Us supreme court schedules full conference to discuss nj citizen suit

[scandinaviany3]

agree with adamt

Not a chance in hell of Obama being defeated over a mere "Constitutional" issue. The shock and aftermath from something like this would be devastating to both the government and the credibility of the MSM. They allowed this massive fraud known as Obama to continue and even let the American population vote on Nov. 4th for a man not qualified to be President. No way will they let their credibility be smashed like that. People would be in literal shock and would be pissed. TPTB don't like it when people find out they've been lied to and douped on such a massive scale.

If Obama was denied the Presidency, I would expect 9/11 truth to be broadcast on CNN the next day. There's too many high level interests involved in suppressing the truth. Not gonna happen.

Although I would pay to see it go down

Agree with AdamT on all accounts...and would second that on paying to see it happen

 

[scandinaviany3]

natural born has always been born in what is considered the US

At the risk of repeating myself - where does it say must be born in the US?

Natural born has always been born in what is legally considered the US...the only slop in that interpretation is what is considered the US.

Over the centuries this has changed with new states for instance.

 

[scandinaviany3]

dont think natural born can be relequished can it?

I stand corrected... If I am wrong, I am able to admit it....

But my point still remains... as stated elsewhere in this thread....

Just an FYI... The reason why this has become so important to myself and so many others, is the fact that as American Citizens we are continually asked to show our "Certified Birth Certificate" to get just about anything done in this country...it is only fair that Our President Elect has to do the same... The point is... if he was truely born in Hawaii, then why won't he simply let the American People see the Certified Copy that Includes which hospital he was born in? And what about going to school in Indonesia, relinquishing his "Natural Born Status" (if he was indeed born in Hawaii) How can one expect to earn the Respect of the very people you want to Lead without being upfront and honest.

The comparison to McCain is null as McCain did in fact produce his Birth Certificate AND His Medical Records..(and they were not photocopies on factcheck.org) Why shouldn't Obama do the same? Isn't it the law? If we let this go, then what else are we willing to "just let go" because to fight would mean being ridiculed or laughed at? I'm sure glad our Soldiers don't feel that way in battle.

So going on that vain how do you address Schneider v Rusk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._Rusk

It would seem you can not remove the natural born citizenship...

Is it possible to even say he revoked his citizenship or just had multiple citizenships and do anything given this case?

So either he is born a natural born citizen or not is the whole question?

Right? Or what is the arguement? To try and overturn a previous supreme court ruling?

 

[scandinaviany3]

wonder if native and natural are the same

Berg's suit seems to be the most solid on this issue.

According to US law, at the time of his birth, to be a natural born citizen, at least one parent had to be a US citizen, and had to have lived in the US for at least five years after attaining the age of 16.

BO's mother was 18 when she gave birth to him.

Now, snopes is claiming (of course) this is false, based on the law stating that only applies to those born outside the country.

That makes little sense, why require residency if it is addressing those born outside the US?

'Course, snopes fails to cite the USC or law in question.

What a freakin' mess.

Not probably important but i think statute says native and US constitution says natural born..there maybe some significance on alliegance, blacks law, etc on the differences.

 

[Truth Warrior]

So going on that vain how do you address Schneider v Rusk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._Rusk

It would seem you can not remove the natural born citizenship...

Is it possible to even say he revoked his citizenship or just had multiple citizenships and do anything given this case?

So either he is born a natural born citizen or not is the whole question?

Right? Or what is the arguement? To try and overturn a previous supreme court ruling?

Kenyan POTUS or NO.<IMHO>

 

[scandinaviany3]

interesting

to amend the constitution to let Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President...

...interesting thought...given orrin hatch's ammendment sits in congress and is ready to go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Opportunity_to_Govern_Amendment

Either way this event will bring this up given the questions on mccain and obama this election.

Throw in a supreme court case to legitimize the election and it would give teeth for ratification in all the democratically controlled legislatures of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_legislatures

As of January 11, 2008, the party composition of the legislatures is[1]:
23 Democratic-controlled Legislatures
13 Republican-controlled Legislatures
13 Split Legislatures
1 Officially nonpartisan (Nebraska)
50 Total

Between the democratically controlled and the split legislatures there only needs to be a shift in power or vote of one legislature of the republican side or for nebraska to join in to ratify such an action.

 

[bojo68]

a constitutional convention requires 38 states.

 

[alaric]

...interesting thought...given orrin hatch's ammendment sits in congress and is ready to go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Opportunity_to_Govern_Amendment

Either way this event will bring this up given the questions on mccain and obama this election.

Throw in a supreme court case to legitimize the election and it would give teeth for ratification in all the democratically controlled legislatures of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_legislatures

As of January 11, 2008, the party composition of the legislatures is[1]:
23 Democratic-controlled Legislatures
13 Republican-controlled Legislatures
13 Split Legislatures
1 Officially nonpartisan (Nebraska)
50 Total

Between the democratically controlled and the split legislatures there only needs to be a shift in power or vote of one legislature of the republican side or for nebraska to join in to ratify such an action.

orrin hatch has proven to be a traitor before, no surprise he wants to legalize comrade schwarz, another rino backstabber.

 

[american.swan]

You won't have to wait long, we'll know by 12-15.

Can't the Electoral college vote for any natural born citizen? They are TRADITIONALLY locked into their votes, but there is nothing to stop them from voting for Biden or anyone else. What are the rules?

 

[lynnf]

faithless or feckless?

Can't the Electoral college vote for any natural born citizen? They are TRADITIONALLY locked into their votes, but there is nothing to stop them from voting for Biden or anyone else. What are the rules?

from Wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

"A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect, or who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be cancelled.

As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges."


lynn

 

[scandinaviany3]

oops..

a constitutional convention requires 38 states.

good catch..they would need both nebraska and a republican leaning state to switch

 

[BeFranklin]

Natural born has always been born in what is legally considered the US...the only slop in that interpretation is what is considered the US.

Over the centuries this has changed with new states for instance.

Couldn't POSSIBLY be true because US citizenship didnt even exist until the 14th.

Before that we had state citizenship, which usually noticed citizenship by inheritance.

Discussed in several threads already, citizenship by where you are born is based on serfdom, and makes you a subject. Under english law as found in the Magna Carta, freemen inherited their rights.

This is droll ignorance to keep repeating this.

 

[Pepsi]

bump

 

[hotbrownsauce]

I just figured the law suit out and perhaps it has already been clarified. Hopefully I am not mistaken in my interpretation of the lawsuit.

To be president of the U.S.A. the constitution says,

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.

Now if you notice the first part of that section,

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,

you'll notice there is a distinction between a Natural born citizen and a Citizen of. "Or" means either so you have "A" or "B". So it appears the lawsuit states that a Natural Born citizen is a person who was born within the territory of the United States on or after the day of the ratification of the constitution.

This leaves the other type of citizen to explain. The lawsuit says that, the "Citizens of", refers to the inhabitants with in the United States Territory of the time of ratification of the constitution and under the jurisdiction of the United States. (People like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson).


In different terms.
George Washington was born in 1732 long before the United States was created. So because the U.S.A. was not in existence he was not a natural born citizen he was a Citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution. You personally are a Natural Born Citizen because you were born in the United States.

Now say that the constitution was ratified only saying "Natural Born Citizen" and if left out "Citizen at the time of adoption" the consitution would exclude everyone from the presidency except children born on the day of ratification because those children would be the first "Natural Born Citizen's". Thus the writers of the Constitution had to make sure they were eligible for the presidency. So the constitution went on to say,

or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

So again, the lawsuit says that there was a direct separation between the two types of citizens because the founders wanted only one government having rule over who is born. Meaning if you were born to a U.S.A. parent and an Australia parent but physically were born in Paris France you would have loyalty to Australia and the U.S.A.. So since you were not subject only to U.S.A. citizenship you could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen. Nor would you be considered a Citizen because that was only possible on the day of ratification.

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

 

[torchbearer]

I just figured the law suit out and perhaps it has already been clarified. Hopefully I am not mistaken in my interpretation of the lawsuit.

To be president of the U.S.A. the constitution says,


Now if you notice the first part of that section, you'll notice there is a distinction between a Natural born citizen and a Citizen of. "Or" means either so you have "A" or "B". So it appears the lawsuit states that a Natural Born citizen is a person who was born within the territory of the United States on or after the day of the ratification of the constitution.

This leaves the other type of citizen to explain. The lawsuit says that, the "Citizens of", refers to the inhabitants with in the United States Territory of the time of ratification of the constitution and under the jurisdiction of the United States. (People like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson).


In different terms.
George Washington was born in 1732 long before the United States was created. So because the U.S.A. was not in existence he was not a natural born citizen he was a Citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution. You personally are a Natural Born Citizen because you were born in the United States.

Now say that the constitution was ratified only saying "Natural Born Citizen" and if left out "Citizen at the time of adoption" the consitution would exclude everyone from the presidency except children born on the day of ratification because those children would be the first "Natural Born Citizen's". Thus the writers of the Constitution had to make sure they were eligible for the presidency. So the constitution went on to say,

So again, the lawsuit says that there was a direct separation between the two types of citizens because the founders wanted only one government having rule over who is born. Meaning if you were born to a U.S.A. parent and an Australia parent but physically were born in Paris France you would have loyalty to Australia and the U.S.A.. So since you were not subject only to U.S.A. citizenship you could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen. Nor would you be considered a Citizen because that was only possible on the day of ratification.

there were no citizens of the united states until the 14th amendment.
all colonist were citizens of their colony, eventually, each colony become its own independent state. each citizen was a citizen of that new country..the country of new york... or virginia.. or whereever.
Then those independent state became a confederation... with each citizen remain a citizen of its state. not a citizen of the confederation
and then the states entered federation under the U.S. constitution. But each state was to retain its sovereignty and its citizens were to remain citizens of their state.

George Washington was a citizen of a state. and that is what the time line in the constitution means when it says you must be born in one of THESE united states.

 

[torchbearer]

there were no citizens of the united states until the 14th amendment.
all colonist were citizens of their colony, eventually, each colony become its own independent state. each citizen was a citizen of that new country..the country of new york... or virginia.. or whereever.
Then those independent state became a confederation... with each citizen remain a citizen of its state. not a citizen of the confederation
and then the state entered federation under the U.S. constitution. But each state was to retain its sovereignty and its citizens were to remain citizens of their state.

George Washington was a citizen of a state. and that is what the time line in the constitution means when it says you must be born in one of THESE united states.

to add to that... some references have all thirteen states listed in the documents, but to shorten to length, they were condensed in "these united states" not as an act of removing sovereignty but in an effort for less text to write.

 

[torchbearer]

//

 

[anaconda]

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

I would love to see Barky get drop-kicked back to community organizing, but the Founders did not have mothers that were natural born Americans, like Obama does. This is one thing that worries me about this approach. It seems to me that if he is a U.S. natural born citizen at birth then it wouldn't matter how many other countries wanted to claim him as a citizen also, due to the peculiarities of their own laws.

 

[politicsNproverbs]

FL SENATOR SAYS VOTERs, NOT CONSTITUTION, DECIDE re: OBAMA

Until today when I got the below reply, I forgot I had zapped a note to Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez re: Obama and the Birth Certificate scandal. (I probably got the idea from a thread here, but I can't remember)

Seems Mel Martinez agrees w/the District Court who denied Berg's lawsuit, that:

1. It is the voters who, by voting Obama into office, are the ones who had the final say -- by their vote -- whether it mattered if he was born in USA or not;
2. Martinez says the Constitution is not clear about what a "natural born citizen" means anyway.

Read for yourselves Martinez' reply below... (my name/addy removed by myself):

----------
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:35:16 -0500
To: seed.2.sower@...
Subject: Response to your recent comments

Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:

Dear Ms. ...

Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that "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." The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect's birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg's suit and held that the question of Obama's citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.

After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation's President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama's policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.

I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator


**Note: PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. If you would like to reply to this message, please contact me through my website at http://martinez.senate.gov.

 

[bojo68]

Until today when I got the below reply, I forgot I had zapped a note to Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez re: Obama and the Birth Certificate scandal. (I probably got the idea from a thread here, but I can't remember)

Seems Mel Martinez agrees w/the District Court who denied Berg's lawsuit, that:

1. It is the voters who, by voting Obama into office, are the ones who had the final say -- by their vote -- whether it mattered if he was born in USA or not;
2. Martinez says the Constitution is not clear about what a "natural born citizen" means anyway.

Read for yourselves Martinez' reply below... (my name/addy removed by myself):

By that logic there would be no need for a constitutional convention to change the constitution, all that would be necessary is a majority vote. History is full or reasons this won't fly.