See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case
Source:
obamawaffles.typepad.com
URL Source: http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/oba ... -in-obama-birth-gate-case.html
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: obamawaffles
Post Date: 2008-11-14 20:27:13 by randge
Keywords: Keyes, Obama, Birth certificate
Views: 3040
Comments: 120
November 14, 2008 Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case You gotta love this . . . while Michelle Obama is dreaming of new patterns for the White House china collection and Barack Obama is busy redesigning the presidential seal, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes—who is black and therefore cannot be dismissed as having a racist agenda—petitioned the Superior Court of California yesterday to require proof of Obama's birth certificate.
In his petition, Dr. Keyes points out that someone wanting to get a California drivers license must provide more proof of citizenship than Sen. Barack Obama has provided in his bid to be the next U.S. President:
Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS [Secretary of State], with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license.
Why should this matter? Keyes explains:
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"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;"
63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes eye-opening and well-written petition, click here.
Poster Comment:
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-79) not displayed.
.
.
.
#80. To: nolu_chan (#73)
Did you vote for Obama? Or are you to ashamed to admit it?
I notice you don't quote the constitution. Just usurpers opinions. You think you know it all but in your arrogance you became a fool.
He's making a legal argument... Either rebut with a legal argument or mitigate it with another argument of substance.. Don't just wave your ass at him..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
NO he is spreading usurper laywer doubletalk bullshit. They guy is in the can for Obama. Probably works on its campaign. I agree with what you said above. 74 72 Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.
Legally, I'm sure he's correct.. Morally? Well, that's another question entirely. Hit him there.. Don't taunt. It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
Well, that's another question entirely. Agreed Chan is immoral..............Ok you didn't say that I did.
No it makes Chan look like a statist Obama ass kisser. Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing. Sure the courts shouldn't hear a million cases if a million are brought. Answering the question one time for one case would suffice.
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated. I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense. Here is how the law works in reality imo. The supreme court is usually not anonymous. Why is that you think? If they were reading the law and interpreting it truthfully all the decisions should be anonymous shouldn't they? You get two people up there (lawyer scum) and they blab their mouth. Then the judge makes a decision based on their opinions and beliefs of right and wrong. Then they come up with some fancy words and rationalize it and say it is the law or some precedent or something. Well 3 other of the judges may have disagreed. So what it amounts to is a vote. Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
Chan- It's rote-speak. Experience. U- Unsure how you work.. Me?- I deal in concepts..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
Right and wrong.
Continuing efforts in court will be a waste of time. To prove Obama is a citizen only requires a showing that he was born in Hawaii. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii. Anyone wanting to invest $5 can submit that information to the authorities in Hawaii and get a letter of verification that the information is correct (or not) as on file. Letters of Verification Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request. Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies. The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter. Only the information provided is verified, but that is more than ample to prove natural born citizenship, or lack thereof. Anyone wanting additional personal information from some "vault" record will have to get it from the state of Hawaii. They have the original official record. Nobody else does. There is no other source to obtain it from. Andy Martin tried. He had standing there to try to obtain the information but the court found its release would be contrary to state law. Suits brought in state court against the state officials will be tossed, possibly for being untimely after election day. Berg certainly had no chance to obtain the documents in discovery as he attempted. You can only demand copies of documents actually in the possession of the person they are demanded from. What he asked for is in the possession of the state of Hawaii. A court cannot very well order Obama to produce documentation he does not have. A court will not demand that the state official now demand information that relevant state law did not require for ballot access in the first place. A federal suit brought by an individual will be dismissed for lack of standing. There is no federal official invested with any relevant oversight authority. If there is to be a challenge to demand documentation from Obama, it would appear that it will have to be in the Congress.
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
You are, of course, entitled to claim your own system of law without precedent. The American system, derived from the British system, cannot function without precedent. Absent recognition of precedent, the system would result in chaos with no predictability whatever. The alternative is the "code civil" as in Latin countries or the state of Louisiana which retains the Napoleanic code system. There is always your third alternative -- just invent your own body of laws and a legal system to go with it.
I surely know that you are a raving fucking lunatic.
The Constitution required the establishment of the Supreme Court and vested it with the judicial power of the United States. If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country. Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ...
In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?
Can you boil it down for us, NC? Thanks much.
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain. The one produced for him has no seal and was verified by a railroad company employee as coming from the files of the railroad company. It shows him being born in Colon, Panama which is not the base and is not the Canal Zone. Do seals and signatures count with McCain?
The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court as the ultimate authority for interpreting the Constitution. Our system of law is derived from the British system or Common Law system (not to be confused with the body of common law). Britain has no constitution and the court evolved over time and a system of law evolved based on following precedent. Lower courts must rule in accordance with the decisions of higher courts. Precedent does not bind parallel courts -- a ruling in the 9th Circuit does not form binding precedent for the 3rd Circuit. The Supreme Court is never bound by precedent because there is no higher court. It may reverse its own prior decisions but does so very infrequently. Take precedent out of the system and you would not be able to predict if an act of yours, or your business, would cause a court to hold you liable until after the court ruled in your individual case. Each legal contention would have to be entirely litigated anew in each new case, without reference to preceding judicial rulings on the same set of legal facts, and with the lower courts empowered to rule contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court.
McCain was not born here. The Constitution does not say one has to be born here to be President.
As far as I know, the available information does not address which hospital Obama was born in, if any. As long as Hawaii certifies he was born in Hawaii, legal challenges to his citizenship are not likely to succeed. The information may be in more detailed records held by the state, but that information is not required to prove natural born status. Congress is empowered to challenge electoral votes. Upon a challenge, the houses act separately. It would appear either could reject ballots for whatever reason it deems sufficient. For years, John McCain claimed birth on a military base in Panama. The bc shown in 2008 indicates he was born in Colon, Panama and not on base or in the Canal Zone. If he was born on the base in 1936, the botched up law of the time would seriously question his natural born status. If he was born in Colon, Panama then his natural born status would seem clearly established. The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.
McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either. Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.
I know that you and I see things somewhat differently regarding jurisdictional issues and now "standing". I think that Berg lacks standing because of his being a member in good standing of the socialist democracy rather than the Constitutional Republic. I also think this matter would have to be heard in an Article III court, not a "federal" District Court. I believe that Washington D.C. is the (singular) federal STATE, and that the so- called STATES (AZ, AK, IN, IL, TX, CA, etc., are like counties within that STATE. I see them treated like "territories" wherein CONgress has plenary authority. (As we see STATES rights nearly mooted). I also believe that the standardized statutory language used such as "in this state" is misleading and actually refers to Washington D.C., and its subsidiaries, the two letter all capital lettered STATES (STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF INDIANA ETC.,) and not the several states. Definition: Territory 1. any tract of land; region or district. Their "federal" districts operate contrary to the Constitutional coinage mandate even though the Constitutional monetary requirement has never been repealed. HJR 192 without repeal of Article 1 section 10 should/could only be relevant to enclaves under the plenary authority of congress. (In my very humble opinion.)
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Recent opinions such as Kelo or those cited relating to road blocks or check points radically violate the spirit of the CONstitutional intent. When the courts tell us that the reason we as individuals haven't been violated (or in the Berg vs. Obama matter that we lack standing) is because we're all being violated equally ... fuck the courts and their twisted logic. www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm This gentleman was one of the appellate lawyers for Timothy McVeigh. The ruling he received on appeal from the "federal" court caused him to reflect upon the whole notion of CONstitutional applications, ultimately causing him to reject his bar card and practice. His determinations ring true with me and my own studies, even though at some point in time I don't think laws will mean anything to a system rotted to the core.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Good point. I said it wrong. You have to be a natural born citizen. Thanks for the correction.
Ok. Mr. Chan may I ask this question another way. You say correctly that courts have ruled that citizens have no standing. I believe that to be an incorrect ruling. We disagree on that point. Now here is the question. Do you think it is morally right to not have this question definitively answered?
McCains parents were both American citizens. So his birtplace is of absolutely NO significance.
Not true. The supremes gave themselves that power by usurption. If that is not correct cite the constitutional mandate for the Supreme court.
That would have been very wise. Your quote from the constitution doesn't say that citizens have no standing.
I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?
Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background. The Senate issued a non-binding proclamation and has no particular authority to declare an individual to be a natural born citizen. It was just a feel-good proclamation. Something about Obama may well be being shielded from the public, but it would not affect his natural born status unless the record made public is a complete fraud in the sense that it was not issued by the state of Hawaii at all. If the document was properly issued, then it suffices to show that he was born in Hawaii. If something is being hidden, it could involve something sensitive or personal such as paternity, but that would be irrelevant to his claim of natural born citizenship. Records at birth could, perhaps, show no claim of paternity, with a later record documenting a subsequent claim of paternity. A birth in Kenya would not change to a birth in Hawaii. The McCain campaign appeared far more sensitive to the issue, obtaining a Seante resolution, and a bi-partisan opinion of Ted Olson (R) and Larry Tribe (D), and with good reason. The military base or in the Canal Zone generally was an unincorporated territory which was under the jurisdiction of the U.S., but not considered part of the U.S. for citizenship purposes. An Act of May 24, 1934 granted citizenship to "[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States...." The CZ/base was outside the limits, but not outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. For citizenship purposes, it was a legal no-man's land. In 1937, Congress passed additional legislation granting citizenship to children of U.S. citizens born in the CZ on or after February 26, 1904. Were McCain born in the CZ, the "circumstances of his birth" would, pursuant to legislation in 1937, retroactively make him a U.S. citizen. It could not, however, make him a citizen "at birth." Then one may argue whether a person who, some time after birth becomes a citizen due to the circumstances of birth is considered a "natural born" citizen, or is that status reserved for those who become citizens "at birth." To add to the legal mayhem, there is a body of legal theory that as citizenship of those born overseas is granted or withheld according to statute, and those statutes appear within the body of law on naturalization, it is granted as part of the powers granted to congress under Article 1, Section 8 "[t]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Under this theory they may be considered not natural born but naturalized at birth. Under the first laws, children born outside the U.S. of two U.S. citizens were considered citizens. But then they had to go and get into more detail.... Neither party wanted to touch this issue. McCain long claimed he was on base in the CZ. The certificate which popped up from the Panama Railroad Company said he was born just outside the CZ in Colon, Panama. My inclination is that McCain was, indeed, born a few hundred yards outside the CZ and was a natural born citizen. The problem is likely that, for decades, he claimed he was born in a hospital on the military base, a hospital that did not exist in 1936.
Hawaii was admitted to the Union on Friday, August 21, 1959 pursuant to the Act of March 18, 1959. THE ADMISSION ACT. An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union (Act of March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed. [...] Far more fun is the state of Ohio, admitted pursuant to an Act of Congress of February 19, 1803. It is considered admitted on Tuesday, March 1, 1803. Ohio authorities decided to get the original paperwork for display during the celebration of 150 years of statehood in 1953, only to find, through oversight, no proclamation had ever been issued. On August 7, 1953, Congress passed a law retroactively establishing Ohio's statehood at March 1, 1803, when Ohio first convened its legislature. Better late than never.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The use of the term "shall" connotes the absence of discretion. The Congress was mandated to create a Supreme Court. The "supreme law of the land" includes the Constitution, laws and treaties. The Supreme Court is given judicial power over all cases arising under the the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made. Treaties and Federal laws are equal and each is subordinate to the Constitution. Damn. The Supreme Law of the Land includes the Constitution AND laws AND treaties. All three at once. Imagine that. Can you dig it? Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 Ibid. 376 The Constitution gives the president the authority, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." These treaties are the law of the land and prevail over all conflicting state laws. If there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls. The Court has explained that when a statute and a treaty "relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other." Ibid at 275-6. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, declared this statutory increase in presidential power unconstitutional. Justice Stevens explained that the president, by exercising the line-item veto, was changing a law adopted by Congress; the final version of the law is diffferent after the veto than what Congress passed. The Court concluded that the Constitution does not allow such presidential authority. Justice Stevens wrote: "In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. '[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.' There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The Court emphasized that the procedures for enacting and vetoing laws contained in the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and that any changes must come from a constitutional amendment, not legislative action. Ibid at 336-7 * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert, the Court held that American civilian dependents of military personnel in a foreign country must be accorded a trial that meets the dictates of the Constitution. Justice Black explained that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Ibid at 361 Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, 68 Ibid at 156 Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution. Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2 That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.... Ibid at 210 American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., Laurence H. Tribe, p. 647 Ibid at 647 Ibid at 210
The question has been definitively answered regarding standing for a few centuries. As for a moral right, you should take that up in the moral courts you would establish. Consult the Taliban for specifics of those courts. We do not have them in the U.S. yet.
We can respectfully agree to disagree on how the legal system actually exists and functions (as opposed to opinions on what it should be or how it should function). The District Court is an Article III court within the judiciary. Courts existing within the executive, such as courts-martial or certain administrative courts are not Article III courts. Berg lacks standing because he has no particularized interest in the outcome and because he does not describe any personal injury to himself. His litigation concerns a state election for the right to select state delegates to the electoral college. He was not deprived of his right to vote. He has not identified any violation of any constitutional right directly pertaining to himself. The real allegation is that state authorities did not perform adequately, but he cites no law, state or federal, that they allegedly violated. They need only perform the acts required of them by law. The states created the federal government at a time when Washington, D.C. did not exist. The states existed prior to the Constitution and by that document they authorized the subsequent creation of the District of Columbia. It is impossible for D.C. to have been the federal state under the AoC or initially under the Constitution. The change in effective status was rendered through sheer power and was the primary product of the Civil War (War Between the States). The union was created as a league of friendship with the Federal government to serve very limited functions. Lincoln's bass ackwards rendition of states, was given in a message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861 where he tried to explain away his actions in taking the country to war. The statement is riddled with lies. His claims about the union stood reality on its head. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. Unquestionably the States have the powers, and rights, reserved to them in, and by the National Constitution.... The states made the union, some had constitutions, and they created a Federal constitution, with the term "National" having been explicitly rejected. As for "federal" districts , if that refers to judicial districts, it only refers to which court enjoys jurisdiction in which territory. It could be changed and splitting up the 9th Circuit has been considered for some time. HJR 192 without repeal of Article 1 section 10 should/could only be relevant to enclaves under the plenary authority of congress. (In my very humble opinion.) Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the Unites States, Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts, Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of t Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. (b) As used in this resolution, the term 'obligation' means any obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled 'An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes;, approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows: "All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.' Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40 p.m. 31 U.S.C.A. 462, 463 I should think that establishment of the Federal Reserve, and their control of the currency of the United States, is legally dubious, but I could not find Article 1, Section 10 being an impediment. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress is given the power "[t]o coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." It does not belong in the hands of private banks or some semi-sort-of regulated mysterious semi-sort-of but not really official government entity. As for the power to coin money, I'm really dubious that it confers upon anybody the right to coin (?) paper and force people who previously contracted for payment in gold to accept a paper substitute. However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution. Coin, v. To fashion pieces of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamp them with prescribed devices, by authority of government, in order that they may circulate as money. Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457, 12 Wall. 457, 20 L.Ed. 287; Thayer v. Hedges, 22 Ind. 282. To invent words or phrases. Coin, re. Pieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped, by authority of government, with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value. Metal money. Coinage. The process or the function of coining metallic money; also the great mass of metallic money in circulation. Coinage clause. Provision in U.S. Constitution granting to Congress the power to coin money, Art. I, § 8, par. 5.
What do you think his "purpose" is? What is his 'raison d'etre'?
Obama wanted to be president, end of story. He utilized any and all methods to get there, even aligning himself with thieves and murderers. Power corrupts, etc...
That's the bottom line !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
As for the power to coin money, I'm really dubious that it confers upon anybody the right to coin (?) paper and force people who previously contracted for payment in gold to accept a paper substitute. However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution. On this point we find complete agreement. This is, in my opinion, the most detrimental factor influencing the destruction of America. Debt cannot be made "MONEY" no matter how official it is made to appear. When one considers receiving wages that should be "MONEY" and is actually legislated debt that bears interest (usurious in nature), this is fraud by license.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#81. To: nolu_chan (#79)
#82. To: Old Friend (#80)
#83. To: Jhoffa_ (#82)
(Edited)
He's making a legal argument...
#84. To: Old Friend (#83)
(Edited)
#85. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
Morally?
#86. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
#87. To: Old Friend (#85)
#88. To: Jhoffa_ (#87)
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated.
#89. To: Old Friend (#88)
Chan is just quoting precedent..
#90. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)
U- Unsure how you work..
#91. To: christine (#78)
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.
hawaii.gov/health/vital-r...ecords/vital_records.html
#92. To: nolu_chan (#91)
. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.
#93. To: Old Friend (#88)
Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
#94. To: Old Friend (#92)
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
#95. To: Old Friend (#86)
(Edited)
Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing.
Article III
#96. To: nolu_chan (#94)
#97. To: nolu_chan (#95)
#98. To: Old Friend (#92)
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL.
#99. To: lodwick (#97)
Can you boil it down for us, NC?
#100. To: Old Friend (#83)
(Edited)
You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.
#101. To: bluegrass (#96)
In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?
#102. To: nolu_chan (#101)
#103. To: nolu_chan (#79)
#104. To: Jhoffa_ (#72)
When the simple wording of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, which applies to all of us and is our birthright, doesn't give us "standing" then something is wrong.
#105. To: nolu_chan (#100)
McCain was not born here.
#106. To: nolu_chan (#101)
The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.
#107. To: nolu_chan (#98)
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain.
#108. To: nolu_chan (#99)
The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court
#109. To: nolu_chan (#95)
If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country.
#110. To: nolu_chan (#101)
#111. To: bluegrass (#102)
McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either.
#112. To: Old Friend (#110)
I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?
www.hawaii-nation.org/admission.html
#113. To: Old Friend (#108)
Not true. The supremes gave themselves that power by usurption. If that is not correct cite the constitutional mandate for the Supreme court.
ARTICLE 3
ARTICLE 6 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2
One other provision that expressly relates to federalism is the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution. It declares that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This provision sets up a clearly hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the states. Practically, the effect is that state and local laws are deemed preempted if they conflict with federal law."
As the Supreme Court declared: "[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, 'any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.'"
[Underline added]
A related issue is the extent to which Congress, by statute, may increase presidential powers beyond what are found in the Constitution. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute which created authority for a presidential line-item veto. The statute empowered the president to veto (or more precisely to "cancel") particular parts of appropriation bills while allowing the rest to go into effect. Congress could overturn such a veto by a majority vote of both houses.
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).
On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.
This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs.
If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."
Footnote 18
see also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument").
"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177.
#114. To: Old Friend (#106)
Ok. Mr. Chan may I ask this question another way. You say correctly that courts have ruled that citizens have no standing. I believe that to be an incorrect ruling. We disagree on that point. Now here is the question. Do you think it is morally right to not have this question definitively answered?
#115. To: noone222 (#103)
http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/lincoln/spmsg.asp
U.S. Const., Article 1, Section 10
House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
#116. To: bluegrass (#102)
Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.
#117. To: Lady X (#116)
#118. To: nolu_chan (#115)
However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution.
#119. To: nolu_chan (#115)
It does not belong in the hands of private banks or some semi-sort-of regulated mysterious semi-sort-of but not really official government entity.
#120. To: nolu_chan (#111)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest