Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

If you're going to attack a poster, at least quote relevant legislation:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

You're quote is not applicable in this matter. Obama's dad was a British Citizen, not a US Citizen (at least this is one of the claims being made to the SC).

Children of non-US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens, even if they are born on US Soil.

With respect to your mean spirited "you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe" comment, perhaps you are projecting, especially given your inappropriate interpretation of above legislation.

P.S. You know, I really wanted to bow-out of this thread, but I'm not going to sit back and be demeaned, especially when those doing the demeaning are either disrespectful of the Constitution, irrespective of its age, or are unable to appropriate interpret and apply the relevant legal precedents.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

[DemonD]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

From Wiki:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Per the petitioner, the relevant facts are found in the highlight portion of this statement. As Barak's father was NOT a US Citizen at the time of Barak's birth, it is claimed that Barak is not a Natural Born Citizen.

This is my understanding as explained by the lawyer filing the case. Obama's birth certificate is not relevant, per his claims.

I'm going to bow-out of this thread and wait to hear how the US SC rules on this matter. I was intrigued about this case when I first learned of it this week and thought that this is something the forum members at iTulip would want to be made aware of. We can all speculate about this matter until we are blue-in-the-face, but it is in the hands of the SC Justices now. I sincerely hope this doesn't end in another Constitutional crisis.

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC ?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now ?
You really think there is no agenda there ?
Either you're naive or punctilious.
Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.
You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now?

Better to address the matter now than have it affect the legitimacy of President's next term.

You really think there is no agenda there ?

I don't have enough information to know yet, but most likely there is an agenda that we do not yet see.

Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.

As said above, this should rectify issues of doubt before the electors meet on Dec 15. By the way, the electors are bound to uphold the US Constitution, so the Supreme Court's decision should bind their actions.

You people must have gone mad

Quite frankly, i think those are mad who think that the new President, whether it be Obama or McCain will: (i) significantly alter the course that this nation is on, or (ii) represent the will of the people.

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthri...tes_of_America

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

As I understand it US Citizenship is a different issue and not relevant to the requirements for becoming President. What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth. Hopefully, we will get clarification for the US Supreme Court after this matter is heard on the 5th.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

28.jpg

http://fightthesmears.com/behind_the_smears

[we_are_toast]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

This is a demonstration of how the right wing thinks. Let's reinterpret the constitution so we can bastardize the democratic process and keep a hold on power. No wonder they torture people and hold them without trial.

If people born in the United States are not natural born citizens, who is?


14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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.

[BrianL]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthri...tes_of_America

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Fyi...it was SC Justice Thomas (an African American) who chose to Conference the case.




The SC Justices could have easily refused to Conference this case if they felt it was frivolous.


Fyi...more from the petitioner's website about the merits of his claim:



I find this to be an interesting Constitutional issue that has never been litigated...... Natural Born Citizenship has not been previously challenged at the SC. To simply scoff at the matter is to dismiss the significance of Constitutional interpretation. Perhaps the SCJ's will dismiss the matter at the Conference, but the matter has merit and should be heard and decided appropriately, within the framework of our Constitutional government.

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC ?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now ?
You really think there is no agenda there ?
Either you're naive or punctilious.
Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.
You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Window dressing. :mad:
Plain racism masqueraded in a "balanced" claim.
Lucifer is in the details.

Fyi...it was SC Justice Thomas (an African American) who chose to Conference the case.

A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

The SC Justices could have easily refused to Conference this case if they felt it was frivolous.


Fyi...more from the petitioner's website about the merits of his claim:

Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;


The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

I find this to be an interesting Constitutional issue that has never been litigated...... Natural Born Citizenship has not been previously challenged at the SC. To simply scoff at the matter is to dismiss the significance of Constitutional interpretation. Perhaps the SCJ's will dismiss the matter at the Conference, but the matter has merit and should be heard and decided appropriately, within the framework of our Constitutional government.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

I propose Mr. Donofrio shall be heavily fined for wasting people's and state money in a time when it's much needed elsewhere.
"They're rednecks, rednecks, they don't know their *** from a whole in the ground."
Lovely song… very up to date.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

Over/under on the length of the conference: 15 seconds

[Tulpen]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

A big waste of time and money for this obviously frivolous case.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You contradicted yourself here, one has to be a Natural Born Citizen to become President of the USA, per the US Constitution. There are many ways to become a citizen of the U.S., but only one way to become a Natural Born Citizen.

The case claims that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a subject of the British Monarchy at the time of Obama's birth, making Obama a British subject. Obama's place of birth is irrelevant in this case, per the petitioner's claims.



The case filed by the petitioner is actually against the NJ Secretary of State for including 3 ineligible candidates on the ballot, including Obama, McCain and a minor 3rd Party candidate. All, per the petitioner claims, are NOT Natural Born Citizens of the USA.

Window dressing. :mad:
Plain racism masqueraded in a "balanced" claim.
Lucifer is in the details.

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

This story is being reported in left blogs also.

The Court needs to hear the case to laugh it out of court and finally put and end to all this right wing B.S. Clearly, as Bush has shown, the Right Wing simply does not believe in nor understand the principles of Democracy.

But... the speculation of what would happen if the Court did the unthinkable again, can lead to unthinkable consequences.

While I don't want to appear naive here, it may not be a left-right issue, as the Supreme Court's ruling could simultaneously affect the standing of McCain as well as Obama, as the Petitioner claims that neither candidate meets the Constitutional test of Natural Born Citizen.