| |
  
|
||||||||||
Constitutional Challenge WE Must Not Ignore
Submitted by DotComWhatDotCom on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 15:19
Please take a few moments to examine this article http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28... and offer any feedback you feel is feasible to help prevent such an catastrophic event from undermining our constitution. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
April 10, 2008 Resolution re Natural Born Citizen
Note who present the resolution, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Something has been set up here and I am not sure what it is. Mr Obama had a hand in the bold print that was inserted. Why are these two helping McCain. And why was Mr. Obama not also resolved to be a natural born citizen at the same time??? IS the BOLD INSERT his COVER, His LOOPHOLE ?
*****************************************************************************************
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
←→
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511&...
All
the people who ran for president have standing in the court room. alan Keeys has standing. I believe you have standing if you were harmed.
I think that you will find the court ruling against Keyes
Alan Keyes could not as a candidate command Obama to produce a birth certificate any more than you or I could, so he cannot get a court to force Obama to do what he does not himself have a right to do.
It would take someone who was in an office who had a duty and the power to command Obama to produce his birth certificate, and so far none of these have come forward with such a legal demand. The Berg and Keyes suits were doomed from the start. If they wanted to do something, they should have sued their Secretaries of State to force them to do their jobs.
I am satisfied from what I have seen on the internet alone that Obama was born in Hawaii on 8-4-61 (Friday in the evening), with the certificate of birth filed with the Hawaii Department of Health on 8-8-61 (the next Tuesday), and that the Hawaii Department of Health provided the newspapers with a list of births, deaths, and marriages for the week ending 8-11-61 (Friday, one week after Obama's birth). The Sunday paper 8-13-61 contained the announcement of Obama's 8-4-61 birth along with other children born that week, which publication could only have happened from the official list from the Health Department. Additionally an official of the Department of Health has recently confirmed that the birth records on file agree with the Certification of Live Birth.
So if Obama is required to produce the original records, he wins cause they will prove that he was born in Hawaii. His mother was not yet 18 when she was knocked up by Obama, Sr. She was married the following February and Obama was born while she was 18. What would have been the point of any intrigue in registering his birth with false information?
Again, the real issue is that Obama was not natural born because natural born comes from a US father. He is not even a 14th amendment citizen because of the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th amendment, which phrase everyone seems to conveniently ignore, perhaps because they don't have a clue what it means. He is a citizen by operation of Congressional law only, which makes him naturalized, not natural born. To even be a 14th amendment citizen, he would need to have both been born in the US and not be subject to the jurisdiction of another country as he was because of the laws of Great Britain which governed his father and which gave Obama British citizenship at birth whether he wanted it or not. He was not natural born because to be natural born your US citizenship must come naturally from your father, just the same as your last name does and your rights of inheritance do.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Please look at the real issue and quit this misdirection
This birth certificate issue is meaningless. You are just confusing the real issue by focusing on this and you will lose, because you must have standing to get a court to force him to publish his birth records, and only certain election officials might have standing, but not you as a citizen. And it is so, so very clear that his Certificate of Live Birth shows born in Hawaii Friday, 8-4-61, with the certificate being registered the next Tuesday 8-8-61 with the Hawaii Department of Health, and the Hawaii Department of Health having also provided the local newspapers with a list that week of births, deaths, and marriages, which was then published 8-13-61 showing Obama's birth as 8-4-61.
What matters is how Obama got his US citizenship. He had to get it by being natural born to qualify under Article II, Section 1. If he got it by any act passed by Congress, he is not natural born. He cannot rely on the 14th amendment because that deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
Read this very recently posted analysis and read it carefully so you will understand the real issue:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_define...
The article concludes that natural born means that you got your citizenship from birth to a US citizen father, no matter how that father got his citizenship.
Some people point to the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to someone born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the US. According to the Congressman who wrote the 14th amendment, subject to the jurisdiction means "not owing allegiance to anybody else." So Obama is not only not natural born, but he is not even a 14th amendment citizen, being born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain. He obtained his citizenship by virtue of a law passed by Congress, not a Constitutional provision or amendment, so he is a naturalized citizen, not even a 14th amendment citizen nor a natural born citizen.
On December 5, the US Supreme Court will have a conference to determine if they will accept the appeal of Leo Donofrio's suit against the Secretary of State of New Jersey to stay the election because McCain and Obama were both born with foreign citizenship. If the Court is intellectually honest, they will accept the case and then find against Obama and McCain, but this is a highly charged issue politically, so who knows what they will do. Note that the election is not over until the electoral college meets and selects the President.
For any Constitutional patriot, however, Obama cannot be recognized as President.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
That blog is in error
Natural-born citizenship is based on where you're born, a.k.a. jus soli, not whom you were born to, a.k.a. jus sanguinis. Jus sanguinis is only incorporated into U.S. citizenship through legislation, a.k.a lex soli, and the only type of citizenship that can be determined that way is naturalization.
I have documented that clearly in the archives here from February regarding McCain.
How carefully did you read that blog
If it were based on where you were born, then why would the Founding fathers grandfathered themselves in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? They were born in the Colonies, where they not, but they were born as British citizens to British citizens.
I really don't think you could have carefully read the blog and make the statement you making; it is you who are in error. I think you might be relying on a State Department document which is interpreting Congressional passed laws which deal with naturalization.
Try this for further understanding:
In print and widely read by the Framers and the citizens of this land at the time was a writing by Emmerich de Vattel, (1758) entitled "The Laws of Nations". In Vattel's work he defined Natural Citizen or Native as:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
A suit is being brought by the
United States Justice Foundation.
Check it out: http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ar...
The person in whose name the suit is being brought is former candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes. How can they say he has no standing?
Even this guy
doesn't believe that he can produce a docuement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0