the court that will hear this. Are they appointees of Republicans or Dumbocrats? For this will unlikely be decided on law, but will more likely be decided on politics as have so many other cases. If this is true and these are Dumbocrat appointees - see you later. And, do not discount the possibility of even Republican appointees dismissing this. So far, the entire political and judicial establishment is in the tank for Barry Buttwipe. No reason to believe that this time it will be any different.
Kudos to Irion for his effort. I only hope there is a decision based on law and common sense, but I remain unconvinced that anything is going to change in Georgia. Remember, this is the state where Republicans shot down the best eligibility legislation yet put forward.
I don't recall those clowns every mentioning Minor v. Happersett. Ankeny has been taken apart so many times that it is a joke.
Ankeny, on page 13:
"Thus, the Court [in Minor] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen."
And on page 17:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person 'born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject' at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those 'born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.'"
This is exactly what is needed to slap down the bogus POTUS' re-election swindle. Now that the 9th Circus Court has ruled that challengers have standing so long as action is taken before a president-elect is inaugurated
Irion's client isn't on the Georgia ballot. Neither are any of Taitz's clients.
The Obots don't believe the nonsense they spout. They just think they want a Communist America, and maybe they do.
Some of them may be consumed with white guilt and consider themselves protecting the "black" man from the horrible racist of America.
And some may just be thick-headed, stupid and unable or unwilling to use or even admit that something called, "common sense" exist.
Just the ability to disregard Barry's sealing of all his records as "nothing" would require a total rejection of common sense.
To give the Obots credit though, some of them are not stupid or ignorant, they are just evil and/or evil plus paid for by the regime.
There is another clause in the Constitution that excludes Obama from the Presidency; “only someone who could have been a citizen of the United States AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED is eligible for the office.”
Obama is dependent entirely upon the 14th Amendment for his citizenship. The post Civil War 14th Amendment (enacted to accommodate the freed slaves established an ipso-facto “federal” citizenship) did not exist at the time the Constitution was adopted.
14th Amendment created federal citizens are government created “subjects” (agent). They are not part of the sovereign founding body politic by whom, and for whom, the nation was originally founded who serve as government's “principal”.
Remove the 14th Amendment from the Constitutional equation and Obama is left without access to citizenship. He likely would have been a slave at THE TIME THE CONSTITUION WAS ADOPTED. Accordingly, Obama is ineligible to be President.
Under the Law of Agency, only the “principal” has authority over, and can correct unlawful acts and usurpations of authority by our public “servant-agents”.
Lol, are you in love with RS ??? I see you take very good care of him....hmmmmm
@RS
"Gray blabbed ad nauseam of natural born SUBject to the British crown in the British empire, which is NOT the same as an being an NBC."
The Massachusett's legislature used both terms NBS and NBC interchangeably between 1785 and 1790.
Uh Oh Obots, your British Common Law sh*t argument just went down the drain. You'll have to twist some new irrelevancies together.
Here's proof that British Common Law WAS NOT USED IN VIRGINIA
"There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair."
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/
"Just the ability to disregard Barry's sealing of all his records as "nothing" would require a total rejection of common sense."
I know of no one who regards Obama's "sealing of all his records" as "nothing,' because he has never sealed any record.
@RS
"No, but I have read the 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark backwards and forwards from front to end."
Here is what Judge Morrow sad in the case that led to the Superme Court case.
"But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”
The simplicity of the argument is such that it is not even argumentative. Our forefathers gave us the gift of a perfect blueprint of a Republic. As American citizens, it tells us it is our DUTY to throw off ANY type of tyrannical rule. It is clear that Mr Soetoro, aka Obama, was not eligible to serve as POTUS. He is a usurper, & as such, guilty of a lot of things, but most importantly, he is an illegal sitting President.
The simplicity of the argument is such that it is not even argumentative. Our forefathers gave us the gift of a perfect blueprint of a Republic. As American citizens, it tells us it is our DUTY to throw off ANY type of tyrannical rule. It is clear that Mr Soetoro, aka Obama, was not eligible to serve as POTUS. He is a usurper, & as such, guilty of a lot of things, but most importantly, he is an illegal sitting President.
Yep he just refuses to release them except for 2 bogus "birth certificates" posted on the internet. Or is it 3?
Commie judges have come up with some whoopers to keep sob, usob from being exposed. While Van makes a clear and simple argument for disqualification, the commie judge may dismiss this case for any stupid reason, such as; sob, usob was allowed on the ballots in 2008 and this case is dismissed, or whatever, you don't have standing, or the plain and simple truth; we need sob, usob to have another four years so he can complete his mission to subdue and transform America into a one world government. Just think how peaceful and wonderful the world will be after we have cleaned out all the riff-raft and only have to feed 500 million or so. "What a wonderful world it would be." America HAD so much to offer and could have very easily discover ways to live with seven billion or more people on the planet than worrying about population control. Just like the evilness Charles Darwin, always trying to find ways to confuse the masses into satan's trap. Evil people rule the day but their destiny will be found in the "lake of fire, the bottomless pit, and outer darkness," forever.]]
Quote from Anonymous @ 10:12 AM
"I know of no one who regards Obama's "sealing of all his records" AS "nothing,' because he has never sealed any record."
I know, it depends on what the meaning of the word "as" is!
This is the approach that should have been taken from the beginning...
Great Job!
@Anonymous
Fogbow (aka Justin Shilo) says:
Absolute 100% lie. She was SG on NO "eligibility case" against Obama filed with SCOTUS
Doens't matter. What matters is thast she and the other commie was appointed by the person that is the Defendant. They need to recuse themselves from the case. No judge should hear a case where the plaintiff or defendent was the person that appointed them to the bench. To think otherwise is a case of trying to stack the deck.
Ah, I see someone brought up the "Only a 14th Amendment Citizen" that white nationalists and other racists like to use. Funny thing that.
Actually the laws on slavery were quite clear. A child took on the status of the mother. If the mother was free, the child was. If the mother was a slave, so was the child. Since Obama's mother was caucasian, he would have been free as a child.
Which doesn't mean some of the birthers don't have wet dreams of seeing Obama in slave chains, as his "proper place".....
Nope, just in ankle shackles led into the Federal Pen.
And in reality the 14th was only meant to grant Citizen status to the children of slaves.
Even though Chester Arthur was also a usurper, the evidence was hidden sufficiently at the time such that it was only brought to the fore in 2009. Chester Arthur had his accusers in his day, but no cases were brought to SCOTUS. Indian territory treaties were negotiated during Arthur's tenure, and I read that one Indian tribe is investigating the legitimacy of their limited lands status because Chester Arthur was a usurper and therefore illegitimate, just as Obama is null and void and whose actions can (and will) be challenged due to the fact that everything an illegal ineligible usurper fraud poser like Obama does not even get off the launch pad legally.
So there is no "president" in US history with even a single ineligibility case getting to SCOTUS dockets, let alone EIGHT of them!! Holy sh*t!
and the 14th in no way shape or form defines any natural born citizen
all naturalized citizens by statute are never a natural born citizen
Minor also rules that no 14th amendment US naturalized citizen by statute is ever a natural born citizen. So not only does Minor rule by precedent holding that a natural born citizen is born in-country of 2 US Citizen parents, Minor also RULES OUT ANY statutory citizen (as in A1S8, 14th amendment) as ever being a natural born citizen.
Therefore there is no possible conflation. Under the larger umbrella of Citizen are two subcategories, "natural born citizen" and "naturalized (by statute) citizen" and the two subcategories do not overlap as subcategories.
@Anonymous
A Foggy-OBot obscuring BS post -
Here is what Judge Morrow sad in the case that led to the Superme Court case.
"But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”
Yeah OBot ..you clowns are obtuse. The "political status of children born here of foreign parents" are NOT in fact natural born citizens.
I'll let the words of Leo Donofrio to "Squarely" clear up the matter for you OBots:
"The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens. Below, I will make this crystal clear with stealth to reduce the complexities of the issue into a refined exposition and mantra the average citizen will easily comprehend.
NATURAL BORN CLARITY
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)
The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.
Such avoidance and restraint were called for. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1."
Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
That statement is a perfectly true mantra. Read it again… and again, until it sinks in. Then share the mantra. There is no antidote for it. There is never an antidote for truth."
-end snip-
Silly OBots are so mentally challenged.
"Uh Oh Obots, your British Common Law sh*t argument just went down the drain. You'll have to twist some new irrelevancies together.
Here's proof that British Common Law WAS NOT USED IN VIRGINIA
"There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair."
Which must be why, within approximately a month of PUBLIUS' (whoever that was) op-ed, Monroe sent a letter to France attesting to McClure's citizenship.
Terri likes to document her dreams here...
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (passed again in 1870) as well as the 14th amendment, ALL brought to fruition by GOP (and fought violently by Dems), were specifically designed to give US Citizenship to former slaves unfairly denied. The Dems, then and now, are racist slavers and KKK lynchers.
The Department of Justice was formed by Ulysses S. Grant (GOP) to stop the Dem's terror arm, the KKK which was lynching both white and black GOP to terrorize them into not voting for GOP. The DOJ was formed by GOP to allow blacks to vote freely.
Now Eric Holder (Dem) uses the DOJ to implement Dem KKK policy yet again...which was anti GOP. Over 1,000 WHITE GOP and over 2,000 BLACK GOP were lynched and thousands of both GOP races terrorized by the Dem's KKK. Now Eric Holder uses the DOJ as his taxpayer funded KKK to terrorize GOP (he punished his own staffers who sought to bring justice for Black Panther abuse of white voters at polling places).
The cynical evil of the Dems knows no bounds. Just as the Dems use the 14th (brought by GOP to give US Citizenship to former slaves) to install a racist usurper aka Obama, they use the DOJ (brought by GOP to allow blacks to vote freely) to disallow GOP from voting freely.
If you do not see the pure enemy evil of the Democommie Demarxist Demolyncher party, you are blind!
@Anonymous
Haven't read Ankeny!
I read it a while back, as I said I did not recall, and it is full of misdirection and misconceptions. It is nothing but tripe.
Here is what they said after citing the Minor case.
"Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”"
Yes OBot, since Minor v. Happersett had no citizenship controversy before them. The court decided specifically on Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution.
See above OBots for the excerpted Leo Donofrio article. You may learn something.
If there was any evidence to the contrary published by a named attorney, Donofrio will post it on his website. Notice no obot lawyer has jack sh*t to proffer, especially with their name on it. They're only good for sideline alinsky #5 (because they're so stupid they need a rulebook for radicals) taunts. No substance.
See it's like Swiss Cheese. Donofrio presents evidence (the cheese) and Obots like foghead present nothing, and further have no credentials, no credibility, and are afraid to use their own name. So Obots are like the holes in the Swiss Cheese.
With a Constitutionalist, you're in the cheese, with an Obot, you're in the hole.
Every single Civil Rights Act in US History was brought to fruition by the GOP, including in 1964 which the Dems tried blocking by filibuster. GOP freed the slaves, fought the Dems KKK and Jim Crow, brought the 13th and 14th amendments...
THE GOP HAS PROVE ITSELF HISTORICALLY TO THE VERY MINUTE TO BE AN EGALITARIAN PARTY always fighting the SLAVER DEMS.
Want to see Dem policy in action? Look at Detroit! Just as Cain said, the modern day plantation.
Swiss cheese is apropos since fogbow is one of many "holes"; he is "a" hole.
Looks like Terry's comment fits this Obot category from my previous post at at 8:19 AM:
"Some of them, (Obots), may be consumed with white guilt and consider themselves protecting the "black" man from the horrible racist of America."
Sorry Terry,......Barry, Holder and others who support his illegal regime have done plum used up the entire race deck......it's over for that lame excuse...done, kaput, won't work no more.
Better find a new yell.........
To anonymous at 9:41:
The term 'native citizen' in 1913, at the time of Luria v. U.S., had the same meaning as 'natural born citizen'...one born on US soil to citizen parents. Note that is does NOT say 'native-born citizens' are eligible for the Presidency. 'Native-born' is the MODERN term used to describe those who are citizens from birth regardless of parentage based on the Ark Court's flawed interpretation of the 14th.
And God bless Van Irion! I have been waiting for someone with a brain to do this for SO long. I've even considered starting law school...hahahaha. Obama is nervous now...I promise you that.
to anonymous obot 10:53, get an obot lawyer to cite your reference, using his or her name, and post it here and on Donofrio's site
obots, silent and pwnd
"The term 'native citizen' in 1913, at the time of Luria v. U.S., had the same meaning as 'natural born citizen'...one born on US soil to citizen parents. Note that is does NOT say 'native-born citizens' are eligible for the Presidency. 'Native-born' is the MODERN term used to describe those who are citizens from birth regardless of parentage based on the Ark Court's flawed interpretation of the 14th."
If "MODERN" includes as early as at least 1866, I suppose so.
"The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting)."
@Anonymous 8:01
1) The Ankeny decision does not supersede SCOTUS rulings.
2) The Ankeny court are wrong in that Minor DID provide a whole definition of NBC. The doubt was about basic citizenship of those born to foreigners. There was NO DOUBT as to whether they were NBC...they were not.
3) Based on #2, the Ankeny court reached a faulty conclusion.
4) Based on #1, this is all irrelevant anyway.
@Anonymous 9:26:
1) State's don't determine federal citizenship requirements.
2) Many states did adopt portions of English common law in areas where no US statutes had been created. No such adoption ever occurred at the federal level.
3) Due to #1, this is all irrelevant.
@Anonymous 2:04:
1) That is a DISSENTING OPINION.
2) We can all read and the Constitution clearly requires 'natural born', so Miller is wrong.
3) This was before US v Wong Kim Ark, so at that point many people understood native-born to mean born in the US to citizen parents. My guess is that Miller fell into that category. That would make his statement true, at the time, but not accurate to the vernacular of A2S1 and not true in today's vernacular.
@Anonymous
Been done. Leo changed his mind and refused to post the comments. His prerogative on his blog, of course.
Leo apparently did not wish to engage an attorney who has really practiced constitutional law for over 25 years.
Look at the number of posts to this thread folks. Our side can see that we finally have a competent lawyer, and the other side is beginning to get nervous. Getcha popcorn ready!!
@Anonymous 2:32:
I call BS. Provide the post that you claim Leo blocked and we will debate it here for all to see.
@Anonymous
"Leo apparently did not wish to engage an attorney who has really practiced constitutional law for over 25 years."
Then why post under the name Anonymous? Provide your real name and credentials as his comment policy reads.
Here's a real constitutional attorney that has taught and practiced law for over 30 years that affirms a natural born Citizen is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. Citizen parents.
And he uses his real name and credentials!
http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00000
Dr. Titus J.D. Ph.D. and Dr. Vieira, J.D. Ph.D. both Harvard Law School Constitutional Law professors (tenured) have written articles about the fact that Obama is an ineligible usurper.
Tah.Dah.
All Obama was at Harvard was a pumped up Saudi-paid trust fund loser with photoshopped pictures (see this sh*tty photoshop as evidence of what a fraud he is http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/28/us/28obama.xlarge1.jpg) and Law Review purchased creds (he wrote nothing!).
O'fraud, is a fraud. A total made-up nothing puppet figurehead.
But what he SAYS he is, is also ineligible. And to note it's two Harvard Law profs who agree with Constitutionalists, is just all that much better.
Leo put his name and balls on the chopping block...oh wait Obots are eunuchs for Chicago Jesus.
"Look at the number of posts to this thread folks. Our side can see that we finally have a competent lawyer, and the other side is beginning to get nervous. Getcha popcorn ready!!"
It doesn't matter if we had Robert Shapiro! Obots have the judicial system in their back pocket. This will go no where.
Can we even verify he is a citizen? I have seen no evidence to even prove this let alone try to jump to NBC.
@Moderator
The name and all pertinent information was supplied to Leo as he requested.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
@Anonymous 2:04:
1) That is a DISSENTING OPINION.
2) We can all read and the Constitution clearly requires 'natural born', so Miller is wrong.
3) This was before US v Wong Kim Ark, so at that point many people understood native-born to mean born in the US to citizen parents. My guess is that Miller fell into that category. That would make his statement true, at the time, but not accurate to the vernacular of A2S1 and not true in today's vernacular."
Not so. Miller dissented, but that was not taken from the dissenting opinion.
And the statement was true then as it is true now.
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ever differentiated between "native born" "natural born" or "born a citizen" or "born citizen."
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
Can we even verify he is a citizen? I have seen no evidence to even prove this let alone try to jump to NBC.
December 29, 2011 4:14 PM "
Not true. You've see it you just refuse to accept/believe it.
Provide said pertinent information so we can discuss it. Put your money where your mouth is.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
Not so. Miller dissented, but that was not taken from the dissenting opinion.
Maybe so, I'd have to reference the case. But it doesn't change the fact that Article 2 Section 1 requires a 'natural born' citizen whereas Miller claimed it requires a 'native-born' citizen.
And the statement was true then as it is true now.
The statement was true then, but not now. Before Ark had been decided there was no SCOTUS decision that granted citizenship to those born on US soil to foreigners. Since Ark, being a native-born citizen doesn't automatically make you a 'natural born' citizen. Only those 'native-born' citizens of citizen parents are 'natural born'.
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ever differentiated between "native born" "natural born" or "born a citizen" or "born citizen."
Not true in a logical sense. The terms have been used interchangeably in some contexts, however they were used prior to Ark which made them interchangeable.
The term 'natural born' citizen has never been used by the SCOTUS of anyone other than those born in the US to citizen parents. So logically, the HAVE differentiated. You just choose not to see it.
@Anonymous
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ever differentiated between "native born" "natural born" or "born a citizen" or "born citizen."
Not true Foggy-OBot.
We all can see in Minor v. Happersett that they interpreted natural law to who are natural born citizens.
As the poster was stating to your BS'ing. As he said to you,
"3) This was before US v Wong Kim Ark, so at that point many people understood native-born to mean born in the US to citizen parents. My guess is that Miller fell into that category. That would make his statement true, at the time, but not accurate to the vernacular of A2S1 and not true in today's vernacular." "
You see OBot, in 1939 Ms. Elg was declared by SCOTUS (Perkins v. Elg) under natural law to be a natural born US citizen since she was born in the US and born to 2 US citizen parents at the time.
And for crystal clear clarity to you OBots, the Supreme Court case in 1952:
"Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)"
-snip-
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States," 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97. "
-end snip-
You see OBot, there was a modern divergence in usage between natural born v. native born, especially after the Wong Ark 1898 decision. In modern times, native "citizens" may not be natural born citizens, BUT natural born citizens are ALWAYS native born.
To repeat the key SCOTUS clause to you from above OBot.
"He [Kawakita] was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,"
Kawakita was a 14th Amendment baby ,(thanks to WKA) and therefore, he was NOT a natural born citizen and he was still a Japanese national of Japan.
The 14th Amendment is a man-made law and so it is NOT natural law.
The ignorance displayed by you OBots have no bounds.
@Anonymous
Not true in a logical sense. The terms have been used interchangeably in some contexts, however they were used prior to Ark which made them interchangeable.
Absolutely correct.
A post of mine should be somewhere right above this one explaining it to the silly OBots.
OBOTS SUCK
As is always the case....Buttwipe Barry is arguing that the GA law doesn't apply or needs to be (mis)interpreted differently so it works for him. He is not arguing that he is NBC. If he was (or could) make this argument and substantiate it, then the rest of this bullshit would be just that and completely unnecessary.
But alas, the only avenue open to good ole Buttwipe and his Buttwipe Counsel is to twist and spin the GA code...because the simple argument or evidence that he is in fact NBC cannot be made. They cannot argue that his situation is natural law, or substantiate it by any precedent - if they could they would, so they spin instead.
OBOTS SUCK
There are two types of Citizen *under the larger umbrella category of Citizen*
Naturalized Citizens by Statute (including born citizens and naturalized by oath). These include 0 or 1 US Citizen parents or 2 US Citizen parents born abroad (like McCain)
and
Natural Born Citizens or Natives. These include only 2 US Citizen parents born in-country persons.
Minor v. Happersett, 1875
"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 ORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Luria v. U.S., 1913
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Until Minor v. Happersett is overturned, the SCOTUS holding stands: Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States. He is only a usurper.
Minor is precedent ruling, cross cited more times than Roe v. Wade
Me from above - "You see OBot, in 1939 Ms. Elg was declared by SCOTUS (Perkins v. Elg) under natural law to be a natural born US citizen since she was born in the US and born to 2 US citizen parents at the time."
FogBlow OBot Suranis @ TheFogBow.com -
"Actually, the ruling in the case was that that the person could not lose her natural born citizenship status despite spending her childhood in another country and gaining its citizenship by parentage (similar to children of us citizens born abroad) because Elg returned to the United states upon her majority and therefore chose to retain her US citizenship by her actions. The reasons for her NBC status were not a factor in the case and in fact it cited at least one case whereby a NATIVE BORN citizen could become president of the United States. And that case also referenced a case where it was stated someone with dual citizenship can become president, proving people with dual citizenship can become president. Indeed Ms Elg herself had dual citizenship, and you are stating that she was an NBC. What was your view of jurisdiction again?"
No No OBum, as usual you guys love to play the obtuse OBot.
And as usual, one has to connect the dots for you clowns that are closer together than the atoms in a super dense neutron star.
When Ms. Elg was BORN in the United States, her parents who were ONLY US CITIZENS at the time she was BORN, and therefore, she was NOT A DUEL CITIZEN at the time of BIRTH. You see FogBlOw Clowns, while you think that this can't be true, and I'm full of BS like you guys - it is as true as the smelly pooh coming from your orifices.
When Ms. Elg's parents naturalized as US Citizens a US oath was taken. This is the US oath of allegiance:
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Again OBot, for deep understanding reread this clause of the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.
"...that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;...."
Do you understand what you see above Foggy-OBots? I guess NOT.
The US oath of allegiance and renunciation of other sovereigns goes back to 1790 about as old as the state ratifications of the US Constitution.
The ELG parents at the time of their daughter's birth, HAD NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP TO TRANSMIT to their daughter at the time of her BIRTH. Her parents were ONLY US CITIZENS.
A simple conclusion Foggy-OBots: Ms. Elg was NOT A DUEL CITIZEN at the time of her BIRTH, and therefore, she was BORN a Natural BORN Citizen. Operative word in the phrase "Natural BORN Citizen" here is the word 'BORN'.
[A continuation of my last post above.]
Moreover you dullard OBot(s), you say,
"The reasons for her NBC status were not a factor in the case and in fact it cited at least one case whereby a NATIVE BORN citizen could become president of the United States.
And yet the 1939 Supreme Court DID NOT STATE in their conclusion in the LAST SENTENCE of their Opinion that she was a "Native Born Citizen" BUT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
To quote the 1939 Supreme Court,
"The decree of the District Court declaring appellee to be A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States is in all respects affirmed."
And about Steinkauler, it is the same circumstances as were Ms. Elg that his father renounced his foreign citizenship to become a US Citizen, and his father could only transmit a US citizenship to 'Young Steinkauler at BIRTH when he was BORN in the US.
Foggy OBot Suranis - "So lawyers, how did I do on refuting some of that? I know I probably missed a few pointers but I think I got the main thrust of the bullshit. "
Complete and utter failure OBot as seen above.
FoggyOBot A Legal Lohengrin responds to Suranis -
"Wow, that's some industrial grade stupidity. This is why I rarely bother trying to explain anything to birfers and just mock them instead. Really, you'd be better off trying to explain quantum physics to a goat. I'd only bother if there's a non-birfer audience of some sort."
More like "industrial grade" idiocy from OBots who only look to superficiality to hide their complete and utter ignorance.
Until you so-called idiotic OBot lawyers acknowledge and recognize natural law, which was the legal intent and meaning of the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution and its Natural Born Citizen Clause, there is no hope for your idiocy and ignorance.
New Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan Sunahara
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.