Page 47 of 574 FirstFirst ... 374344454647484950515797147547 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 5732
Like Tree97Likes

Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #461
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675
    Eligibility case finds 'standing'?
    New suit claims unique state law enables citizens to demand proof
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: December 30, 2008
    9:54 pm Eastern


    By Drew Zahn
    © 2008 WorldNetDaily



    Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

    A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."

    In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury.

    In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.
    Original post on link below.
    http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-825019.html#825019
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #462
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207

    perjury-shy perpetrators

    [quote="The Right Side of Life"]3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of
    the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the
    Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow
    anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the
    Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?â€
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  3. #463
    Senior Member HighlanderJuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    1,054
    (Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08 ) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualificationsâ€
    In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot. -- Mark Twain

  4. #464
    April
    Guest
    VOTES NEEDED!!!

    If you have not voted, please do so now!!!

    http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-141710.html

  5. #465
    FreedomFirst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Immigrantgrl
    What exactly does "natural-born" mean?
    Persons born citizens of the United States are considered natural-born. Therefore, a child born of illegal immigrants or born on U.S. soil yet lived his or her life out of the nation could still be President. A naturalized citizen could not

    In conclusion...IF he was born in Kenya like some people want to believe it doesnt really matter because his mother is a U.S Citizen therefore Obama is a natural born citizen because he was a citizen when he was born and not Naturalized. Any U.S citizen that has a kid abroad just has to go to their embassy and register their kid and its an automatic citizen, blue passport and all
    SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT, for people who confuse statutory citizenship at birth with "natural born" citizenship.

    Natural born citizen =
    Born on U.S. soil
    AND
    Born to parents who are BOTH citizens at the time of the birth.

    [The parents may have acquired citizenship through "naturalization" and, in an earlier era, a woman could acquire U.S. citizenship through marrying a U.S. citizen which was sometimes termed "derivative" citizenship, as it might be applied to those who were legally presumed to be dependents of a male citizen (as husband or as father).]

    As provided for in the Constitution when written in the late 1780's, the definition has the greatest probability that it drew from Vattel's Law of Nations which defined "natural born citizens" qua citizens, and not from an adaptation of Blackstone's Commentaries about "natural born subjects" which defined "subjects" under a monarch.



    The fact that the founding fathers had the 1758 "Law of Nations" treatise and were consulting it as they went about building a new nation can be seen in this letter from Ben Franklin to the Frenchman Dumas ...

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... linkText=1

    "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."
    Natural born citizenship is not controlled by any statutory extensions of citizenship; thus it should be distinguished from mere "statutory citizenship at birth" as set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.

    Such statutory citizenship schemes, which can be altered by mere legislation, draw their authority from the much-later-adopted 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment confines itself to only "citizenship" ... As initially enacted through ratification of the Amendment, and subsequent original statutory authority, it is noteworthy that Native Americans were EXCLUDED from U.S. citizenship because their allegiance to tribal authority (as a "nation" within a nation on U.S. soil) was deemed to interfere with their ability to meet the second prong of a two-pronged test: the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause which was deemed by its author in the U.S. Senate to mean "sole" (not "split" or "divided") jurisdiction. Indians were not deemed to be U.S. citizens at birth until later, when legislation in 1924 addressed that situation. The present-day statutes -- amended and changed over the years under various legislative enactments -- reflect that later-engrafted provision in 8 U.S.C. 1401 (b).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the 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.

  6. #466
    FreedomFirst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Immigrantgrl
    The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "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."

    being in the military is one of exceptions as there are many others not a requirement.

    And anyway..none of this matters.. he was born in HAWAII!! this started as an email rumor and too many people have fallen into it. This is why we have snopes people! he has provided a birth certificate but thats just not enough.. it must be false huh? even if its never proven otherwise you will never believe it.. what is it going to take? it must be true cause it was on the internet i guess
    The advocates of loose interpretation point to the 1790 law and neglect to note how short-lived it was, having been repealed and replaced by the 1795 law. There are also two schools of thought about the words "considered as" and what they mean. One such would hold that it was intended to be the definition of "natural born" and allowing for it to arise when both parents are citizens. The other would hold that it meant such children would be "treated as if" they were natural born, even though the circumstances of their birth denied them such status as a function of the actual definition, which Vattel had laid down.

    1790
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=227

    "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."

    1795
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=538

    "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 citizens."

    Still stiffer requirements for Naturalization were added with the 1798 Naturalization Act, and due to fears of alien infiltration into America which prompted other aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798

    DID THE DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" DIE OUT AS A RELIC OF AN EARLIER ERA?

    Answer: Probably not. It seems to exist in 20th Century case law. In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court stated as part of its ruling (and not mere non-binding rambling "dicta" or generalized discussion, such as that found in the earlier Wong Kim Ark case) that Elg -- having been born in NY of parents "then naturalized" (as U.S. citizens) -- was a "natural born citizen." It is still good law today; it points to what the classic definition required in the 1700's and still requires today.

  7. #467
    Senior Member cayla99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
    Posts
    4,889
    [quote]Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standingâ€
    Proud American and wife of a wonderful LEGAL immigrant from Ireland.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #468
    FreedomFirst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    457
    The yourfellowcitizen blogger has been hard at work getting paperwork that shows what the national parties submitted to Secretary of State offices around the country.

    Hawaii represents a breakthrough situation, since state statute requires the parties to do more than just certify that their conventions nominated two candidates; it requires that there be certification of their Constitutional eligibility, as noted by the post above.

    Here are the document images.

    First, from the RNC on behalf of McCain, to get him on the ballot.



    Second, from the DNC on behalf of Obama, to get him on the ballot.





    Other states seem to use the weaker form which only certifies that a nominating convention has "duly" done its thing in producing two nominees. Since the certification document sent to Hawaii was obviously filled out at the convention itself, in Denver, it is odd that the DNC only stepped up to the highest form of "certification" possible for Hawaii when the document could probably have been used for all the states. Instead, wherever a strong state statute didn't require the "eligibility" sign-off, the lowest possible certification language was used. However, per this ...

    http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11 ... o-kind-of/

    it seems the DNC's nominating process set up the existence of "screening" obligations in "The Delegate Selection Rules For the 2008 Democratic National Convention". It was issued by the Democratic Party of the United States, and seems to be approved by Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net ... 6bhyc4.pdf

    In the above document, on page 18, it states

    K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:

    a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
    election for the office of President and Vice President; and

    b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
    Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
    in the Convention in good faith.

    2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the
    requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
    Thus, while the DNC document doesn't appear to point to a specific screening committee or individual, it commits the party to assuring compliance with what the Constitution requires for eligibility and it could be argued that the DNC document provisions stand behind what Pelosi "certified" to all the states' SOS offices around the country.

    What this might mean is that if anyone files a future lawsuit in a state court, they might want to name not only their SOS but also the statewide political party as an entity which received a "delegated authority" from the SOS to perform a governmental function to qualify candidates. The problem is that the state party might point to the national party, and vice versa, and that the national party would be in D.C. and might try to escape jurisdiction by a state court. But the counter-argument would be that in sending Pelosi's document to the in-state SOS, the national party submitted itself to the jurisdiction of state courts and the state statutes that determine what the election laws are.

    Has anyone seen any statistics that might show if there were a lot of crossover voters in the Republican primaries around the country? I read a claim somewhere that ACORN was busy getting people to crossover from Dem to Republican, or to register as GOP if they had not voted before or were independent, in order to vote for McCain as the weakest candidate that the GOP might put up against Obama. He didn't excite the activist "base" and he had eligibility problems which would be facing just as many lawsuits now, as Obama is, if he got elected.

  9. #469
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207

    PERJURY ALERT ! ! !

    FreedomFirst, cayla99, HighlanderJuan, iQuestionEverything, and
    whoever else read the DNC Certification of Nomination to Hawaii:

    Didn't you see it? Didn't anyone see it?
    Two birds with one stone? Buy one get one free?

    Correct me immediately if I am mistaken...

    Did it not make your eyes pop open to see that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, as the DNC Chair, certified Barack Obama as Constitutionally qualified for the Presidency? Surely, as the Speaker of the House, with a huge budget and an office full of staffers and pages, she would have the same information to which you and I are privy here.

    She too must know, especially because her own Gov. Schwarzenegger is similarly Constitutionally disqualified for the Presidency, that:

    according to the Framers' understanding from Vattel's Law of Nations (1758 ), and

    subject to the Supreme Court's interpretation now of SCOTUS in 1939 letting stand the isolated and singular decree of the lower court in New York, that a U.S. native with a foreign parent and a U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen * {Perkins v. Elg (1939), part 5}, and whether that decree applies outside New York, Connecticut, or Vermont,

    Mr. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen."

    Therefore, she has sworn falsely that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally qualified, and she can hardly claim ignorance of that false statement, made under oath.

    PERJURY ALERT ! ! !

    __________________________________________________

    * [Feb. 10, 2014] "A U.S. native with a foreign parent and a U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen."

    That is a common misunderstanding of Marie Elizabeth Elg's status by lineage (ius sanguinis). In 1906, a wife's citizenship defaulted to that of her husband, just as a minor child's status still follows the status of his or her father (or custodial parent) today.

    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the Court in _Perkins_v._Elg_ 307 U.S. 325
    Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

    www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/325
    Marie Elizabeth Elg's father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906, the year before she was born. Her mother became a U.S. citizen automatically, "without benefit of clerk," without the naturalization process or the naturalization oath of allegiance, without doing anything at all - just by being the wife of a man who was a U.S. citizen. In 1934, Mr. Elg expatriated himself from the U.S. and preserved his allegiance to Sweden. His wife (if they were still married after being separated by the Atlantic Ocean between 1911 and 1922) may or may not have had a change of status, depending upon the laws of Sweden and whether women's suffrage had affected how a change in a man's status also changed his wife's status.

    But in 1907, when Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the U.S., both of her parents were U.S. citizens, and therefore she was a natural born Citizen.


    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 02-10-2014 at 11:14 PM. Reason: clarification from U.S. Supreme Court opinion
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  10. #470
    Senior Member grandmasmad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, NV.. formally of So Calif
    Posts
    3,686
    Therefore, she has sworn falsely that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally qualified, and she can hardly claim ignorance of that lie.

    PERJURY ALERT ! ! !


    Wouldn't that be our prayers answered..... I wonder if Harry Reid can be tied to this also..........hey...I can hope.....I am here in Nevada with HIM
    The difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is the equivalent of the difference between a burglar and a houseguest. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •