I am hoping and praying that the Supreme Court executes swift justice against Barack Hussein Obama…
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
I filed suit in Pennsylvania Courts to preclude Obama’s name from all ballots, but kept getting the run around from this liberal court, mostly because I am not a qualified attroney, but I am a citizen, who is registered for, and unlike Obama elegible to seek the office of President of the United States, and as such, I have standing to file.
Too bad you didn’t spell eligible correctly.
Thanks, gramerr and speelling Nazi.
You need to check your spelling also.
is that all u hav to contribute….
No escaping the IDIOT grammer police…did I spell that correctly?
No you did not. It is grammar
IT’S BECUSE WE WERE TALT BY LIBERAL TEACHER
“TALT”
Is that all you have to contribute – rudeness? What’s it to you?
My grammar was a Ol’ woman, an me spell’n warn’t to good eether…sorry bout that.
If citizenship is not required, then why should spelling be (bee? lol.)
spellig is attempt to insult …
Nitpicking? Just another victim of spell check programmed that way. Everybody gets his intent since the illegibility of the bastard perpetrator’s genealogy is undeniable.. Nit pic that!
Thank you for your service in defense of our Constitution and the American experiment in government of the People.
If after all the evidence is presented to the Supreme court and they still rule he is qualified to be prez, we will never believe or obey any rulling oe law ever again from the bought and paid for court.
It wasn’t bought and paid for until Sotamayor and Kagan were put on it.
NOTHING WILL BE PROVEN UNTIL THE HIGH COURT RULES…AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE TRIERS OF FACT HAVE HEARD THIS ISSUE! Man I wish people would get a grip and calm down. Especial that weirdo ellen persona. NO lower court can rule against a sitting POTUS. There are safe for the public laws that prevent it. It may even over rule the High courts. That we will see…I hope. But truly the high court needs to make a ruling on what the three levels of citizenship are or will be once they rule. But ellen is totally wrong in her assertions that native born and natural born are on record in the Constitution. If they were the same then there would be only two forms of citizenship not three. There are arguments about it but to one side it is very clear that it takes TWO American citizen parent to fulfill the Natural born requirements. Augments are simply entertainment at this point and will probably remain entertainment forever.
People better read this SECOND link before they get excited about the FIRST one…Such a fool I was for hoping it was true…
1. http://www.mfs-theothernews.com/2012/12/breaking-news-hawaii-state-registrar.html
2. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/12/false-flag-hawaii-state-registrar-alvin-onaka-did-not-publicly-certify-to-az-sos-ken-bennett-that-barack-obamas-hi-birth-certificate-is-legally-non-valid-and-the-white-house-image-is-a-forg-2550610.html
Not only is the Onaka report wrong, but the birther allegation that the US Supreme Court has scheduled a conference on Obama’s eligibility is also wrong. All that is happening is that the US Supreme Court has scheduled a normal conference on whether or not to take appeals, and a birther case is one of the hundreds on the list that it will consider whether to take or not to take that day. So far The US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case. On October 1, it rejected an appeal of the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Even if they decide to take it, they won’t!!! First off Judge roberts is being backmailed by Obama on his adoption of his children, as he helped to advert the law during this process. The next two judges, sotomayer and Kagle are bought and paid for by Obama! They won’t recuse themselves even though it can’t be argued that there is no conflict as his eligibility has an outcome on them staying as Supreme court Justices! Mathematically this means that 4 of 6 have to vote in favor of this being heard and most likely some of them are being coerced or lackmailed as well!!! It just won’t happen!! When and if a lower federal judge is found that has the balls to defend the US Constitution and its People it will have to be a complete media open event! Without transparency Obama will say it wasn’t proven and that the judicial system is just against him because they are racist!! He will do his best to start a race war, and say that he controlls the US and that this is a overthrow of his office! The media will do as he tells them, most are ran by zionist jews that are part of the Bildebergs, Rothschil NWO agenda!! You don’t have to believe me, check ot out for yourself!!
I listed yesterday the following information: Gov. Mike Huckabee is calling for “A Day Of Prayer” on Jan.20, 2013, go to http://www.adayofprayer.com to make your committment. He is making this request in response to God’s promise in 2 Chronicals 7:14 “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” I ask all who read this to please make the committment to join in our day of prayer for God to forgive America of her sins. Please ask God to forgive everyone of their personal sins, forgiveness of all the sins of America, and ask that, “God will open the eyes and minds of every Supreme Court Justices on Feb. 15, 2013, so they will know “God’s” truth on Obama’s eligibility to be President of our great nation and that “God” will direct each Justice to fulfill HIS judgement in this issue. ” We The People” deserve better than the lies, deceit, fears and hate we have had forced on us and the only way we will see change is if WE put GOD back in control of our country, government and lives, as our Founding Fathers did.
Thank you so much for that site. I didn’t really see anything where we could sign for our committment on that date . The date is already on my calendar although I pray for it every day of my life several times a day anyway. Knowing hopefully millions of people will be doing it at the same time is a wonderful feeling!
People have to pray for their own sins to be forgiven. We may pray for them to understand they need salvation and they will then, if they receive salvation have someone to pray to. People who do not recognize Jesus as their personal savior has but one prayer and that is to be saved. Then they have a Father in Heaven to pray to upon receiving Christ into their hearts.
Do you realize that January 20, is on Sunday? So, most of the christians wiell be in church anyway.
The Supreme Court is not considering a case. It is deciding whether or not to take the case. It does that with ALL cases. It considers calling or not calling every case that is appealed to it. And it turns down 99.99% of all cases, and so far it has turned down EVERY birther case. Still, you have the right to dream.
So you CHOOSE to continue your PROPAGANDA for the Progressive Democratic Regime of Obama…you left me high and dry when I accused of BLOVIATING on my article a couple of hours ago..since Roberts decided this matter 3 days after I requested a RESPONSE from him after providing a copy of my Article “The Fate of The Republic is in the Hands of One Man” and 16 days after referral to him after being DENIED by Justice Kennedy on the 13th of December…
You know you lost the ARGUMENT when you use the BIRTHER pejorative to alienate one and all…all in a vain attempt to misdirect the real issue and that is Obama has USURPED his office…!!!
The birthers themselves use the term BIRTHER. Early last year the people who believe that Obama was not born in the USA and/or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen scheduled a conference. And what did they call the conference (which BTW was cancelled for lack of sign-ups)? Why they called it “The Birther Summit.” (http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/05/the-birther-summit-offers-refunds-2134097.html)
During Prohibition people who favored Prohibition were known for short as “Drys,” and people who opposed Prohibition were known as “Wets.” And currently the short-hand expression for people who think that Obama was not born in the USA and/or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen is Birthers. There does not have to be, unless you personally are ashamed of the term, any negative connotations to Birthers, which the planned Birther Summit recognized.
Getting back to the Supreme Court. It is a simple fact that the conference referred to in this blog is merely one of the regular conferences in which the court takes up ALL appeals before it and decides which ones to take and which ones not to take. It usually rejects all but one in a thousand cases, and so far it has rejected EVERY birther case (using the term simply as short-hand for “cases brought by people who think that Obama was not born in the USA and/or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen”). On October 1 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal of a case in Georgia that had ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.
There are people who post on this blog (or perhaps it was on another birther blog) that think that SCOTUS will make a ruling about Obama after the conference. That is wrong. All that it will do is to decide whether to take the case or not, and the latter is likely.
It is my understanding that the State Supreme Courts have turned these cases down and/or not allowed enough time for the evidence to be shown. This case has been kept from the U.S. Supreme courts by clerks who were prone to keeping out the case, as it seems to have been discovered by the petitioner(s). I believe Dr. Taitz cornered Justice Roberts in person at a talk he was giving somewhere and gave him papers directly and he promised to look at the case, then notified her that he was going to bring this before all the U.S. Supreme Court in conference. At least they are going to get to look at this for the first time.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
The Obummers have placed people in strategic places throughout the state, local and federal governments in order to keep the Truth from the public on many things. They are like a cancer cells invading good cells pretending to be good cells. These people are a worse threat to this country than any wars we have fought in the past. This Obama dude is nothing less than a foreign agent in our government breaching our security and making decisions that is destroying this country. Someone better do something or we had all better learn Chinese, Farse, Russian, German and whatever it is that Kenya speaks as well as Spanish.
Respect for Dr Taitz’s petitions are long past due and prolonging the agony of indictments to be spurred by discovery will reveal the vast numbers of those complicit in the conspiracy. While officials may feel safe behind their administrative security nobody yet has been found immune to lead poisoning delivered under second amendment intent.. TV media cannot be excused from their once trusted watchdog responsibility by token inquiry. Scopes and laser sights are now more numerous than the trash now occupying many elected offices where honor faded away with dueling.
But under their present combined onslaught how long can the right to keep and bear arms legally avoid all the infringement designed to alter it’s intent without use of it’s violent perspective? Are so many begging for a permanent attitude adjustment in lieu of a return to constitutional sanity?
When committee population consists of only 5% selected from those burdened with the same sick mindset disclosed in their holy book their intent becomes clear. Just a peep at all his cabinet names and past histories should awaken anyone that passed the seventh grade from any idealistic dream into the world of conspiratorial reality. The true cause of their fight against any form of public profiling is now very clear. While corrupt appointments continue to abound, the rising cloud of eager patriotism looms ready to water the tree of liberty.in anticipation of it’s growing drought of suppression.
Ah yes, and you ellen, yes, you still have the right to be another Obummer worshipping mindless troll. Thank God and all the defenders of the Constitution who have lived and died for that right that Oblameless and his cohorts are hellbent in destroying. And unfortunately, your right about the SCOTUS’s caseload, but your still a mindless zombie who can’t see the forest for the trees.
The headline: “SCOTUS Schedules Obama Eligibility Case To Be Heard In Conference” implies that the Supreme Court has scheduled an eligibility case. It has not scheduled an eligibility case. It has put the consideration of whether to take a birther appeal into one of its regular meetings on whether or not to take cases. THAT is the conference, and in that conference it will consider lots of other appeals besides this one. In other words it has not just convened a meeting to consider the birther appeal; it is simply considering appeals in that meeting. I do not worship Obama. I simply point out the facts that (1) he was born in Hawaii, which is in the USA; and (2) The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
If politely pointing out the facts and the law is an attempt to destroy the Constitution, that would be unfortunate. Fortunately, it is not true. As for the forest and the trees, I’m not sure what you are getting at. If you sincerely think that the US Supreme Court will take this case, then you are dreaming. Obama’s second Inauguration Ceremony will be held on January 21.
“In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.”
“The doubts identified by Minor in 1875 were finally resolved by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), which held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited and quoted Vattel’s and Minor’s definition of “natural born Citizen,” but relied on the English common law to resolve the doubts identified in Minor and to determine whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark did not alter or amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than to increase the class of people who can be “citizens” and who then can go on to procreate “natural born Citizens.”
Thank you, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Maybe you are reading an Obama Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution makes CLEAR what natural born citizen means. Read the original as that is ALL that counts. The rest is nothing if it goes against the original. Both parents of the candidate running for President MUST have been born in the US of A and the candidate himself, of course, must have been born here and have lived in this country the past 14 years as well before running for office. This is because of influence the parents of foreigners have upon their children that could endanger the security of this nation due to foreign influence. Remember the Britts wanted to bring a bunch of their people in and run them for office so they could influence law that would have put the Americans right back under English rule. Now it is not only England we have to worry about.
blakyd, his daddy was a British Subject and according the British Act of 1948, that makes Obama a British Subject as well. The Constitution does not allow someone other than a Natural Born Citizen who’s parents were both citizen’s, when a child is born, to become president.
Why is that so difficult for people to understand, especially our Congressional elected representatives?
There is no mention of parents in the US Constitution, and the meaning of Natural Born Citizen has been defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case to come from the common law and to refer to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of parents, and not to dual citizenship, only to the PLACE of birth. This is easy to understand—common law, not Vattel, Wong Kim Ark case, not Minor v. Happersett (the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett).
In addition to Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary and every single member of the US Electoral College (none of whom changed their votes to vote against Obama out of the crazy idea that two citizen parents are required or that dual citizenship is barred), the following state and federal courts have ruled on the matter recently:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.’
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”
Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.”
Gabor I never said anything different why are you asking me something I just said? Could it be that you do not have your reply up for a reason to discredit what I said by way of leaving your statement without a reply? Kenya was under Brittish control at the time. In fact, if I remember correctly Kenya was not Kenya until 1963 or later (this I am not sure about.) The English have no more business running for President here in this country than anyone else when they have not met qualifications. That being said, once again of BOTH parents being born here in America and the candidate being born here and having to have spent the last 14 years living in this country.
this is in the Constitution as written by John Jay to George Washington: “to reduce the likelihood that the president of the United States should have a former, or present, attachment, to a foreign country…” he/she should be the child of U. S. citizens. Where the child is born means nothing, as long as the parents are U. S. citizens. This also applies to alien children as long as the parents became citizens before the child is born.
I think you need to go and actually read the case you site because you have no idea what you’re talking about. Additionally, you seem to forget the legal definition of natural born citizen has since been clarified.
It does not matter where Onama was born. He is NOT a natural born Citizen
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The truth shall set you free.
He can and eventually will have his arse kicked out of office one way or the other. People are getting to where they are learning the truth. He will not take this country. He is nothing but a lying phony who stole the vote and stole into office as an ineligible renegade foreign agent, a puppet of the UN and is using these countries and they him to destroy the Constitution of this nation.
Dream on, or rather continue to have your nightmares. Obama won the election on November 6 by more than 4.6 million votes more than Romney, and when Romney and Paul Ryan and Ann Coulter and the National Review and Gingrich and Santorum all accept the results of that election, you will have difficulty in convincing any rational person that Obama “stole” it.
Obama won due to fraudulent voting and donations. Tthat has been proven. There has been no difficulty in rational thinking people believing he is a fraud and accepted illegal donations which, incidentally, has been proven. Look at ther percentasge of votes in thr swing states and convince us that any candidate ever won over 100% of the votes as shown in this last telection. If you believe that, you ar not too intelligent or rational thinking.
ellen, natural born citizen does not refer to the place of birth, but to the nationality and citizenship of the two parents. e.g., Mitt Romney, John McCain. They were born in other coutnries but they are natural born citizens bcause their parentrs were citizens of this country.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. Mitt Romney was born in Detroit. John McCain was born on a US Naval Base in the Panama Canal Zone in Panama, and that is US SOIL where a US flag is flown and where US laws are practiced—do you disagree. So in fact, all three of them, McCain, Romney and Obama are all Natural Born Citizens due to their place of birth. The fact that McCain and Romney also had US citizen parents is irrelevant. Oh, and Jindal and Rubio, neither of whose parents were US citizens at the time of their birth, are Natural Born US Citizens too, and are eligible to become president. (I’m not sure about Senator Cruz, since he was born in Canada).
The words of the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case are:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, had this in his book on the US Constitution:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And it is why former US Senator Fred Thompson wrote this:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
And why the Economist wrote this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
And it is why current senators Hatch and Graham said this:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
And it is why the Wall Street Journal wrote this:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
Oh, and on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of a case in Georgia, which—like eight other cases—had found that Obama and McCain were Natural Born Citizens due simply to the place of birth. The effect of the US Supreme Court turning down the appear? It is that the ruling of the lower court in Georgia that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) STANDS.
What I commented on as to what John Jay wrote to Washington was in the Consdtitution and that till stands, whether you like it or not.
Actually his inauguration will be held on the 20th, according to the Constitution, and since the 20th is on a Sunday, it will be held again on the 21st, at the Capital in Washington. The whole thing is a farce, him being sworn in is like a waste of time, he never honored his oath the first time and when he was sworn in there was no bible present.
This president is a complete farce and history will prove him to be exactly that. Unfortunately it will also prove unless he is removed from office that America as we once knew it will no longer exist.
He will not be removed from office. Don’t like it? Tough on you.
HA…You state Obummer was born in Hawaii in 1961, lmao, Hawaii was not recognized officially as a state of the USA until 1965, so go re-educate your self ellen…So if it is true that the obummer was born there, which he was not, then he is not an American, besides, he is from Kenya…
It is such nuts that give the birther movement a bad name. Hawaii became a US state in August 1959, which was during the Eisenhower Administration.
Natural born means you are born to two parents who are both United States citizens!
WOW another odd thing happen , a school in California just had another school shooting, seems to me that every time obama is on a hot seat, there is a crisis in that state… If you all can not see this, then God help you.
Let me see. You seem to be suggesting that Obama is scheduling school shootings. Is that right? If so, it is another example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers crazy.
Look no further than Bill Ayers (Barry’s mentor) and George Soros (Barry’s Financial backer) as the engineers behind Newtown, CT, massacre. If not so, I can say it over and over again until it becomes truth, same technique Barry is using to claim Natural-Born Citizen status. One lie after the other.
That Newton, CT thing is a far far reach. It is making the issue look like it is owned by a bunch of flakes. The issue is Eligibility of that rag in our White House. That is no reach. There is enough evidence that mathmatically says there is only one in six trillion chances that obama is eligible.
Regarding the one in six trillion. Since the estimate of the chances is based entirely on birther LIES that Obama’s birth certificate is forged, there isn’t even one chance that he is not eligible. Birthers have not shown you these experts, have they?
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.
Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Obama does not have to do anything more. He has shown his birth certificate twice, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on it.
The fact that birthers claim that it is false is well understood to be caused by the fact that people who hate Obama make claims against him for their own motives. Moreover, for Obama not to be a Natural Born Citizen, Obama would have had to have been born in some country other than in the USA, and that—considering how far Hawaii is from the nearest foreign country and the fact that pregnant women seldom traveled long distances late in pregnancy in 1961 AND that the officials in Hawaii and the birth certificate and the birth notices in Hawaii say that he was born in Hawaii—is not very likely at all.
YOU can keep on claiming that you believe that it is forged, but if you cannot convince even Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan of that fact, or Ann Coulter or the National Review, or any member of the US Electoral College (none of whose members switched their vote from Obama to McCain in 2008 or Obama to Romney in 2012 because of birther claims)—YOU will not get anywhere. But you have the right to dream. Keep on dreaming.
You really want to make those who are trying to keep this Constitution look foolish aren’t you? Well, do your best leftist giggle and snicker so you may feel superior or think you are in front of your half-baked friends who are having to wipe the brown from their and your noses from having your head up Obama’s bum when you can pull Joe Biden and Rom Emanuel out of it.
There is Lord Monckton who is a mathmatics professor and consultant who has broke this thing down by the evidence and who says that there is only one in 6 Trillion chances that Obama is eligible to be President. You may mock words, but math you cannot. Math is math.
The 6 trillion estimate is generous. Impossible is far more likely.
Re Monckton and six trillion, see above. Obama really was born in Hawaii, and the US Supreme Court really did rule in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Since you seem to think u have all the answers, can you please explain a few things for me?
1. How did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981, a country off-limits to US citizens?
2. Why did Obama’s own book state in the “about the author” that he was born in Kenya?
3. Why does Obama have a social security number from a state he never lived in? Why does it fail e-verify? Why is the number tied to Harrison Bounel Born In 1890, who conveniently lived in Chicago right by Obama when he died… And has ties to Michelle Obama as discovered by a debt collector by accident?
4. How bout all the poorly photoshopped family photos like his mothers school pics? Or those clearly digitally created PDF documents like bis birth cert and selective service form that were created in illustrator then layers were flattened and compressed. Guess they forgot there is an option to reverse the process which breaks up the PDF in a way no authentic document would.
After being caught red handed illegally trafficking hundreds of military grade weapons to Mexican drug cartels, I wouldn’t put anything past these scumbags. You honestly think Obama and holder weren’t going to regroup and come up with a new false flag operation to push his agenda? Open your eyes and look at the CNN footage! The video of the swat team rushing into the school was NOT sandy hook!! It was st. Rose of Lima elementary!!!! And don’t get me started on the “parents” who all had profiles on crisisactors.org which homeland security uses for “HSEEP” (see: SHEEP) training for added realism in mock shootings. The best was Robbie Parker and his instant emotion method acting caught on tape just prior to being interviewed about his “daughter” being murdered. No grieving father would have been joking and laughing hours after finding out his daughter was killed.
Call people crazy all you want. Stallin had a name for people like you who blindly follow the piper. Useful idiots. And just like the rats in the story, they were later exterminated. All 20,000,000+ of them.
obama on a hotseat? For what? You do realize that this is just standard operating procedure btw and not a biggie. Over 100,000 applications get referred with 1% or less being accepted. orly will not be there, she will not be pleading any case, no evidence presented, etc. It is a loss/loss for her and birthers
Goodness…This is pure wonderful goodness from Orly and God and WND….Thank you all!…Feb 15th Supreme Court Ruling!…Prayers ans supplications to Heaven!
NO ruling. At about that date they will announce whether they will take the case or not, and most likely they will not.
It makes no difference one way or the other. This is not going away. This is our country and WE intend to keep it.
So do the 65 million who voted for Obama.
You sound like a Nancy Pelosi clone, but the conference is a chance for someone to see the evidence. That is more than they have done in the past. At least history will reflect those who saw and did do something or those who saw and did nothing.
You sound like a Nancy Pelosi clone, but the conference is a chance for someone to see the evidence. That is more than they have done in the past. At least history will reflect those who saw and did do something or those who saw and did nothing.
But it is NOT a conference for someone to “see the evidence.” The US Supreme Court never hears evidence. NEVER. It is a court that decides on the meaning of the law. More importantly, the conference is not even on the issue of eligibility. It is simply a normal conference in which the justices decide whether or not to take cases, and Orly’s case is one of the dozens upon dozens that will be considered that day. Birther sites are deliberately misleading you with the headline: “Scotus Schedules Obama Eligibility Case to be Held in Conference.” Orly’s eligibility case is merely one of the numerous cases scheduled and the conference is only about whether to take them or not.
This ruling is happening because of the obummmers supposingly bad social security number…He does not have a real one, lmao…
Do not worry about what SCOTUS does for right now. We need to be thinking about God’s word. Things are happening very quickly right now and we must secure ourselves and country while we can. God said in 2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.” This is His promise! He does not lie! Mike Huckabee has called for “A Day Of Prayer” on Jan. 20, 2013. Go to http://www.adayofprayer.com and committ to this day of prayer, then on Sunday the 20th either pray on your own, or go to that website and join the rest of us. Many sins have been committed by the government in our names, we did not authorize this, but we must ask God to forgive our personal sins and the sins of America. Please go to the website, or Mike Huckabee on FB, make the committ and join your voice with ours. Let’s make our voices so strong the whole word will hear Americas prayer to our Heavenly Father, as our Founding Fathers did.
Yes, I believe according to his social security number he is 119 years old. He has aged well, don’t you think? Wonder what part of Connecticut he lived in. rumor has it that this is not his only social security number.
Millions of people have errors in their social security numbers and/or multiple social security numbers, which was caused mainly by data entry errors:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html
The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Hawaii didn’t have that particular zip code until 1963. Try again.
Where Chief Justice Roberts is concerned………..this is all just cleaver misdirection by him…….because, if they take the case and find for the plaintiff that in fact O’Bu**HO*E is guilty, more than half of congress and the rest of the administration will go to jail……..and Roberts has already been suborned by the powers at be to absolutely not let that happen. Hear this and get it straight, O’Bu**HO*E could kill your mother on the front lawn of the White House in full public view and no representative of any law enforcement agency would do a thing…………..in fact 47%, who are absolute worthless looters would applaud it and claim it was social justice!!! The top ranking military would proffer a special medal and commendation for heroic acts to save our nation!!!!!!!!!!!! Get my point !!
No, if anyone killed my mother, they would definitely NOT get away with it. One way or the other they would pay and pay big. So, perhaps someone elses’ mother–not mine.
The government killed my mother.
Like all cases scheduled to be decided whether the US Supreme Court will take it or not, this case has a chance of being taken, but a very slim chance since the US Supreme Court turns down 99.99% of all cases that are appealed to it, and since it has turned down every single birther case so far. In fact, on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down the appeal of a case in Georgia that had ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen and that the US Supreme Court had ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.
@ Ellen:
Whether or not the court either accepts or declines the case, Mr. BHO is a lying fraud and usurper. I’m sure you know that already though !!.
Yes, we do, Ellen. Yes, we do, indeed.
The facts show that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and that has been shown overwhelmingly. And the facts also show that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US Supreme Court to refer to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen. That is why Obama is not a lying fraud or a usurper. His second Inaugural ceremony will take place on January 21.
Re: “Yes, we do, indeed.” Answer: I do not post for you. You can continue with your dreams. I post the facts for any rational person who may be visiting this site and desiring to see the facts.
SCANNED all the Alphabet networks: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC all of them are DARK on this story…Could this be evidence of their BIAS…You Decide.
More on this STORY NEWS at 11:00.
The media is 90 percent controlled by Media Matters who is controlled by George Soros and group. Soros is on the board so what does that tell you if this is, in fact the case.
The media is silent on the story because the US Supreme Court regularly schedules conferences on whether or not to take cases,
wow, the government trolls are active today…..
The Administration that is in is not the United States of America government for they have attempted to destroy this nation in every conceivable way without showing their hands. They are controlling the media through those who are of like mind as are they. It is dark, indeed. for these are dark times, but know our forefathers saw darker times and they Stood up so we could have a future.
All the Supreme Court needs to do is see what is already in front of them. The record shows only forgery and fraud. Please expedite.
It is a conference on whether or not to take the case. That is all. As for “forgery”—that was only claimed by birther “experts”—who have not even shown that they are even experts, and who CERTAINLY have not shown that they are fair and impartial. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Gingrich and Santorum and the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona who accepted Hawaii’s confirmation that Obama was born there–all do not believe the birther “experts.’
The Constitution – Stronger than Dirt!
Here is a question for the obots. If, back when the Founders were laying their quills to the final draft of our awesome Constitution, jus soli (birth on U.S. soil) were considered enough to qualify one as a natural born Citizen, then what would have been the need for the Fourteenth Amendment[1]?
Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment was written many decades after the Constitution and it did not address natural born Citizenship at all, so how could it inform us as to the Founders thoughts on jus soli, you may reasonably wonder? Well, let’s follow the logic:
One certainly cannot be a natural born Citizen without at least being born a citizen, right? Okay, now note that all former slaves were born jus soli totally within the jurisdiction and boundaries of the USA, yet a Constitutional amendment was required to just make some of these, our fellow countrymen, citizens. That’s right (and plain as can be). Many former slaves who were born on U.S. soil were being denied citizenship by certain States because they were born to non-citizen parents!
Clearly, jus soli was not enough to make them citizens (let alone natural born Citizens). That the Fourteenth Amendment exists at all is proof positive that the Founders did not consider jus soli sufficient by and of itself to confer natural born Citizenship status – blood and dirt were both required.
The above train of thought is perfectly consistent with the Founders’ expressed intent to prevent our Commander-in-Chief from having any foreign affinities, loyalties or allegiances. The natural born Citizen clause was to ensure that the facts of one’s birth would provide no natural claim by any foreign power that one be a direct subject or citizen of that power. That means that one must not be born on the soil of a foreign power (i.e., within its jurisdiction) and that the USA must not recognize either of one’s parents as being legitimately, legally claimed as subjects or citizens of a foreign power.
Blood and dirt – perhaps not perfect, but the Founders recognized it as doing the best job of protecting sovereign Citizens of our great nation from the danger of a usurper gaining the Presidency (and sadly, the danger that comes from defying their wisdom we are experiencing first hand, today).
________________________________________
[1]The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted expressly to grant U.S. national citizenship to all de facto fellow countrymen who were born within the sole jurisdiction and boundaries of the USA, but were born of a special class of parents (i.e., former slaves) who, but for their enslavement, would themselves have been citizens.
Re: “Here is a question for the obots. If, back when the Founders were laying their quills to the final draft of our awesome Constitution, jus soli (birth on U.S. soil) were considered enough to qualify one as a natural born Citizen, then what would have been the need for the Fourteenth Amendment[1]?”
Answer: Because slaves were not considered CITIZENS in some states, and because the situation was that the STATES decided on who was a citizen. The 14th amendment granted citizenship to the slaves NATIONALLY, and took the right to determine US citizenship away from the states and gave it to the US government, and lay down the rule on citizenship at birth, which said that every child born in the USA is a citizen.
This is different from the term “Natural Born,” which I think you and I agree was not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The ORIGINAL meaning of Natural Born still applies. It was never changed by the 14th Amendment, only the citizenship portion of Natural Born Citizen. So, the question is, what was the ORIGINAL meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
BOTH historical research and the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case say that it comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. There is absolutely NO mention of parents in the US Constitution or in the definition of Natural Born under the common law. That in fact was the common use of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written, and NO member of the Constitutional Convention ever used the term to refer to parents. Not one.
Here is an example of how it was used at the time:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents, not to dual citizenship. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.”
And here is how it was used about 25 years later:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And here is what Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general says:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And here is what the Wall Street Journal said:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
And here is what the Economist Magazine said: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
And here is what former Senator Fred Thompson said:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
And here is further reading on the subject:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
ellen wrote: “So, the question is, what was the ORIGINAL meaning of Natural Born Citizen?”
The original Constitution allowed states to deny citizenship to persons born in this country if born to a non citizen father (e.g., the children of former slaves). Obviously, if one is not even a born citizen, one cannot be a natural born Citizen. These children were born without allegiance to any other nation (in fact, they were quasi-stateless) and they were also born on American soil, yet the Constitution allowed them to be declared non-citizens, thus not natural born Citizens either. Obviously, per the original Constitution, just being merely born on American soil was not enough to make one a natural born Citizen.
Our Founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a “born citizen,” but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen.
The Founders labored, deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months. They did not willy-nilly add superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere “born citizens.”
Ask yourself, who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
By blood and by dirt – and the criminal fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
Re: “Obviously, per the original Constitution, just being merely born on American soil was not enough to make one a natural born Citizen.”
That is precisely right. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to be (1) a citizen and (2) Natural Born. The meaning of (1) changed under the 14th Amendment (and in fact it changed again when American Indians were made citizens by law in 1925). The meaning of Natural Born did it change. It was the original meaning. I have shown that the original meaning came from the common law. There is NO article by the founder saying that the meaning comes from Vattel or that it refers to parents.
The Original meaning was shown in the quotation by Tucker and the later quotation by Rawle, to refer to the place of birth, and that is what the US Supreme Court ruled too.
So, here is what happened when the 14th Amendment and the law that made American Indians citizens came into effect. Those of them who were natural born, meaning born in the USA, became both citizens and Natural Born Citizens when they became citizens. Those of them who were naturalized citizens did not become Natural Born Citizens because they were not born in the USA.
Re: “Ask yourself, who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else?’”
The answer is those citizens who were born here.
Re: “They did not willy-nilly add superfluous, meaningless words. ”
I agree, they did not use superflous, meaningless words. THE POPULAR phrase for people who were born citizens at the time was NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There was no use of the phrase ‘born citizen” that I can find, and the use of “Native-born citizens” was rare, far more rare than Natural Born Citizen, of which the Natural Born part was familiar to every lawyer, and in which the writers of the US Constitution in any of their never used to refer to parents—not once–but which they used as in the common law many times.
Another way of looking at it is to say that the writers of the Constitution did not make mistakes and tried very hard not to mislead us. And the POPULAR use of the phrase Natural Born was from the common law. IF they had intended to use it any way other than the way that it was used in the common law, they would have told us.
That should read; ‘the meaning of Natural Born didn’t change.”
George Washington, our first President (and a very legitimate one to boot) may have been rightly called a “birther” – a nation birther, but the great many patriots today who wish to conserve our nation’s Constitution should be called the much more fitting term, preserver. Such people believe that the President, as servant of the public, has a duty to prove to his employers, the sovereign citizens of this nation, that he is a natural born Citizen per the highest law of the land, our Constitution. I, and millions like me, believe that aka obama’s deceptive cover up and outright fraud regarding his life’s records indicate that there is probable cause that he is hiding one or more records that would disqualify him as a legitimate president, either due to felony fraud or due to not meeting constitutional requirements.
Aka obama’s fraud:
* Not a natural born Citizen (not merely born in USA, but born of citizen parents).
* Bogus Social Security Number – issued from Connecticut, a state in which he never lived (fails E-verify).
* Birth certificate document fraud – pdf of BC from whitehouse.gov website is a clear forgery, not a scan of a paper document.
* Not born in any Hawaiian hospital (maybe born elsewhere in Hawaii – probably born out of USA as he claimed for years in his own book bio, but who really knows since no one truly vetted him).
* Bogus Selective Service Registration number – probably failed to register as a young man, thus ineligible for any federal office.
* Probably attended Occidental College registered as an Indonesian foreign national (used his adoptive citizenship to game the system).
* In light of his adoption and massive record fraud, do we even know aka obama’s real name?
PS: Regarding presidential eligibility, our Founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a “born citizen,” but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen.
The Founders labored, deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months. They did not willy-nilly add superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere “born citizens.”
Ask yourself, who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
By blood and by dirt – and the criminal fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
Re: “Such people believe that the President, as servant of the public, has a duty to prove to his employers, the sovereign citizens of this nation, that he is a natural born Citizen per the highest law of the land.’
In that case every president before Obama failed in that duty. ONLY Obama, who was the first president or presidential candidate to show his birth certificate (and who showed both the short form and the long form and the facts on them were confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii) proved to his employers, who elected him twice, that he was a Natural Born Citizen. That is because (1) he was born in the USA, in Hawaii, and (2) the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents.
Re: ” Not born in any Hawaiian hospital…”
Obviously, you have not seen this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52083178/Kapiolani-Medical-Center-100-Years-1909-to-2009
and this:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/
And in addition to those FACTS, the former Republican governor of Hawaii said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley, said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital (which by the way did exist at the time).
Re: “Probably attended Occidental College registered as an Indonesian foreign national.”
That story came from an April Fool’s article originally posted on April 1, 2009.
The alleged birth certificate showed his father as “African-American” which was a term not used in the 1960′s. There are other items on the birth certificate that do not fit. Also, explain why he is using a social security number belonging to a deceased man from Connecticut. Also, the numbers on his birth certificate and the other two births that day are not in consecutive order as thery should be. He weas asdopted by an uncle who lived in Indonesia and registered as a foreign student in need of financial assistance. Too many things do not hold together.
Obama’s birth certificate shows that his father’s race was listed as AFRICAN, which is not African-American. How come African and not Negro? Because people in Hawaii were allowed to use whatever words they wanted to describe their race. There was no check list of races and no one stood over the person filling in the form and told him what words to use. And what was the common word that African exchange students used to describe their race in 1961? Answer: African.
The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:
The numbering system on birth certificates in Hawaii was not in chronological order. There is a birth certificate for a child born even after the Nordyke Twins, and that number is the lowest of them, even lower than the numbers of the Nordyke twins and lower than Obama’s number.
Obama was not adopted—which requires the action of a district court in Indonesia and no such papers have been shown, and the US State Department denies that it ever happened, and the story about Obama receiving financial aid as a foreign student came from AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE.
You think up an excuse for everything, don’t you? You must be a socialist. He is.
The two Supreme Court Justices appointed by Mr. Obama while he was in the commission of the criminal usurpation of the presidency MUST recuse themselves from participation in the hearing for obvious conflict of interest. Their very appointments would necessarily have to be retro-actively abrogated–anulled–if the court decides that Mr. Obama fraudulently represented himself as constitutionally eligible to be president and subsequently proceeded with a cover-up which included multiple forged official documents.
It is not a hearing. It is one of the regular meetings that the US Supreme Court holds to decide whether or not to take a case. In making the decision to take a case, only the votes of four justices are required. So, if Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts or Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy vote to take the case, the US Supreme Court will hear the case. But in the past birthers were not able to get the votes of four justices to take any of their cases.
Re: “if the court decides that Mr. Obama fraudulently represented himself as constitutionally eligible to be president and subsequently proceeded with a cover-up which included multiple forged official documents.”
Answer. Apparently you still think that the US Supreme Court will hear the issues of eligibility. It won’t. It will simply decide whether to take the case or not, and most likely it will not. Re “forged official documents.” Only birther “experts” claim that—and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial—that is why such conservative leaders as Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review do not believe them, nor does Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum.
How can the DNC not be held accountable for certifying the boon without even the requirements for any documented alien? The party and at least one state must go down in flames. The tsunami will take Hawaii down.
NOTHING WILL BE PROVEN UNTIL THE HIGH COURT RULES…AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE TRIERS OF FACT HAVE HEARD THIS ISSUE! Man I wish people would get a grip and calm down. Especial that weirdo ellen persona. NO lower court can rule against a sitting POTUS. There are safe for the public laws that prevent it. It may even over rule the High courts. That we will see…I hope. But truly the high court needs to make a ruling on what the three levels of citizenship are or will be once they rule. But ellen is totally wrong in her assertions that native born and natural born are on record in the Constitution. If they were the same then there would be only two forms of citizenship not three. There are arguments about it but to one side it is very clear that it takes TWO American citizen parent to fulfill the Natural born requirements. Augments are simply entertainment at this point and will probably remain entertainment forever.
Have you considered that “undocumented alien” is a term well applicably superseding all the TV news created BS? Suggested info would arise in student loan application forms once his BC is accepted as fraudulent. There are at least two others considered as possible presidential candidates that started with green card parents. Hawaii’s certifying of fraudulent birth certificates has provided for many more terrorists’ entry into the US than the single entry defended by innuendo in all network news.
Why do you think they have totally avoided evidence uncovered by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse? Their evidence exposure may well be deemed Ocean Gate once the discovery process breaks the ice of executive privilege.considering the vast army of otherwise undocumented aliens within the US. With their DOJ admonition of profiling, states that only recognize it it as terminology used in federal restraint documents could be the most efficient providers of their incarceration. Work for Dog The Bounty Hunter could provide replays for 25 years or more if his subjects consider loss of the liberty they have enjoyed more acceptable than deportation..
Re Sheriff Joe. Nobody believes Sheriff Joe. The CONSERVATIVE Republican secretary of state of Arizona, Sheriff Joe’s state, certainly does not believe him. That secretary of state asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there, and when it did, he believed Hawaii and not Sheriff Joe. John McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, has said that Sheriff Joe is a nut, as did the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
There are only two forms of citizenship, not three. There are only Natural Born Citizens and naturalized citizens.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
First off every united states citizen has legal standing! Second the question of natural citizen was already resolved in 1875: Minor vs Harpersett
ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
I’m not even a lawyer and I know this….. yet judges don’t? Every judge needs to be fired for lack of following the law making them all complicit in both fraud and criminal activities!
Re; “every US citizen has legal standing.” That is what you say, but more than 100 courts appear to disagree, and it has bee appealed several times to the US Supreme Court, which turned down every appeal.
Re: Minor v. Happerstt.
HOWEVER, the Wong Kim Ark Case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and later cases overturn earlier ones (if Minor v. Happersett was even a ruling, and it wasn’t). And this is what the Wong Kim Ark case said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and that it refers to the place of birth (no mention of parents), and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and that the same rule was in use in Britain, and in the early American colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
That is why nine state and federal courts have ruled that indeed the US Supreme Court made that ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, and that it ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law, and that it ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Here are some of the rulings:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
Re: “I’m not even a lawyer and I know this…’
You THINK that, but it is wrong.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Everyday this government comes out with another outrageous EO or from Obamacare. We really can not just sit much longer, or there will be nothing left, not even We The People. On Feb. 15th, 2013 the Supreme Court is holding a conference to decide if they will hear the eligibility cases against Obama. We need to flood the emails, phones and mail to the Supreme Court with letters stating that ” We The People feel this man is not eligible to hold the highest office in the land, and we deserve to know the truth. We The People have become fearful of this president and his tryannical actions and behaviour. Therefore, we are asking that you, the People’s Supreme Court, hear the case brought before you by Orly Taitz, against Barrack H. Obama. We The People have the right to demand our Constitution be upheld and Mr. Obama must proved unquestionable proof, without any doubt, that he is a natural born legal citizen of The United States of America, as did his predecessor’s. We also deserve to know why he is using a false Social Security number and Selective Service Card.” You can word your letter or etc. anyway you like, but these are the particulars to include. The following is the contact information for the Supreme Court: Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Telephone:202-479-3000 Clerk’s Office: 202-479-3011
Website: http://www.supremecourt.gov go to contact us, look for “public information” is an email form.
Dream on. Obama really was born in Hawaii and really is a Natural Born Citizen. And the problem with his SS number, as with millions of others, is that there were millions of data entry errors in the Social Security Administration.
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/
For Obama to have been born outside of the USA, Obama’s parents would have had to have:
(1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya); (And the government of Kenya now says that it has investigated, and that it never happened.) And such travel by pregnant women was very rare in 1961.
(2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother’s US passport (which would have had to have happened in Kenya or any other country, and would be easy to find) and slipped the child past the US immigration officials who check documents or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed. And since there were few direct flights from foreign countries to Hawaii, those records would be in the INS files in New York or some other city—and they have not been lost;
(3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);
(4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;
(5) or, if (4) did not occur, of they did not get away with it, then somehow got three Republican officials and several Democrat officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama’s files verifies that he was born in Hawaii. And the same for the public Index Data file and the same in 1961 for the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH (and only the DOH could send those notices) or in 2008 or before forged all of the several microfilm versions of those notices and inserted them into the separate files for the two newspapers in the exact right order with all the other stories—and in 2008 Obama was only a junior senator from Ohio.
(6) gotten the Hawaii teacher to lie in her statement that she had been told about “Stanley had a baby” and that she had written home about it to her father, named Stanley——-and in fact found a Hawaii teacher with a father named Stanley in order to make that statement (and the father’s name really was Stanley).
ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.
Natural Citizen was already ruled on in 1875: Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Thus clear and simple Obama is ineligible to be president. Likewise, every single citizen of the United States has standing by the fact that Obama has used executive orders to pass his agenda which therefore affects all Americans. Once Obama violated the Constitution by over stepping his authority as outlined in the Constitution it gave all US citizens standing!
I know this and I am not even a lawyer or judge. Thus, any lawyer or judge denying an American standing must be listed as aiding and abetting fraud and criminal activites of Obama. Once shown to be complicit they become enemies of the state and can be tried as accomplices!
See above. The meaning was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after the Minor v. Happersett case, and the Minor v. Happersett case did not rule what you think anyway.
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “—The Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
See above. The meaning was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after the Minor v. Happersett case, and the Minor v. Happersett case did not rule what you think anyway.
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “—The Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+c
If that is the case, then Obama is not eligible to be president since his father was not a U. S. citizen.
The Court can at the same moment decide to hear and schedule it for an immediate hearing, all at the Court’s discretion. They really don’t handle that many cases, but do have assistants do a lot of research and then brief each judge and that takes time. However, that can all be telescoped by immediacy. Let’s hope and pray for that immediacy. I have worked in law for over 50 years and have seen a lot. What I have been seeing are judges that have sold their souls to protect this alien. Now, there are a few who are true patriots and lawyers. I do not dislike all the Supreme Court Judges, only those that Obama has placed on the Court due to their lack of experience, background and liberal thinking and actions. If they were truly qualified, I could overlook a lot, but they are not. Glad some have decided to stay on because it is obvious they do NOT like this man and want to see justice done. Hope many can make their presence and signs noted at the federal sites. We must stand together or divided we fall.
Be careful downloading stuff. I have heard of nothing being scheduled.
Go th the Supreme Court’s website. Februrary 15, 2013 Noonan v. Bowden is scheduled.
Yes, they have put it on a conference, along with dozens of other cases, to decide whether or not to take the case. That is what they do with every appeal.
Where is the link to John Roberts? I can’t find it