GA Court Hears Obama Eligibility Case

[Kutnupe14]

The POTUS doesn't get vetted for security clearance, no matter his background. The same is true for the majority of his aides and major appointments. If this weren't so, Bill Clinton wouldn't have HAD a staff when he was Pres.

+1

Hey guys, don't get too hung up on this citizenship garbage. We already have enough to move him out of office. If we start focusing on this sideshow stuff again rather than the things he's actually done while in office, you'll be hurting the chances of getting a new executive.

 

[jetmechG550]

+1

Hey guys, don't get too hung up on this citizenship garbage. We already have enough to move him out of office. If we start focusing on this sideshow stuff again rather than the things he's actually done while in office, you'll be hurting the chances of getting a new executive.

I think there's more of a case that if he is proven to be ineligible that anything he signed as POTUS would become null and void? Besides, if there is enough to get him on any of the other multitude of atrocities, someone needs to push the issues and bring them to the forefront. Right now, this seems to be one of the few things to get brought to light.

 

[88GT]

If I'm not mistaken at the time of the writing of the Constitution a natural born citizen was one where both parents were citizens and residents of the US for more than 5 years at the time of the birth as opposed to just one parent in which case the child was just a citizen. So if that is the case then McCain would be a natural born citizen because both parents were US citizen on a US base.

In Obama's case only his mother was a US citizen, his father never was, therefore under the meaning of "Natural born" as the meaning was applied when the Constitution was written, Obama in not a Natural Born citizen, he's just a citizen.

The founding fathers wanted to make sure that the person who held the Office of the President wasn't some British guy who just came over but rather a person who had a vested interest in the County.

But who knows, words and meanings get twisted over time so it's anyone guess how it will be interpreted today.

Two problems with your 2nd paragraph. First, the Kenyan's mother didn't have citizen status conveyable to young Barry based on the law at the time.

Second, there isn't "just a citizen" status. There's birthright citizenship (what we call natural born) and naturalization citizenship. Birthright citizenship comes without action required on the part of the individual. Everybody else is a foreign national in the eyes of the law. The ONLY other way to attain citizen status is to become naturalized, which means jumping through a series of hoops of which there are sure to be records.

So, no, the Kenyan isn't "just a citizen" if he wasn't born into his citizen status by virtue of location of birth or parental status. He was a foreign national and would have had to have completed the naturalization process in order to become a citizen.

So, the question remains, is he a citizen by birthright? And if not, did he naturalize? Assuming the answer to the first question is 'no,' we know the answer to the second question is 'no.' Were it 'yes,' his handlers would have trotted the INS records out for the whole world to see. Much better than a forged birth certificate with photoshop edits embedded in the image, wouldn't you say? So we're back to the original question of whether or not the Kenyan can be considered a citizen by virtue of his birth location or the citizenship status of his parents.

Since legally and technically neither parent can claim birthright citizenship and/or legal status to convey birthright citizenship, the sole factor remaining in the Kenyan's favor is actually being born on U.S. soil.

The Kenyan is either all citizen or none at all. There aren't hierarchies of citizenship, just different paths. To date, he hasn't been able to provide evidence of any.

 

[scttnieman]

I was under the understanding that you had to be born on u.s. soil and both parents had to be citizens to run for president or arnold the govnator would be able to run for president cause im pretty sure he has u.s. citizenship

 

[dross]

I think there's more of a case that if he is proven to be ineligible that anything he signed as POTUS would become null and void? Besides, if there is enough to get him on any of the other multitude of atrocities, someone needs to push the issues and bring them to the forefront. Right now, this seems to be one of the few things to get brought to light.

Everything he's done would stand. He IS president. There's no provision in the Constitution for this. He was elected, he is president. To remove him requires impeachment.

 

[Slapstick]

Two problems with your 2nd paragraph. First, the Kenyan's mother didn't have citizen status conveyable to young Barry based on the law at the time.

Second, there isn't "just a citizen" status. There's birthright citizenship (what we call natural born) and naturalization citizenship. Birthright citizenship comes without action required on the part of the individual. Everybody else is a foreign national in the eyes of the law. The ONLY other way to attain citizen status is to become naturalized, which means jumping through a series of hoops of which there are sure to be records.

So, no, the Kenyan isn't "just a citizen" if he wasn't born into his citizen status by virtue of location of birth or parental status. He was a foreign national and would have had to have completed the naturalization process in order to become a citizen.

So, the question remains, is he a citizen by birthright? And if not, did he naturalize? Assuming the answer to the first question is 'no,' we know the answer to the second question is 'no.' Were it 'yes,' his handlers would have trotted the INS records out for the whole world to see. Much better than a forged birth certificate with photoshop edits embedded in the image, wouldn't you say? So we're back to the original question of whether or not the Kenyan can be considered a citizen by virtue of his birth location or the citizenship status of his parents.

Since legally and technically neither parent can claim birthright citizenship and/or legal status to convey birthright citizenship, the sole factor remaining in the Kenyan's favor is actually being born on U.S. soil.

The Kenyan is either all citizen or none at all. There aren't hierarchies of citizenship, just different paths. To date, he hasn't been able to provide evidence of any.

As I said meanings get twisted over time but Article II Sec 1 paragraph 5 of the US Constitution plainly states,

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

So the Constitution does differentiate between "natural born" citizen and just a citizen. Back when it was written "natural born" meant that both parents were citizens. Just like "regulated" meant equipped so the meaning of "a well regulated militia" meant well equipped not the meaning that is conveyed upon it today by the anti 2nd people.

The birth right status of citizenship came about in the 14 Amendment due the the freed slaves following the Civil war. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th doesn't address the "natural born" clause of the Constitution but does grant citizenship to those born here so again there are 2 types of citizenship.

Again as I said meanings get twisted and lost over time but it can be construed, when looking at the history of the period, it's pretty plain that they did not want a person as president who's allegiances may not be 100 % towards the United States as may be the case if one parent wasn't a citizen.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Everything he's done would stand. He IS president. There's no provision in the Constitution for this. He was elected, he is president. To remove him requires impeachment.

Hold on, Dross. There is not a Constitutional provision that addresses it, correct, but if he attained the office by fraudulent means, as we've described here in this thread, I would think that Chief Justice Roberts, in the process of the resultant trial following impeachment, could vacate any orders he's issued or any laws he's signed.

If he intentionally deceived the people of the United States in seeking an office for which he knew he was ineligible, I can't see how his actions could be upheld and allowed to remain in force, but I'd be interested in reading a theory on how it could happen.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Stschil]

Hold on, Dross. There is not a Constitutional provision that addresses it, correct, but if he attained the office by fraudulent means, as we've described here in this thread, I would think that Chief Justice Roberts, in the process of the resultant trial following impeachment, could vacate any orders he's issued or any laws he's signed.

If he intentionally deceived the people of the United States in seeking an office for which he knew he was ineligible, I can't see how his actions could be upheld and allowed to remain in force, but I'd be interested in reading a theory on how it could happen.

Blessings,
Bill

Hypothetically, SCOTUS could order the revisit of everything signed into law. I would think that the Court could require each and every one to be run through Congress to be discussed and voted on again, if they passed they could be sent to the Executive for signature or veto, just as any new bill would.

Executive orders, I would guess, would and should be vacated altogether.


Which brings up a question of appointees, Cabinet members, Federal officers, SCOTUS members......What happens to them, if it is determined that BHO is in fact not eligable to hold office?


Its a tangled mess to even think about. There is no easy way to turn back time on anything that has happened in the last three plus years.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I said meanings get twisted over time but Article II Sec 1 paragraph 5 of the US Constitution plainly states,

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

So the Constitution does differentiate between "natural born" citizen and just a citizen. Back when it was written "natural born" meant that both parents were citizens. Just like "regulated" meant equipped so the meaning of "a well regulated militia" meant well equipped not the meaning that is conveyed upon it today by the anti 2nd people.

The birth right status of citizenship came about in the 14 Amendment due the the freed slaves following the Civil war. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th doesn't address the "natural born" clause of the Constitution but does grant citizenship to those born here so again there are 2 types of citizenship.

Again as I said meanings get twisted and lost over time but it can be construed, when looking at the history of the period, it's pretty plain that they did not want a person as president who's allegiances may not be 100 % towards the United States as may be the case if one parent wasn't a citizen.

Disagree. In the quote you gave,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.", the Founders were making provision for a person to be able to be inaugurated as President at that time.

For someone to be a natural-born citizen of the united States, such person would have to be born in one of the several states. As they did not become states until the mid-1770s (prior to which they'd been colonies of Britain), a person would be a natural-born citizen if s/he was born, say, July 5, 1776. When the Constitution was written in the late 1780s, no person would be eligible to be President for another 20 years, due to the age limitation, without the "or" clause: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." That clause became a dead letter as soon as all people who were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died, and at this point in time, only a natural-born citizen is Constitutionally qualified to be President.

IANAL, IDPOOTV.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Slapstick]

Disagree. In the quote you gave,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.", the Founders were making provision for a person to be able to be inaugurated as President at that time.

For someone to be a natural-born citizen of the united States, such person would have to be born in one of the several states. As they did not become states until the mid-1770s (prior to which they'd been colonies of Britain), a person would be a natural-born citizen if s/he was born, say, July 5, 1776. When the Constitution was written in the late 1780s, no person would be eligible to be President for another 20 years, due to the age limitation, without the "or" clause: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." That clause became a dead letter as soon as all people who were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died, and at this point in time, only a natural-born citizen is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Another interesting point, back then if a child was born where each parent had a different citizenship the custom was that the child's citizenship was that of the father.

IANAL, IDPOOTV.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill,

Not sure what you're disagreeing with, I think we both said the same thing. The only point that may be in contention is what does "Natural Born" mean and back then it meant both parents were citizens. Added: Back when the Constitution was written citizenship was convey based on the citizenship of the parents. Travel took a long time so if a child was born of British parents in Africa he was still considered a "natural born" British citizen.

 

[Slapstick]

One other kind of interesting point . Back then if a child was born of parents with differing citizenships the custom was that the child's citizenship was that of the fathers.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hypothetically, SCOTUS could order the revisit of everything signed into law. I would think that the Court could require each and every one to be run through Congress to be discussed and voted on again, if they passed they could be sent to the Executive for signature or veto, just as any new bill would.

Executive orders, I would guess, would and should be vacated altogether.


Which brings up a question of appointees, Cabinet members, Federal officers, SCOTUS members......What happens to them, if it is determined that BHO is in fact not eligable to hold office?


Its a tangled mess to even think about. There is no easy way to turn back time on anything that has happened in the last three plus years.

Correct. This also ignores any and all of the businesses that either left the country or went under due to the government policies.

If BHO was found ineligible, Biden would be equally so, as he was selected by Barry. Next in line of succession to the big chair would be Mr. Boehner. All of the others in the order of succession are Democrats.

Hope that helps!

IANAL

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

Not sure what you're disagreeing with, I think we both said the same thing. The only point that may be in contention is what does "Natural Born" mean and back then it meant both parents were citizens. Added: Back when the Constitution was written citizenship was convey based on the citizenship of the parents. Travel took a long time so if a child was born of British parents in Africa he was still considered a "natural born" British citizen.

I was disagreeing with what looked to be your point, that there was a difference in types of citizenship. As I read it, when the last one died that was alive when the Constitution was adopted, one was either a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. As 88GT was saying, there was no "just a citizen" after that happened. If that was not your point, I guess I missed what you were saying.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Slapstick]

I was disagreeing with what looked to be your point, that there was a difference in types of citizenship. As I read it, when the last one died that was alive when the Constitution was adopted, one was either a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. As 88GT was saying, there was no "just a citizen" after that happened. If that was not your point, I guess I missed what you were saying.

Blessings,
Bill

Actually I think the answer is both yes and no. When the Constitution was written there were 2 types of citizens, those naturalized by virtue of being here at the time of the founding and those that were born here of both parents who were citizens. It's a subtle distinction but very important to the GA lawsuit.

The 14th Amendment clarified what a citizen was and their rights but did not clarify what a "Natural born Citizen" actually meant and no Superior Court ruling to date has clarified what it meant. Again, at the time of the writing of the Constitution it meant that both parents were citizens.

With that in mind the only difference between a "Natural Born Citizen" and a Citizen is the right to be President or Vice-President. The natural born citizen clause is just a requirement for being President like being 35 or older is. Since Obama's father was never a US citizen then, according to the Constitution as written at the time, he has no right to be President. That is one of the main points of the GA lawsuit as I understand it.

 

[dross]

Actually I think the answer is both yes and no. When the Constitution was written there were 2 types of citizens, those naturalized by virtue of being here at the time of the founding and those that were born here of both parents who were citizens. It's a subtle distinction but very important to the GA lawsuit.

The 14th Amendment clarified what a citizen was and their rights but did not clarify what a "Natural born Citizen" actually meant and no Superior Court ruling to date has clarified what it meant. Again, at the time of the writing of the Constitution it meant that both parents were citizens.

With that in mind the only difference between a "Natural Born Citizen" and a Citizen is the right to be President or Vice-President. The natural born citizen clause is just a requirement for being President like being 35 or older is. Since Obama's father was never a US citizen then, according to the Constitution as written at the time, he has no right to be President. That is one of the main points of the GA lawsuit as I understand it.

Where does the "both parents" part occur in the Constitution? The original Constitution says natural-born, but it doesn't define it. I believe they assumed everyone would understand the meaning. Also, I think the states would have set their own rules for citizenship, and any citizen of any state would also be a citizen of the United States. The only extra requirements are for the various federal offices.

My understanding is that the "both parents" requirement is a law passed by Congress. I'm not sure about this, but that's my understanding.

Of course, if Obama was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, he'd be eligible. So maybe he has another justification.

 

[dross]

Hold on, Dross. There is not a Constitutional provision that addresses it, correct, but if he attained the office by fraudulent means, as we've described here in this thread, I would think that Chief Justice Roberts, in the process of the resultant trial following impeachment, could vacate any orders he's issued or any laws he's signed.

If he intentionally deceived the people of the United States in seeking an office for which he knew he was ineligible, I can't see how his actions could be upheld and allowed to remain in force, but I'd be interested in reading a theory on how it could happen.

Blessings,
Bill

It's a difficult logical process to follow, I admit, but once I got it, it seems to me to be ironclad.

It boils down to there being no other way to do this. Follow:

Accusation: I have here a birth certificate that shows you were born in Kenya, eyewitnesses testifying to it, and video of your birth with the Kenyan long distance running team training in the background with lions. You were born in Kenya, Mr. Obama.
Obama: Was not.
Accusation: Was too! I have proof.
Obama: Oh yeah!? Whatcha' gonna do about it?

What can be done? In our system no fact is a legal fact until it's proved in court. But you can't take the President to court. The ONLY way you can remove a President is through impeachment. There's no way the Supreme Court could get involved, they are not triers of fact, only of law.

So, he'd have to be impeached. If it wasn't politically feasible, it dies right there. But let's say he's impeached, convicted, and removed. Now what?

I'm quite sure someone would make the argument you've made, and take this to court. So it ends up in front of the Supreme Court. What do they do?

They know they're on untraveled ground. They can do pretty much whatever they want. Congress hasn't passed a law that covers this situation, and such a law would be in constitutional dispute as well.

Knowing there's no precedent, knowing that the Constitution didn't address this specifically, and knowing that huge, awesome, monstrous consequences will result from their decision, they can only do the prudent thing, which is to let all actions stand. To do otherwise throws the U.S. into legal chaos for the next fifty years before this is sorted out. Do you realize how long the legal battles would last and how many there would be? Everything, literally everything that had been done in the last three years and all the implications stretching out forever would be in dispute. Every action taken by the the executive branch would be in question. And it's not as simple as just pulling out the backup tapes from 2007 and reloading. The implications would be so complex, our grandchildren would still be filing lawsuits.

They Supremes would hold that his actions stand. They would have to. You'd better hope they would. It would ruin our country if they didn't.

 

[88GT]

So the Constitution does differentiate between "natural born" citizen and just a citizen. Back when it was written "natural born" meant that both parents were citizens. Just like "regulated" meant equipped so the meaning of "a well regulated militia" meant well equipped not the meaning that is conveyed upon it today by the anti 2nd people.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between classes of citizenship. The distinction you are attempting to create is about the path to citizenship. U.S. citizenship is identical for the one who has it via his birthright and the one who has it via naturalization process.

Regardless, as it relates to the Obama, if he is not a natural born citizen (and the meaning hasn't changed that much), then his only other means of being a citizen is to become naturalized. This he has not done. So if he is NOT a natural born citizen--and this is 100% contingent on his location of birth per the laws at the time of his birth)--then he is NOT a U.S. citizen at all because he never naturalized.

The birth right status of citizenship came about in the 14 Amendment due the the freed slaves following the Civil war. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No, birthright status "came about" well before the authors of the Constitution dipped their feather quill in the ink well. Birthright citizenship is as old as the Romans at least. The 14th Amendment merely set to rest the question of blacks citizenship status by affirming that all persons born in the U.S. were in fact U.S. citizens regardless of skin color.

The 14th doesn't address the "natural born" clause of the Constitution but does grant citizenship to those born here so again there are 2 types of citizenship.

I see what you're saying, but it's not technically correct. There aren't two types of citizens. There are two paths toward citizenship.

Again as I said meanings get twisted and lost over time but it can be construed, when looking at the history of the period, it's pretty plain that they did not want a person as president who's allegiances may not be 100 % towards the United States as may be the case if one parent wasn't a citizen.

Never said otherwise, but it's moot. I figure a greater percentage of the naturalized citizens are better patriots than the natural born ones.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's a difficult logical process to follow, I admit, but once I got it, it seems to me to be ironclad.

It boils down to there being no other way to do this. Follow:

Accusation: I have here a birth certificate that shows you were born in Kenya, eyewitnesses testifying to it, and video of your birth with the Kenyan long distance running team training in the background with lions. You were born in Kenya, Mr. Obama.
Obama: Was not.
Accusation: Was too! I have proof.
Obama: Oh yeah!? Whatcha' gonna do about it?

What can be done? In our system no fact is a legal fact until it's proved in court. But you can't take the President to court. The ONLY way you can remove a President is through impeachment. There's no way the Supreme Court could get involved, they are not triers of fact, only of law.

So, he'd have to be impeached. If it wasn't politically feasible, it dies right there. But let's say he's impeached, convicted, and removed. Now what?

I'm quite sure someone would make the argument you've made, and take this to court. So it ends up in front of the Supreme Court. What do they do?

They know they're on untraveled ground. They can do pretty much whatever they want. Congress hasn't passed a law that covers this situation, and such a law would be in constitutional dispute as well.

Knowing there's no precedent, knowing that the Constitution didn't address this specifically, and knowing that huge, awesome, monstrous consequences will result from their decision, they can only do the prudent thing, which is to let all actions stand. To do otherwise throws the U.S. into legal chaos for the next fifty years before this is sorted out. Do you realize how long the legal battles would last and how many there would be? Everything, literally everything that had been done in the last three years and all the implications stretching out forever would be in dispute. Every action taken by the the executive branch would be in question. And it's not as simple as just pulling out the backup tapes from 2007 and reloading. The implications would be so complex, our grandchildren would still be filing lawsuits.

They Supremes would hold that his actions stand. They would have to. You'd better hope they would. It would ruin our country if they didn't.

I see where you're going with this. The part you might have missed because I wasn't very clear in my explanation is that if he is impeached by the House and the Senate hears his trial in the role of "jury", the CJ presides over that trial. When it's determined that he is not, in fact, eligible to hold the office in the first place, all of his orders and actions are invalid due to that ineligibility.

It wouldn't be the full Court, just Roberts. Roberts is a Constitutionalist, and while there would be repercussions, I think he would reverse everything he could reverse, i.e. executive orders and "big" legislation, like Obamacare, that's already been ruled unConstitutional at least in part, by lower courts.

What it comes down to is, as you said, this would be a case of first impression: We don't know what would happen, we can only speculate. Given that, knowing he would be setting precedent, I can't see CJ Roberts intentionally ignoring unConstitutionality in favor of expediency, political or otherwise.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

I see where you're going with this. The part you might have missed because I wasn't very clear in my explanation is that if he is impeached by the House and the Senate hears his trial in the role of "jury", the CJ presides over that trial. When it's determined that he is not, in fact, eligible to hold the office in the first place, all of his orders and actions are invalid due to that ineligibility.

It wouldn't be the full Court, just Roberts. Roberts is a Constitutionalist, and while there would be repercussions, I think he would reverse everything he could reverse, i.e. executive orders and "big" legislation, like Obamacare, that's already been ruled unConstitutional at least in part, by lower courts.

What it comes down to is, as you said, this would be a case of first impression: We don't know what would happen, we can only speculate. Given that, knowing he would be setting precedent, I can't see CJ Roberts intentionally ignoring unConstitutionality in favor of expediency, political or otherwise.



Blessings,
Bill

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

Just know that my speculation is WAAAY bigger than yours.

 

[mrjarrell]

All the discussion in the world won't change the decision that was just handed down by the court. Case dismissed. The plaintiffs have no case and no evidence and there is no law to support their claims. Time to move on from nonsense and address the real issues that he might be guilty of.

Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate  | ajc.com

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama - Judge Malihi Final Decision - Georgia Ballot Challenge - 2/3/2012