Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified

[Lakhota]

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP - Publications - President-Elect Obama, Dual Citizenship and the Constitution

 

[USArmyRetired]

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP - Publications - President-Elect Obama, Dual Citizenship and the Constitution

The link offers absolutely no proof Obama is a natural born Citizen as specifically required by Article 2 Section 1 and it ignores Minor vs Happersett which is binding precedent and hasn't been overturned. Nice try though. At least you're not spamming anymore. Thank you.

 

[Spud]

How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Please answer in detail.

How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?

Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.

 

[USArmyRetired]

How can a person be born in a country their mother never set foot in?

Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.

See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.

See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.

[DISCLAIMER: First of all I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a Republican and have been so since I came of age to vote in 1978. However my dislike of the man's policies have no influence on how I read and interpret laws and court opinions which define how laws are interpreted and applied.[/DISCLAIMER]


************************************************

For those who wish to "hang their hats" on Minor v. Happersett as definitive in regards to qualifications for President of the United States solely because of an "s" which appears after parents, they are probably in for a rude awakening if/when SCOTUS actually accepts a case involving the qualifications to hold that office.

My reasons are described below.

1. First of all, there has NEVER been a SCOTUS case involving the qualifications to hold the Office of President. All the cases that are normally flung around are narrow, cherry picked, out of context quotes from Minor, Ark, and a couple of others. All those cases dealt with citizenship and not eligibility for President.

2. As a result of #1, people are corrupting the idea of "stare decisis" as it compares to the idea of "dicta". Stare decisis is in fact the principal that a case once decided by the court defines a precedence that is considered binding on lower courts for cases involving similar circumstances. Since the cases involved regarded citizenship and not Presidential eligibility, then their use as stare decisis on Presidential eligibility is automatically suspect. The out of context sections oft quoted would more naturally be considered dicta, specifically "obiter dictum" (latin for something said in passing.) Because the court used an "s" associated with parent(s), does not mean that plural "parents" is stare decisis. More likely is that the plural "parents" is dicta as the case had noting to do with single parent v. dual parents.

3. Paragraph 5 cited below from the decision is important because it provides some context on the use of the word "citizen", which is what the case is about. It is important to note that "citizen" is the word used in a representative republic and equates to the word "subject" used in a monarchy.

"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more."​

4. Shortly after para 5, the court then renders the opinion below. The importance of this section is that there are only TWO types of citizens. Those born into a status of citizen and those who achieve citizenship after birth through a naturalization process. For those that wish to use Minor as stare decisis based on an "s" after parent, you much also recognize Minor as stare decisis on there being only two routes to citizenship: being born a citizen and being naturalized later in life. You can't cherry pick an "s" and then say there are 3-classes of citizen (Natural-born, born, and naturalized) without being hypocritical in your application of the case.

"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."​

5. An so we get to the passage that some like to take out of context

Note A. In Minor, the association is made that all "natives" are considered "natural born citizens". The highlighted section below clearly shows that the court associated with "natural-born" being equal to and synonymous with "native".

Note B. Immediately following the the oft cited snippet from Minor is the courts own qualification on the passage. Which very clearly points out that there has been doubt about citizens born within the United States to parents who are not citizens, and this group is specifically excluded under the conditions of the case as part in terms of stare decisis.​

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Note A above) Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. (Note B) It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."​

6. In item #3 it was pointed out that the court in Minor equated "citizen" used in a representative republic as the same as "subject" used in a monarchy. In the paragraph above the court points out that since the Constitution itself does not define "natural born citizen" that then the court must look to the nomenclature of the time. Natural born citizen being a derivative (or outgrowth) of natural born subject, they would look to the common law at the time. A child born within the domain of the King was a natural born subject UNLESS that child was born to someone not under the jurisdiction of the King (i.e. ambassadors from another country).​

From a legal perspective, and in my own opinion, I think that those that rely on Minor as definative stare decisis, I think you might be in for a rude shock if the court uses it because the case does not provide the basis they think it does.

Link -->> Minor v. Happersett



>>>>

 

[SAT]

Race is a human construct. I love looking into blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, black eyes, and hazel eyes. But "my people" are humanity. Regardless of eye color.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These arguments in this new suit have never been debunked. It's a new suit not towards Obama but about election qualifications and the procedures how they (DNC) determine a person is a natural born Citizen. This tactic is different.

The tactic is not based in law. Your plaintifs have no standing. The case will be dismissed. When it is, I will let everybody on this thread and you know by PM immediately.

Tell me again why there is no standing? Give me point by point details. Here are the suits.Please back your claim up. I challenge you.

State Suit
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - TN

Federal Suit:
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - Federal

The plaintiffs have no standing. The affirmative is on you, USAR, and your case fails summarily on that point. It will be dismissed quickly.

An interesting point is that once again you fail to recognize the Constitution sets the requirements for candidate eligibility, not the states, not the party organizations, and certainly not race hates like you. Dismissed.

 

[rightwinger]

Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in

 

[Full-Auto]

Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in

 

[USArmyRetired]

Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in

Not true.

 

[rightwinger]

Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in

Not true.

Very True

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Guess what Army Retard?

Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.

Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in

Not true.

Very True

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

 

[rightwinger]

Not true.

Very True

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Very True

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

It's two separate terms of office, doesn't he president take the oath twice if he wins a reelection like congress does?

 

[rightwinger]

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

It's two separate terms of office, doesn't he president take the oath twice if he wins a reelection like congress does?

Doesn't matter....Obama would be grandfathered

 

[Rinata]

This will happen the same way you thought Palin would be president. You're pathetic.

Based on what legal analysis? Elaborate in detail Rinata.

Don't be stupid. Legal analysis??? All one needs for this one is the ability to use common sense. Which lets you out.

 

[Rinata]

It's always been up to the media to vet a candidate. They didn't with Obama and instead took his autobiography written by Bill Ayers as the gospel about his nativity story. I doubt millions of voters thought to go pull up SCOTUS Citizenship laws and read the basis behind Article 2 Section 1 before pulling the lever for this usurper. With the mentality of liberals on this board who defend him blindly with facts in their face, it confirms it.

It is not up to the media to vet a candidate. That's Orly Taitz's job.

I'm lmao because not one of you liberals know how to argue against this move on Obama. This is a serious deal and not one of you can debate me on it but instead resorts to posting irrelevant topics for deflection. Typical liberal failed tactics.

Wrong. Apparently nobody thinks it's serious but you. Mention it in your next love letter to Sarah. Maybe she'll discuss it with you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

It's two separate terms of office, doesn't he president take the oath twice if he wins a reelection like congress does?

Doesn't matter....Obama would be grandfathered

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

 

[Rinata]

Yeah, we're all skeert shitless.

 

[Rinata]

These arguments in this new suit have never been debunked. It's a new suit not towards Obama but about election qualifications and the procedures how they (DNC) determine a person is a natural born Citizen. This tactic is different.

The tactic is not based in law. Your plaintifs have no standing. The case will be dismissed. When it is, I will let everybody on this thread and you know by PM immediately.

Tell me again why there is no standing? Give me point by point details. Here are the suits.Please back your claim up. I challenge you.

State Suit
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - TN

Federal Suit:
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - Federal

Why do you keep giving everybody instructions like you're some kind of big shot??? Notice how your "instructions" are being ignored by everyone??? Think about it. Maybe they think you're a dope. I know I do!!!