Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

A comment to the above includes Rep. Bill Posey's letter to a constituent.

He demonstrates no understanding of the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" requirement. But in his next-to-last paragraph, he does at least acknowledge that there is a "lack of candidate vetting" problem that needs to be fixed . . . by someone else (the states).

Originally Posted by Rep. Bill Posey

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
October 11, 2011

Dear Susan,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, Senator Obama was elected to the office as President of the United States and the House leadership certified his votes. As you know there were several lawsuits filed after the election challenging President Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. On December 8, 2008, the U.S. Supreme court overwhelmingly decided that it would not hear an emergency appeal that claimed Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age or older and reside in the U.S. for 14 years prior to being elected. There is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for federal office, including the Presidency, to make sure that they meet the requirements. Additionally, the issue of eligibility issue as come up on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the issue of who is responsible for vetting candidates to determine whether or not they are eligible. In their report they conclude that there is "no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation." The CRS goes on to say that "there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election."

I understand your concern and support efforts to ensure that candidates for office demonstrate to state election officials and the American public that they indeed meet the requirements. It is best that these requirements are met prior to the election of a candidate in order to eliminate the prospect of the House of Representatives invalidating national election results. States have a responsibility to ensure that candidates on state ballots for federal office meet the [federal] Constitutional requirements. [Emphasis added.]

Thank you again, Susan, for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in congress. For information on my work in congress or to sign up to receive my E-newsletter, please visit my website, http://posey.house.gov/ . If I may be of service to you in the future,please do not hesitate to contact me .

Sincerely,
Bill Posey
Member of Congress

Rep. Posey shows a certain timidity by writing, "in order to eliminate the prospect of the House of Representatives invalidating national election results." After all, 3 USC § 15 does specifically assign the U.S. House of Representatives along with the U.S. Senate, in Joint Session, the responsibility to object to or accept each vote of the Electors.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.shtml

3 USC § 15[/url]]Upon such reading of any [that is, 'each', not 'all'] such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

The U.S. Congress IS the "specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates
for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility" AFTER the election.

See also http://politicalvelcraft.org/2009/09/22 ... ry-8-2009/ .

The Broward/Palm Beach blog discussing Sen. Marco Rubio's [in]eligibility for the Presidency unfortunately (but understandably) refused to post this.
_______________________________________

"No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1, ¶ 5.

Citizenship is by nature (without legislation) inherited from one's father. (Until women's suffrage and emancipation, a husband's citizenship also extended to his wife and minor children. But since {Perkins v. Elg (1939), additional cite needed}, a U.S. citizen female who marries an alien can claim U.S. citizenship independently of her husband and confer it to her children.)

Since Amendment XIV (1866), a person can claim U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, that is, not subject to the jurisdiction of any other state or sovereignty.

"[T]he opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment... put it beyond doubt that all persons... born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside." The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 36_ZO.html .

"Beyond question, by that act [the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 42 USC 21 § 1981], national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race, (excluding only 'Indians not taxed,') who were born within the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power." Elk v. Wilkins (1884), dissent by Justices Harlan and Woods.

Since Wong Kim Ark (189, a person born on U.S. soil can claim U.S. citizenship. The implicit "subject to U.S. jurisdiction" requirement has been lost or swept under the rug through subsequent misinterpretation.

Therefore, practically speaking, the de facto interpretation of

• "citizen" = born of a citizen parent or born in the country (or both).

On the other hand,

• "natural born Citizen" = born in the country of citizen parents,

according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in The Venus (1814), Shanks v. DuPont (1830), and Minor v. Happersett (1874).

Wong Kim Ark redefined requirements for a "citizen", but not for a "natural born Citizen." The only valid definition of "natural born Citizen" in WKA was Gray's verbatim quote of Emerich de Vattel:

• "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

In WKA, Associate Justice Gray also appealed, though without validity, to:

• the Naturalization Act of 1790, an erroneous law which was repealed and corrected in the Naturalization Act of 1795;
  Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which mentioned "the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth," but which did not refer "natural born Citizen" to the place of birth alone; and
  Circuit Justice Swayne's decision in United States v. Rhodes (1866), which relied upon British Common Law for what was only a Circuit Court decision and not a ruling for the United States.

"It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Fuller. He was pointing out the failure, as precedent for U.S. law, of King George III's misconstruing of Common Law in claiming any and all persons born on British soil as natural born subjects. King George III's overreach in seizing U.S. Navy sailors as British "natural born subjects" caused, in part, the War of 1812.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 49_ZD.html

For further references, see http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-d...rasc-2601.html.

Orly Taitz Reports on Hawaii’s Continued Stealth About Obama’s Birth Record

“MULTIPLE APPEALSâ€

The JustiaGate crimes are heating up with articles from both Leo Donofrio and Dianna Cotter, and soon, I expect, Apuzzo. These crimes all center around the fact that prior to the 2008 elections, all references to Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) were removed from at least 25 SCOTUS case reproductions on Justia.com. As Donofrio points out:

TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018.
§1018. Official certificates or writings

"Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The statute covers a “personâ€

Atty. Leo Donofrio posted the following at his website.

[UPDATE #3 8:54 AM Oct. 24, 20[11] - Justia.com has
suddenly placed robots over their entire [s]ite. So much for
Justia's mission, "To advance the availability of legal
resources for the benefit of society."

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http:/ ... /case.html
Here is a link to the Wayback Machine's URL search of Roe v Wade,
a case which has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility.

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http:/ ... /case.html
Here is a link to the Wayback Machine's URL search for Minor v. Happersett.

Both searches return the following statement at the Wayback Machine:
"We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page."
This activity operates as an admission by Justia.
A criminal investigation is required.]

Maybe not. Perhaps the Wayback Machine isn't working properly for any lookup at http://supreme.justia.com .

Try the Google Cache instead.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... /case.html
for Roe v. Wade, and

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... /case.html
for Minor v. Happersett.

"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

MinuteMan, I do agree with the last sentence: "A criminal investigation is required." It is clear that Justia is involved in this criminal behavior up to their eyeballs.

With the crooked DoJ in power now, I'm certain there will be no legal pursuit of these crimes against the people. The time to stop using Justia is now. Withdraw support for these miscreants.

Let's pull a John Galt on Justia.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

MinuteMan, that is a confusing post to read, but I do agree with the last sentence: "A criminal investigation is required." It is clear that Justia is involved in this criminal behavior up to their eyeballs.

With the crooked DoJ in power now, I'm certain there will be no legal pursuit of these crimes against the people. The time to stop using Justia is now. Withdraw support for these miscreants.

Let's pull a John Galt on Justia.

Juan, I don't think it is a criminal coverup so much as
a programming change at justia.com that ran afoul of
an unrelated search engine at wayback.archive.org .

Other archives besides Wayback aren't having this problem
with the "robots.txt" files at justia.com .

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Juan, I don't think it is a criminal coverup so much as a programming change at justia.com that ran afoul of
an unrelated search engine at wayback.archive.org .

Other archives besides Wayback aren't having this problem with the "robots.txt" files at justia.com .

I don't know. Computer programming is like politics - not much happens by chance... if it happens, it was meant to happen. Of course, wayback could be the only archive site that Justia is worried about, and that is why it was targeted. I think there is more to this story that none of us know the details of right now, so maybe we should just sit and wait for the other shoe to drop... and I'm certain that more information will become available as more people demand answers.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Juan, I don't think it is a criminal coverup so much as a programming change at justia.com that ran afoul of an unrelated search engine at wayback.archive.org .

Other archives besides Wayback aren't having this problem with the "robots.txt" files at justia.com .

I don't know. Computer programming is like politics - not much happens by chance... if it happens, it was meant to happen.

You have such faith in the reliability of computer programmers, and their superhuman ability to thwart the inevitability of unintended consequences. But consequent interactions with any of gazillions of websites is not predictable with any currently existing code checking software, not to mention the hardware such a universal scan and error check would require. One would have to rent Google for exclusive use, for a week or even a month.

[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by "MinutemanCDC_SC":4f7cfqiz

Juan, I don't think it is a criminal coverup so much as a programming change at justia.com that ran afoul of an unrelated search engine at wayback.archive.org .

Other archives besides Wayback aren't having this problem with the "robots.txt" files at justia.com .

I don't know. Computer programming is like politics - not much happens by chance... if it happens, it was meant to happen.

You have such faith in the reliability of computer programmers, and their superhuman ability to thwart the inevitability of unintended consequences. But consequent interactions with any of gazillions of websites is not predictable with any currently existing code checking software, not to mention the hardware such a universal scan and error check would require. One would have to rent Google for exclusive use, for a week or even a month.[/quote:4f7cfqiz]

Looking at the timing of these changes and the success of them tells me it was all intentional. There are bad people in the world. Some of them are programmers.