#88922 Jul 3, 2012
December 8, 2008
Politico.com , in its article, "Supreme Court Rejects Obama Citizenship Case," LIED to the public BY OMISSION in its coverage of the treatment by the U.S. Supreme Court of the appeal brought by New Jersey attorney, Leo Donofrio, of a NJ federal district court "decision" regarding the attorney's contention that the actual definition of "Natural-born" disqualifed Barack Obama from being President of the United States. Donofrio's argument is that "natural-born" is defined as birth to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Under such definition, Barack Obama junior could not, nor ever could, be considered "natural-born" because at his birth his Father held foreign citizenship, that of the United Kingdom (Kenya was under U.K. jurisdiction at the time of the birth of Barack Obama senior). Thus, Barack Obama, junior, held dual citizenship at birth, a condition rendering him ineligible to be President under Constitutional law.
From the Politico.com article:
"The court turned down a long-shot emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who claimed that Obama could not serve as president because he had dual nationality at birth. Since his mother was an American and his Kenyan father was a British subject, he failed to meet the constitutional standard of being a “natural born citizen,” argued Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., in his appeal."
Politico followed this statement with the extraction:
"The court denied the request without providing an explanation, which is common practice."
Politico summarized Donofrio's argument fairly, but unfortunately reported disingenuously on the event of that day. The U.S. Supreme Court did NOT "turn down" Donofrio's appeal; they refused to hear it.
Trailing that misleading statement with the phrase, "The court denied the request ...", represents a literary tactic engineered to mislead the reader into believing that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied the appeal after considering the argument.
The "common practice" to which Politico refers is the practice of SCOTUS not sharing with the public the reason for not hearing a case; but framed as this statement was in Politco's article, the average reader is led down the path of believing that the U.S. Supreme Court had dismissed the lawsuit's argument and reasoning without comment. Especially is this true since the article's title, from the get-go, prepares the reader to expect to learn details on the Supreme Court's supposedly having rejected the argument and reasoning of the case.
The public from that day forward was lulled by corporate/government controlled media into discounting, even to the point of reviling, any further public discourse on the matter. Mainstream media feverishly embarked on the PsyOps mission to discredit the legitimate concern on the part of Constitutional Patriots and to disparage those who dared to pursue the truth as 'right-wing extremists' and 'kooks wearing tin-foil hats.'
Please take note!
NOT ONE eligibility lawsuit has ever been dismissed based on its MERITS!
#88923 Jul 3, 2012
So Obama as a British subject is perfectly qualified to preside over a British Crown Corporation.
No different than being elected president of Land Rover.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#88924 Jul 3, 2012
Sorry, Tacky, but no court ever said they must have citizen parents to be natural born citizens.
It was never doubted that all children of citizen parents were born citizens. There is nothing there about a requirement.
UR making stuff up Tacky. You need to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
"[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
Nothing there about a requirement for two or even one citizen parent to be born a citizen (i.e., a natural born citizen).
The court in Minor even mentioned that children may be born citizens (i.e., natural born citizens) if born in the country without regard to parentage. This is clearly contrary to the imaginary birfoon fantasy parentage "requirement".
Ark was held to be a citizen because he was a natural born citizen per the Fourteenth Amendment in view of the common law standard of natural born citizen.
Illiterate birfoons think the Fourteenth Amendment must recite the words "natural born" in order for its necessary ramifications to become actualized. Fortunately, the judges of the United States and the members of Congress understand the meaning and ramifications of the 14th Amendment. Illiterate whining and moaning cannot change that fact.
A person born a citizen in the US has always been a natural born citizen. A person born a citizen in this country born a citizen under the 14th Amendment is a natural born citizen per jus soli doctrine. All persons born citizens in this country are "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" and are natural born citizens.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#88926 Jul 3, 2012
Ark was ruled to be a citizen because he was a natural born citizen and not naturalized. You are correct, the court made it clear that persons born in the US are natural born citizens according to jus soli doctrine which derives from common law.
Birfoons don't seem to understand the distinction between application of common law (which is not what the court did) versus construing and defining words in the Constitution in reference to the common law.“And the question fairly raised here is not whether there is a common law of the United States, but whether it is admissible, in construing and defining words used in the Constitution, to refer to the common law.” Brief for Appellee, at 7, US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456 (1898)(No. 132). The court agreed with appellee, citing US v. Alabama and numerous other sources.
#88927 Jul 3, 2012
Despite the length of the above crap, Obama has in fact shown his birth certificate--both short form and long form--and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that it exists and that the facts on the published copy are accurate, and this is further confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen, as the Wong Kim Ark case ruled, and as five state lawsuits and one federal lawsuit also have ruled, comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen, but to the PLACE where she or he was born.
#88928 Jul 3, 2012
It is not a question of applying the common law. The issue is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Does it come from Vattel or some natural law theory. Or, does it, like habeas corpus, and "no bill of attainder" come from the common law. The Wong Kim Ark ruling and historical research on the way that the term was used both say that it comes from the common law.
And what did the common law say? It said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, the place.
#88929 Jul 3, 2012
Re: "You think that those Kenyans may have read Obama's bio too, where he proclaimed that he was born in Kenya and was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?"
The guy who wrote Obama's bio had admitted to the mistake. The fact that he made that mistake does not indicate that Obama was one of the 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 or that his mother went to Kenya or that he was born in Kenya.
#88930 Jul 3, 2012
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174.(Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.“When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible ... The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”.
Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden,
according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003)(citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’”(Emphasis added.)
Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just weeks before he said that was forbidden.
Since: Jun 07
#88931 Jul 3, 2012
There is no "could be" poopoo. Again you have your head in the sand.
Remember, just keep blaming Bush and voting for Democrats and all will be right with the world..
What a moron..
#88933 Jul 3, 2012
So appeal the ruling. Your side will probably lose. I agree with you that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born status, which was defined by the common law as referring to the place of birth. The 14th only affects the citizenship part of Natural Born Citizen. But the bottom line is that you will still lose because it is clear that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.
#88934 Jul 3, 2012
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens . As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Further Wong Kim Ark was not delcared a natural born citizen, merely a citizen of the U.S.
His natural born citizenship was not at issue before SCOTUS.
The American common-law defintion of natural born citizen was not changed by Ark or the 14th amendment.
Research Dr. David Ramsay, who was the historian of the founding of our country. He was also the acting President of the US, in Congress assembled.
THe precedent you are looking for is not Ark, but Minor (1875).
The holding of SCOTUS in Minor states that natural born is born in the US of parents who are citizens.
This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned.
#88935 Jul 3, 2012
For years it has been clear that Snopes.com , FactCheck.org , PolitiFact.com and Wikipedia.com are sources of misinformation, partisanship, and bias. Snopes is the worst. Wikipedia is about as biased, Politifact.com is a joke, and FactCheck.org has a personal agenda. These sites do not scrub the internet of good information but they do confuse and bury the truth. It is now so difficult to research online that many people have given up, including professional journalists.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#88936 Jul 3, 2012
Sorry, Tacky, at the time of adoption of the Constitution that was not law in this country, or England or France.
The notion that the standard of citizenship was according to the Law of Nations (International Law) was thoroughly argued and debunked in US v. Ark.
Your horse has been dead for over 100 years.
#88937 Jul 3, 2012
Re: "This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned. "
Answer: The Minor vs Happersett case was cited, but the definition of Natural Born wasn't.
And, you know, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT TWO CITIZEN PARENTS ARE REQUIRED. Saying that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt would hold your pants up is not the same thing as saying: "Suspenders and a belt are required to hold your pants up." Certainly if you wear both you will hold your pants up, and certainly wearing both is better than wearing none. But both are not required, one will do. And in the Minor vs Happersett ruling it also does not say that both parents and birth in the country are required to be a NBC. It only says that if you have both of the two possibilities, you certainly are.
#88938 Jul 3, 2012
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly that copy, which I kept,(
after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,)
has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect.
I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
we should be obliged to break off *all connexion with Britain,*
and declare ourselves an independent people,...
Letter FROM: Benjamin Franklin to To: Charles William Frederic Dumas
#88939 Jul 3, 2012
(another way of saying "bye" for now)....;-)
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#88940 Jul 3, 2012
Sorry, BirfoonLady, but that was not a holding of the court in Minor. It was but obiter dictum as it would not have mattered if Minor was natural born or naturalized. Either way she couldn't vote.
Secondly, the court expressly left open the question of whether children born in the US are also born citizens (natural born citizens), a question later addressed by the court in Ark.
It has never been doubted that persons born citizens in a country are natural born citizens. This is true of both common law and according to Vattel's Law of Nations. There is nothing to contradict this truth in Minor v. Happersett.
The instant Ark was declared a citizen it was evident to all concerned that he was a natural born citizen. Even the losers,(the US government), knew it meant he was a natural born citizen if born a citizen. Courts have recognized that children even of two alien parents are natural born citizens if born in the US.
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen
within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that
at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of
the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor.”
Brief for Appellant, at 39, US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649, 18 S.Ct. 456 (1898)(No. 132).
#88941 Jul 3, 2012
Those gun rigts advocates are there own worse enemys. Talk like this only gives me the feel that gun-control is important. Those anti-gun control advocates need to grow up for thier own good. Give a Lamb a Gun
Posted by Herman Cain on 01/24
Hello, I’m Herman Cain and they think we are STUPID!
I have eight guns and that’s not enough. That’s how my friend Joe the Plumber defines his 2nd amendment rights. It’s no secret that this administration is actively trying to strengthen gun control laws here in the United States, but they allow guns in the hands of drug smugglers which end up killing Americans. Even our Attorney General now admits there are more deaths tied to these guns in the future. But he never approved it… and knew nothing about it! That’s a pack of lies! And it needs to be stopped by right minded adults in this upcoming election. Did you ever think you would live to see the day when our government would purposely force the sell of guns to drug cartels in a foreign country. It sounds like the plot from a horror film but it’s not…it happened and it happened on Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s watch.
They say they were unaware of it. Do they think we are that stupid?? Did you vote for that in 2008? Did Barack Obama run for president on the promise of more guns for drug lords? There’s a reason for this despicable and outrageous scheme. You see, the Tea Party, myself, and other pro constitution Americans believe in the 2nd amendment and as Benjamin Franklin once said,“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well- armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Let’s give a lamb a gun.
We are not stupid!(very debatable statement)
This is Herman Cain
#88942 Jul 3, 2012
Yes the writers of the Constitution read Vattel. But guess what, they read a lot of other things too.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#88943 Jul 3, 2012
He had a copy of Blackstone too. So what? That didn't change the common law understanding of "natural born" and its equivalence to the term "native born".
See the quote below; it refers to "the only standard which then existed."
It was understood that there was no other "standard" which then existed at the time of adoption of the constitution. This was also noted by the USSC in Ark.
So get a life. Nobody cares if Franklin owned a copy of Vattel. It's irrelevant.
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.‘No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 246 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
 "[B]ut at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the Unoted States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that as said by Pothiier,,'citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,' and 'mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicile'"
Pothier quoted in US v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666 (1898).
Add your comments below
|Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan...||5 min||barefoot2626||1,666|
|Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate||7 min||Reverend Alan||3,124|
|The President has failed us (Jun '12)||9 min||Katrina Roxx||294,762|
|Kendrick Johnson investigation: Federal grand j...||9 min||STM||58|
|Who do you side with in Ferguson?||11 min||crikey||10,020|
|Lovable 'Saved by the Bell' Actor Arrested on W...||12 min||L Morales||3|
|Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions||13 min||Reverend Alan||5,291|
|"The Interview" Opens to Sold-Out Crowds||17 min||Lawrence Wolf||8|
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||29 min||RUSH10ME||1,156,186|
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||1 hr||Dogen||134,258|
|Official: US eyes dozens of Gitmo transfers||1 hr||no shame||5|
Find what you want!
Search US News Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC