This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 25, 2011 7:08:13 AM PDT
Courts do not recognized "partial" citizenship nor do they acknowledged "defective" 14th Amendment citizenship. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or is an alien.

There is no "hybrid citizen" in that a person who is born in the United States is a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen." In other words, stating that Obama is an United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being "partially pregnant" either he is a natural born citizen or not.

If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien.

However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949) ("It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1" ;Benny v. O'Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)("Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power."; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454, 457 (1920)("It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN")(emphasis added); Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999)("Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.")(emphasis added)

As such, there has not been one decision by United States courts that they have held that a native born child of an alien father or alien parents was not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the 14th Amendment and thus was not a United States citizen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 7:10:31 AM PDT
There's no legitimate argument that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen. The legal arguments are awful. The factual arguments are completely fabricated. There's nothing. But unfortunately, no matter how much evidence you throw at these people, they're just going to stick their fingers in their ears and scream.

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 8:32:46 AM PDT
That's exactly what ignorance (lack of knowledge) does to human beings. Those who don't have true knowledge always speculate about, presume, and assume to know what they really don't. And they almost always become so arrogant in their ignorance that they can't even accept the suggestion that they don't know what they think they know. This is why the worse thing that has happened in this nation is that people who lack knowledge, and really have a desire to get knowledge have not been given the opportunity to get knowledge attending higher education institutions FREELY.

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 10:15:37 AM PDT
He was born here. He's a natural born citizen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 7:03:30 PM PDT
You are wrong Sir! There is binding legal precedent of SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett which derives Natural Born Citizen from the Constitution. See

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

It follows that your interpretation which is based on the 14th ammendment is precluded because the U.S. Constitution cannot be ammended by SCOTUS. Your construction would necessarily render Article 2 Section 1 without meaning which is not allowed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 7:40:10 PM PDT
"You are wrong Sir! There is binding legal precedent of SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett which derives Natural Born Citizen from the Constitution. See

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/"

That interpretation is dead wrong. The Court in Minor in no way limited natural birth citizenship to someone born in the US to two citizen parents. In fact, they specifically said that there were other ways to be a natural born citizen and that they weren't addressing those other ways in that case because they weren't applicable. The Court said they would address other forms of natural birth citizenship in a future case, which they did with Wong Kim Ark in 1898. But I do love amateur lawyers. They can't even be bothered to read a case, they just pick out one line and cling to it.

"It follows that your interpretation which is based on the 14th ammendment is precluded because the U.S. Constitution cannot be ammended by SCOTUS. Your construction would necessarily render Article 2 Section 1 without meaning which is not allowed."

More amateur lawyering. Assuming that you're referring to the natural born citizenship clause, it is in no way obviated by the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (and every other case on the matter). The Wong Kim Ark interpretation (i.e., the legal, binding interpretation) still leaves the natural born citizenship clause intact, as a naturalized citizen (i.e., a citizen who isn't a natural born citizen) still can't be President. Hence, the NBC clause has meaning AND we can support our argument with case law, which you cannot.

This isn't difficult. Really. It's not. First-year law students learn this in basic Con Law. It's pretty undisputed in the legal realm at this point.

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 7:42:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2011 7:44:07 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
Minor v Happersett was a women's suffrage appeal.
Birther attorneys Mario Apuzzo, in Kerchner v Obama and John Hemmingway in Hollister v Soetoro, et. al. attempted to make the "two citizen parents are required in order to be natural born" argument and both cited Minor v Happersett as precedential in their Petitions for Writs of Certiorari before the US Supreme Court. Both Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro were denied Writs.
There is no way that Chief Justice John Roberts would have agreed to administer the oath of office to someone who was ineligible under Article II, Section 1. The current Supreme Court has had 12 opportunities to rule that Barack Obama is ineligible. Not even ONE of the nine Justices has agreed to put any Obama eligiblity appeal on the "discuss list" for a possible grant of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
When Vice President Cheney counted and certified Barack Obama's 365 electoral college votes at the Joint Session of Congress held for that purpose, any one Senator and any one Representative could have objected to the certification on the grounds that Barack Hussein Obama II was not a natural born citizen. Not ONE member of Congress objected which would have triggered an immediate investigation in both Houses of Congress.
Finally, specifically regarding the natural born citizenship status of Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Obama was eligible as a natural born citizen to receive Indiana's Electoral College votes in the appeal of "Ankeny, et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels." A three judge panel ruled: "Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark (1898), we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" regardless of the citizenship of their parents."--November 12, 2009

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 7:53:35 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
Here are the appeals that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States challenging Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen:
Berg v Obama, Beverly v The Federal Elections Commission, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Hollister v Soetoto, et. al., Kerchener v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Rhodes v MacDonald, Schneller v Cortes, Taitz v MacDonald (appeal of sanction), Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
All of the above have been denied Cert petitions and not one of those appeals has made the discuss list which means that not even one of the nine justices has felt that any of these appeals raised a signfifcant constitutional issue worth discussing with the other Justices.
Overall, in local, state, and federal courts there have been 129 lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. All 129 of them have failed.
Any first year law student knows what Albert Einstein once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 9:03:55 PM PDT
David Duryea says:
Blah blah blah. That proves nothing It only shows that the three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals, the nine Supreme Court Justices, Cheney and every member of both houses of congress are corrupt, worried about their own and their loved ones lives and safety. Of course they're in on it, too.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 10:20:54 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
All it proves is that Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected 44th President of the United States and he has been since January 20, 2009.
He campaigned for a year and a half to win his party's nomination; he received 69,456,897 popular votes, the most votes for any presidential candidate in American history. He won 365 electoral college votes, which is more than the required majority. The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution states that whoever wins a majority of the votes of the Electoral College "shall be the president." He was sworn in as president by Chief Justice John Roberts.
End of story.

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 10:23:21 PM PDT
J. Potter says:
"Any first year law student knows what Albert Einstein once said: 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.'"

Careful, Taitz quoted that recently on her page. Are you implying she actually went to law school? And remembered something?

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 10:31:47 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
Has Orly won any Obama eligiblity law suits? Does she keep filing them over and over again?

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 10:47:37 PM PDT
J. Potter says:
No, and she never will, which is why her use of the phrase was so hysterical! It was part of her rationalization for shifting focus to the SSN angle ... her filings for which seem like pleas for contempt citations.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 11:02:27 PM PDT
Orly has won only one case. She contested a traffic ticket she received and won.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 8:22:58 AM PDT
F. Hollister says:
Sansome O'Reilly: According to the decision in the Indiana Court of Appeals case (one of the almost 100 cases the Birthiers have lost - they are O for-Ever) Wong Kim Ark has been cited approximately 1,000 times in other cases. So much for the "dicta" argument Dr. Corsi and his ilk try from time to time...

Posted on Jun 26, 2011 8:24:59 AM PDT
F. Hollister says:
Sean A. Maher: Ms. Taitz proves the difference between being a case and winning a case.

Posted on Jun 26, 2011 2:33:31 PM PDT
Being a military brat--an alien born person that has one natural born American citizen parent can be a natural citizen of the United States of America.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 8:03:39 AM PDT
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/"

That interpretation is dead wrong. The Court in Minor in no way limited natural birth citizenship to someone born in the US to two citizen parents. In fact, they specifically said that there were other ways to be a natural born citizen and that they weren't addressing those other ways in that case because they weren't applicable. The Court said they would address other forms of natural birth citizenship in a future case, which they did with Wong Kim Ark in 1898. But I do love amateur lawyers. They can't even be bothered to read a case, they just pick out one line and cling to it.

You didn't get the point In Minor V. Happersett. It was first necessary for SCOTUS to establish that Minor was a U. S. citizen, otherwise she would not have standing in Federal court nor would SCOTUS have jurisdiction. The court found that she was a citizen at birth because she was a natural born citizen. They also found that a natural born citizen under the Natural Born Citizenship Clause of Article II Section I is a child born in the United States of parents who are both citizens. Minor was therefore a citizen before the ratification of the 14th ammendment. Moreover, they found that the citizen status of a child born of non-citizen parents was in doubt but that the status of a narural born citizen was not in doubt. They found that a natural born citizen is a citizen. These findings are binding precedents of SCOTUS.

More amateur lawyering. Assuming that you're referring to the natural born citizenship clause, it is in no way obviated by the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (and every other case on the matter). The Wong Kim Ark interpretation (i.e., the legal, binding interpretation) still leaves the natural born citizenship clause intact, as a naturalized citizen (i.e., a citizen who isn't a natural born citizen) still can't be President. Hence, the NBC clause has meaning AND we can support our argument with case law, which you cannot.

Again you don't get the point. The National Born Citizenship Clause of Article II section I discriminates between citizens and natural born citizens. Obviously, natural born citizens are a subset of citizens. If citizens were also natural born citizens, then the founders would not have used two different labels in the Natural Born Citizenship Clause of Article II Section I (i.e. "citizens" vs. "natural born citizens"). Remember that every word of the constitution must be living and have meaning unless explicitly ammended. The label "citizens" appears once in The Declaration of Independence of 1776. It is obvious that both classes of citizens existed before 1776 and therefore existed before the adoption of the constitution in 1787. The "citizens" were the "people" of the colonies who were loyal to one colony prior to 1776 including "natural born people". The citizens included people born outside of the colonies who later came to live in one of the colonies and people born within one of the colonies. Citizens born within a colony included newborns with both parents citizens, newborns with only one parent a citizen and newborns with both parents non-citizens. Under Vattel's "Law of Nations" only the newborns born within the nation of parents who were both citizens were natural born. Thus, natural born citizens are a special class under the constitution. They are the newborns who were both born within one of the colonies (or states) and of parents who were both citizens. For example, a newborn with a citizen mother and a British Soldier father was not natural born. The constitution of 1787 did not address naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens were created by the Naturalization Act of 1790 as ammended in 1795. The label "naturalized" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence and appears only once in the U. S. Constitution in the 14th ammendment. The 14th ammendment was ratified in 1868. Your interpretation that the label "citizens" in Article II Section I refers to only to naturalized citizens has no basis in law. Likewise your assertion that the label "natural born citizens" in Article II Section I refers to all newborns who were born within the territory of the United states of any parents whatsoever also has no basis in law. Neither interpretation stands up to the precedent of Minor V. Happersett nor the meaning or original intent of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause of Article II Section I of the constitution. Moreover, nowhere do I find that the 14th ammendment altered the Natural Born Citizenship Clause of Article II Section I in any way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 8:14:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2011 8:15:33 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
The Minor case established that Minor was a citizen via the "child of two citizen parents" path. In no way did the Court declare that this was the ONLY way to be a natural-born citizen, which the later Wong Kim Ark case clarified.

Yes, there are two categories of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. There are several ways to be a natural-born citizen: to be born to citizen parents anywhere in the world is one, and to be born on U.S. soil is another. Minor was a natural-born citizen, and so is Obama. The Ark case established this quite clearly. Vattel's "Law of Nations" is not U.S. law and has never been cited as such.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 9:17:11 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 12:37:13 PM PDT
Courts have never recognized "natural born citizen" as being classified as an ubercitizen or super-citizen in that the natural born citizen has special endowed legal powers far superior to those of mere mortal native born citizens.

Courts have never distinguished native born citizens from natural born citizens.

"There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)

"The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen." ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9(1913), the court observed: Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906] are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens." Id at 24.

The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: "Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS." (emphasis added)

As such, courts have been equating native born with natural born in which both terms have been used to distinguish those citizens who are naturalized.

Posted on Jun 27, 2011 12:50:48 PM PDT
Hermitian "Henry" wrote: "Citizens born within a colony included newborns with both parents citizens, newborns with only one parent a citizen and newborns with both parents non-citizens. "

Response:

Wrong. Courts have established that children born prior to the ratification of the Constitution were natural born British subjects regardless as to the citizenship status of their parents.

In Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), Justice Thompson in his majority opinion stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS and it must necessarily follow, that the character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state, and the acknowledgement of their independence. " Id at 120-121

In Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 US 135 , 163 (1892), the observed: All white persons or persons of European descent who were born in any of the colonies, or resided or had been adopted there, before 1776, and had adhered to the cause of independence up to July 4, 1776, were by the declaration invested with the privileges of citizenship."

In Murry v. Schnoor Charming Betsy, 6 U.S.64 (1804) it appears to have been assumed by the Supreme Court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States when Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide. Id at 120.

As such, courts have recognized that all persons born in the American Colonies were natural born subjects who became citzens upon the ratification of the Constitution and thereafter all those persons born in the United States after the ratification became natural born citizens.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 1:14:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2011 1:14:59 PM PDT
Dalekmaster says:
"It only takes one pitch to hit a home run."

Except that all the birthers have struck out so far. It's not even close, like watching the World Series champs take on a Tee Ball team.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 1:22:12 PM PDT
J. Potter says:
And there is only 27 outs in a game (usually). Wishing there was a "mercy" rule in real life ...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 1:47:10 PM PDT
Richard Brattain said

"As such, there has not been one decision by United States courts that they have held that a native born child of an alien father or alien parents was not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the 14th Amendment and thus was not a United States citizen."

Wrong again -- what about

Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Participants:  178
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 25, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President
Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President by Jerome R. Corsi (Hardcover - 2011)
3.5 out of 5 stars   (309)