Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) or Perkins v. Elg (1939).

A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family changing nationalities (becoming citizens) by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer not just citizenship, but natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).

So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.

That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.

Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court. The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

In 1776, Nathan Hale said,
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

In 2009, someone is saying,
"I only regret that not one Senator or Representative is willing to risk losing his life for his country."

By the end of the day, we will be 100% certain if your statement is true or false. I fear it will be true, but I am not giving up hope until it is finished.

Originally Posted by azwreath

So MinuteMan......just how promising is it that Justice Roberts has distributed this for full conference?

Is this the furthest a case has gotten so far?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (189 or Perkins v. Elg (1939).

A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family becoming citizens by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).

So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.

That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.

Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court.
The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.

Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.

I am also going to put this in its' own thread:

*

Congress meets to count electoral votes
The Presidents' Club
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
President-elect Barack Obama, flanked by President George W. Bush, and former President George H.W. Bush, speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2008, during a meeting, with former presidents Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
NBC News correspondents and producers across the U.S. shed light on the news of the day.
By JIM ABRAMS
updated 4:33 a.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - The House and Senate are coming together in a centuries-old tradition to count the electoral votes from the November election and formally declare that Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States.

Vice President Dick Cheney will take a seat next to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to preside over the joint session of Congress on Thursday. In what could be his last act as president of the Senate, Cheney was to hand the certificates from each state's electors to the tellers — two members each from the House and the Senate — to be read off and tallied.

At the conclusion of the state-by-state rundown, Cheney was to read the tally sheet and announce the results — that Obama has been elected president and Joe Biden will succeed Cheney as vice president.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, directs the electors chosen by the states to meet and vote for president and vice president, conveying the results to the president of the Senate.

That was accomplished Dec. 15, when the electors, in a largely ceremonial rite preordained by Obama's Nov. 4 victory over John McCain, gathered in state capitals to cast their votes. The tally was 365 for Obama, 173 for McCain.

The electoral college is made up of 538 electors, with each state getting its equivalent in the 435-member House and the 100-member Senate. The District of Columbia gets the other three electors.

The session this year should be drama-free, unlike in 2001, when then-Vice President Al Gore presided over the session that declared George W. Bush the winner over Gore in a disputed election. Gore disallowed objections from fellow Democrats who asserted that Bush had unfairly won Florida and tried to block Florida's electoral votes from being counted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28553710/

Originally Posted by cayla99

By the end of the day, we will be 100% certain if your statement is true or false. I fear it will be true, but I am not giving up hope until it is finished.

How amazing that the voters, then the electors, then the Congress, could silently ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room, the usurping of the Presidency by a fraudulent imposter, a bloodless coup d'état by massive deception.

How can it be that every voice is stilled? This is wickedness, something supernaturally diabolical on a scale not seen since Satan made the human race lawbreakers at the tree in the garden.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

In 1776, Nathan Hale said,
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

In 2009, someone is saying,
"I only regret that not one Senator or Representative is willing to risk losing his life for his country."

By the end of the day, we will be 100% certain if your statement is true or false. I fear it will be true, but I am not giving up hope until it is finished.

I just got confirmation, your statement is true

Originally Posted by cayla99

Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.

As we here know, the different cases focus on different issues, and no one case attacks every issue exhaustively, from every angle, to the demand for resolution, with victory in view. SCOTUS will have to combine all the cases if they want to settle all the issues.

If the Supreme Court Justices were looking for one case with which to define "natural born citizen," they would have heard Wrotnowski or Donofrio. But they didn't. Puzzling.

I just went back and re-read Edwin Vieira's article "OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN"

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

I find I still agree with his points.

Anybody besides me really sad that Obama has been approved by Congress today?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by cayla99

Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.

As we here know, the different cases focus on different issues, and no one case attacks every issue exhaustively, from every angle, to the demand for resolution, with victory in view. SCOTUS will have to combine all the cases if they want to settle all the issues.

If the Supreme Court Justices were looking for one case with which to define "natural born citizen," they would have heard Wrotnowski or Donofrio. But they didn't. Puzzling.

Bergs case seems to be a smorgasbord of everything. I wonder if that is why they have two conferences scheduled for that one.

There is no end to the disappointment that not one of the 535 members of our congress was willing to stand up for our constitution. I now believe that all are guilty of high treason, no matter what Obama's status really is. There are too many questions about his eligibility not to have questioned this.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (189 or Perkins v. Elg (1939).

A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family becoming citizens by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).

So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.

That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.

Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court.
The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.

Just want to make a quick observation that it was our own STATUTES that started making women jump through separate hoops to obtain their own naturalization. Mrs. Elg was a naturalized citizen when baby Elg was born.

Here's a sample of how our older laws used to work:

Act of February 10, 1855 [10 Stat. 604, section 2]

[i][b]“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.â€