Obama Eligibility Court Case - Blow by Blow

I read Leo's argument here as recomended and I find it VERY compelling.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-h...

The issue is WE ALL KNOW that the intent of the Constitution or even some Supreme Court Rulings do not always align with what is generally accepted as law.

Leo makes a good case for his opinion on Minor v. Happersett but the fact is... his opinion is NOT accepted as law today. Nearly every lower court AND every academic "expert" opinion does not subscribe to his idea. It would take a NEW SCOTUS ruling to cement because even if a lower court sides with him it will be appealed and of course this is where it could get interesting.

MY question is, what do you all expect to get out of this? Keeping Obama off the ballot? Impeachment? Trying to reverse years of legislation (fat chance)....

Let's say you get what you want and Obama is removed from office in what will be portrayed as a "gotch ya" supreme court ruling handed down from a very unpopular supreme court (if this is even possible…). I just don't see this ending well and see it as distracting from the issues and arguments Obama’s replacement would still be pushing for.

join the challenge.

"But the biggest news is that one of the states seeking justice and proof of eligibility, beyond Nancy Pelosi's certification is ILLINOIS. A State that knows too well Obama's lack of accomplishments since he served as an Illinois Senator but the majority of his service was cloaked with Present votes. A vote to record one's presence in the senate, but abstinence of any real stance."

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/four-new-states-join-g...

So who do you think he would be MORE LOYAL too?

This is an odd story. I ended up on a blog called USA-We The People reading an article titled Mitt Romney is NOT a natural born citizen! (The author who calls himself “clinicalthinker” — and don’t think I’m going to touch that one — had apparently been over here and posted a couple of dismissive and insulting remarks.) CT’s theory is that George Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico (that much is true) but that his parents had given up their US citizenship. If George wasn’t a US citizen, then Mitt couldn’t be a natural born citizen, no matter that we was born in the US according to the birther version of the US Constitution written by Emerich de Vattel.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/is-mitt-romney-next/

Because Democrats for years have swept the whole thing under the rug.

I remember when the whole question of his birth certificate came up. I read about how he was resisting the idea of producing a long form. I know all the details now about of course - but everything seemed so fishy.

When he finally DID produce a long form (a doctored one to be sure) the Democrats and the establishment controlled press (controlled by the Democrat/Republican, "Incumbant Party" who has their hand in the puppet) seemed far to quick dismiss the entire issue as if it was solved and to dismiss "birthers" as being a few pancakes short of a stack.

But even if he was BORN in Hawaii - NOBODY was even arguing that he was born to two citizens, because he clearly wasn't. And the Constitution calls for a level above simply being a citizen. And when I would bring this up in online forums people were completely unaware and would simply argue that he was a citizen.

It HAS been swept under the rug - but the fact is that Obama needs to have been born to two people who were citizens at the time and oc course his father was NEVER a citizen.

Obama nad his lawyers have to act as if this is not important and to hope it will simply go away because once the public realizes that were AREN'T simply talking about a birth certificate now or WHERE he was born - this will cause a Constitutional crisis - and very appropriately I might add.

Obama is NOT qualified to be president and most intelligent and aware people KNOW that.

IMO, the issue before the Court is if Obama can be on the Georgia ballet.

Try being objective here.

This is the CURRENT legal precedent and will be until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

In citing Minor v. Happersett the attorneys here are ignoring part of the Justices’ comments on natural born citizenship.

In Minor v. Happersett we have essentially TWO classes of natural born citizenship recognized with different degrees of certainty.

The decision reads as follows:

"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.”

This reads that the FIRST classification of natural born citizenship is someone born here with BOTH parents as US citizens. There is NO question that this is natural born citizenship according to the decision.

Let’s continue reading:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

This refers to the SECOND classification of natural born citizenship being those born here REGARDLESS of parents. Some people doubt this definition and it has not been resolved in the courts to this point in time.

Let’s finish reading:

“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

This means the justices in THIS CASE are NOT ADDRESSING whether or not the second classification IS OR IS NOT for certain natural born.

Now it’s very possible Obama is not a proper citizen for various reasons, but this case is not one of them. Also, for the purpose of Dr. Paul, he should, will, and has stayed away from the birther movement until indisputable evidence indicates otherwise. So far we do not have this.

If Obama loses this case it will be simply because he had no representation and ignored the court. It will have nothing to do with the evidence. All of this is going to do nothing but rally the Obama base against the “Racist Southern GOP” as they will play it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088...