[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But.. Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’ Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics, BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk, Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up! Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It! Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!] 1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires. Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!! Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances "NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: ABC News Gets The Donofrio SCOTUS Story Wrong
Source: Leo Donofrio's Blog
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... e-donofrio-scotus-story-wrong/
Published: Dec 4, 2008
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2008-12-04 15:38:11 by bluegrass
Ping List: *Tracking Comrade Obama*     Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*
Keywords: None
Views: 1939
Comments: 96

Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.

The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you.  I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born.  You wrote,

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.  The word “born” has meaning.  It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.  Obama had dual nationality at birth.  The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”  If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.

And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008.  That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.

There are two docket entries for Nov. 19.  One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court.  The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court.  She will set you and your story straight.

The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court.  There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference.  In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action.  There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled

“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”

You may find it here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon.  On page 3, it states:

Now go back and check the docket url for my case.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

Another misleading element of your story is the headline.  The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.  Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President.  I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.  Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.  So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.

If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.

My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case.  After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report.  We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission.  I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.

Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

Click for Full Text! Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 84.

#9. To: bluegrass (#0)

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided:

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

American citizen children born in foreign countries, automatically obtaining such foreign citizenship by the principle of jus solis, were declared to be natural born citizens of the United States by the same folks who framed the Constitution.

Damn! Just damn! Those ignorant Framers somehow thought that a child with dual nationality was a natural born citizen. Just damn! Those poor Framers had never been given the keen insight of Leo Donofrio. No doubt Leo will overwhelm the Supreme Court justices who will then correct the more than two centuries of misunderstanding.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-12-05   6:26:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided...Those ignorant Framers somehow thought that a child with dual nationality was a natural born citizen.

The same Framers replaced that wording with The Naturalization Act of 1795 which got rid of the "born beyond the sea" poetry and also added that only white people could become citizens.

What kind of lawyer are you that simple history escapes you?

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-05   8:13:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The same Framers replaced that wording with The Naturalization Act of 1795 which got rid of the "born beyond the sea" poetry and also added that only white people could become citizens.

What kind of lawyer are you that simple history escapes you?

Yeah,

[1790] the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

changed to

[1795] the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

and

[1790] any alien, being a free white person

changed to

[1795] any alien, being a free white person

It looks like you did not even bother to read them. Just how did the 1795 Act add "that only white people could become citizens?"

In 1795, it is still saying that children born overseas in a foreign country are citizens at birth.

= = = = = = = = = =

QUALIFICATIONS - Natural Born - Congressional Research Service

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag5_user.html#art2_sec1cl5

Clause 5. 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

QUALIFICATIONS

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde[p.434]pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. [94] Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. [95] Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea,... shall be considered as natural born citizens....” [96] This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown. [97] There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [98] Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about. [p.435]

Footnotes

[94] 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 .

[95] Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. CIR, 501 U.S. 868, 886–887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of “Heads of Departments” in the appointments clause. See also id., 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered “naturalized” by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702– 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

[96] Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661–666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672–675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American–citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).

[97] 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, Sec. 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).

[98] See, e.g., Gordon,Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 L. Rev.1 (1968).

= = = = = = = = = =

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

FIRST CONGRESS. Sess: II. Ch. 3 1790

Chap. III. -- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)

That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. (a)

Approved, March 26, 1790.

= = = = = = = = = =

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html

The Naturalization Act of 1795

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;

SECTION 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise. First, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject. Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreigh prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject. Moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court that, during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his, moreover, making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate.

APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795:

GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

= = = = = = = = = =

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-12-06   0:48:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

The key word here appears to be the plural term citizens. Being born to one citizen doesn't make one a natural born citizen. Being born a dual citizen with only one parent as a citizen and the other as a British/Kenyan citizen certainly takes him out of the running for natural born citizen.

So much damned obfuscation of one simple fact.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   1:16:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(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;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   4:56:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It's not rocket surgery, so I don't understand what's so hard about this: He was born a citizen, but he's not a 'natural born citizen' as he was born with dual citizenship (dual allegiance). Thus, he's not eligible to be president based upon the Constitution. If he's inaugurated, his administration will be based on an illegality and every law that's signed by him is null and void. Bracko the Usurper will go down as a worse president than Bush. Whoever comes after Bracko will be worse than Bracko.

...Thomas Jefferson asserting the natural right of expatriation in an 1779 Virginia bill that was adopted, specifically demanded the father of all infants born within the commonwealth to be a citizen.

After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could expatriate, leaving them open to future claims of being British subjects), and was considered to some to be repugnant.

Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the crown in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself without advance consent. Under common law, dual allegiance was accepted - something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.

Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” - Americans for Legal Immigration

No matter what the Supreme Court decides I will not consent to any aspect of Obama's rule, just as I did with Bush and Clinton. I'll continue to live in protest as I have for these 12+ years and to do everything I can to educate and enlighten the sheep around me and elsewhere re: the illegal and immoral misapplication of law and power that is the Federal government and its spawn.

Those who back Obama will share in the guilt of his crimes, just as those who backed Clinton and Bush share in the guilt of their respective crimes.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   8:21:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Keep on wishing. He was born in the U.S. Therefore he is a naturalized citizen.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   14:08:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Therefore he is a naturalized citizen.

Naturalized citizens can't be president. Only natural born citizens. Obama isn't a natural born citizen.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   14:11:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Natural born. Read the Revised Code. By the way, you are a punk.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   14:13:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Natural born.

Right. Obama admits that he was born with dual citizenship. That's not a natural born citizen.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   14:20:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Read the law. A person born with dual citizenship who is born in the U.S. is still a natural born citizen. And while you airheads whine about this propaganda the country gets dragged further into the gutter and destroyed. I now understand how communist countries and dictatorships come about - ignorant people like you who are distracted by the propaganda and refuse to see the important issues. You are a wanna-be commie leader's dream.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   14:26:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Read the law.

Show me the law.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   14:27:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

don't waste my time. If you can't read what I posted then go outside and play.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   14:30:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Nothing about dual citizenship comes up in what you posted.

Cite the specific law stating that someone born a dual citizen is a natural born citizen.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   14:33:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

# Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg

=================================================================================

'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'.

=================================================================================

" The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cg...ourt=us&vol=307&invol=325

United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)[12]. In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method[13] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   14:50:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In both PERKINS v. ELG and Steinkauler, citizenship went through the father, not the mother. As Obama's father was a foreign national, Obama's not a natural born citizen.

Look, we both know that SCOTUS is going to rubberstamp the Obaminator. I hold Power's feet to fire no matter who they are. Others seem to enjoy carrying their water.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   15:17:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

when she was born the parents were not U.S. citizens. The decision was based on the fact that she was born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Face it, even if Obama to the most minute detail was not a natural citizen he is still going to be inaugurated. There is nothing that can be done. If you want to be this technical then Barry Goldwater didn't qualify and a few others who ran for the Presidency also didn't qualify.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   16:07:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

he is still going to be inaugurated.

To repeat, we both know that. It will cause a mini-civil war, which is probably a large part of the operation. His banker pals love chaos. I have no doubt that the Obaminator would look forward to a little disorder also to feed his narcissistic hunger for chaos.

The time to buy is when the streets are running with blood, to quote a Rothschild.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06   16:21:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

FROM FREEDOM TO FEAR: THE DIALECTIC OF CHANGE

Nancy Levant

December 6, 2008

Americans wanted change. At least…so we were told. From this to that – in whatever forms taken – Americans called for change. Crashing markets, jobs lost, homes lost, credit withdrawn, credit destroyed – and all coupled with the Patriot Act, the new homeland militaries, new and impending global wars, and the removal of privacy through technological mastery – the dialectical stage has been perfected for social chaos, which is the reality and the backbone of our change forthcoming. And true to form, the “great sacrifice” that has been called for will indeed be great.

Truth be told, the freedom we believed in has been incrementally eroded for many decades – decades nearing one century. But having been side-tracked by media and educational propaganda for 80+ years, American people experience ignorance in the mainstream, and equally they have experienced coordinated dialectical separations that are both remarkable and devastating.

Race, gender, religious, occupational, and educational splits that were politically motivated to weaken our loyalty and nationality to country and to each other, now exist to strengthen the new powers that be – powers that call for governmental dictatorship, homeland military intervention, and global economic enforcement – all to ensure the permanent division between the haves and have nots. The dialectic is about wealth – who has it, and who never will. The dialectic is about constant history – the powerful few who take from the many and rule with brute force.

We are told that we will pay to bail out corporate powers. We were not asked to help. Our money was taken and given to further grow corporate power. We have global taxes pending, and we will pay those taxes, as well. We will serve in global wars for decades to come, and our children will be disallowed higher education unless they serve upon command. We will all become part of the civilian labor forces through mandated community service, which used to be for criminals. And we will be steadfastly imprisoned by our “communities” as the right to mobility will continue to diminish. And as the new powers all stand firmly against the right to keep and bear, international and national laws will continue to disarm this country – in one way or another. And this is the change forthcoming – albeit no change whatsoever exists. History simply, tragically, repeats once again.

Let us assume that great change is upon us, although it will not be the change that the hopelessly naïve had in mind. It will not resemble ideal freedom for anyone minus the very, very few in very, very high places. It will not resemble equality, fairness, justice – nor will it allow for the brilliance of creative opinion or the balancing of power.

Change will come through terror, military might, continuing propaganda, strife, economic loss and weakness, joblessness, hunger, sickness, and all other forms of persuasive powerlessness. Change will come by force just as it always has.

Today, we are Communitarian people. We live, act, think, and believe according to community standards, which actually mean that we are truly and remarkably without opinion or options for opinion. Just as in closed and gated communities, we now live according to new law rule books assembled and published by our elected and appointed change agents. They do not govern of, for, or by the standards of the people. Dialectically, we now live according to their government of invention and intervention – the government that serves their collective powers of total collective wealth.

So, continue to turn in your great grandparents’ gold rings and watches for cash. Great sacrifice is called for when your children are hungry and your homes are foreclosed. Sign up for military service. Maybe you can serve in Afghanistan’s poppy fields or maybe right at home in the new homeland military. Maybe when something horrific once again happens in America, you can help feed and water the many, many more homeless and hopeless American people. And then think of what has been lost - what we once were and stood for as a nation. And then, remember that the change you called for was actually never, ever called for by anyone – minus your politicians and their appointees. Remember that you never, ever called for even one Executive Order, Presidential Directive, or Signing Statement. Remember that you still don’t even know what they are or how they came to be. Remember that everything that now exists was not your doing, and that you are completely, totally, and tragically without representation. You are Communitarians, and you have no idea what that means, either.

Chaos impends. All signals and Executive Orders, new military and paramilitary organizations, Acts and technologies, pandemics and super viruses, destroyed economies, mass joblessness, mandatory community service, and, of course, terrorism, point to great change forthcoming – all predicated, based upon, built upon, and necessitated by the fact that we have opted to go from freedom to fear. And one more thing, the change you hoped for didn’t pan out with the new Cabinet appointees. You will find Harvard, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the U.N., and, of course, the Clintons. This is not change. This is the global status quo that made the very last fragments of freedom actually illegal.

http://newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy113.htm

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06   16:35:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Okay, sweetpea, did you actually read what you posted in Nancy Levent's piece??

Lady X  posted on  2008-12-06   19:00:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#85. To: Lady X (#84)

Okay, sweetpea, did you actually read what you posted in Nancy Levent's piece??

What are you asking about? Why would I post it if I didn't read it?

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2008-12-06 19:41:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Nancy Levent's piece??

I think our confused friend believes that the piece doesn't apply to Obama.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-12-06 19:46:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]