Oh hai Poodlelover! I see you're somewhat new here, so you may have missed the multiple Tickers penned by our host on this very subject. Feel free to read them and reconsider your statements. Kthxbai.

Sdbn: EXACTLY

Where is this "Rule of Law" you talk about?

I'll grant that the absolute, unequivocal answer, which only the supreme court can deliver, remains elusive.

I would be extremely surprised if this ever came to the SCOTUS and their decision was that there are now three grades of citizenship: naturalized, born-here-but-to-two-immigrants, and born-here-to-at-least-one-existing-citizen. I also don't think it would serve the country in a positive manner.

Poodlelover wrote..

Are we seriously going to ask for birth certs every time a non-white runs for office? Is his place of birth really in question?

Race has nothing to do with it as Obama's ineligibility involves a parent who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Obama's place of birth doesn't even enter into it because his non-U.S. citizen parent already renders him ineligible.

And by the way, a person of any race can be a non-U.S. citizen. This isn't a racial issue; it's a Constitutional issue. Not sure why you don't understand that.

For those of you acutely aware of this issue and the attempts to bring this topic to the courts, Mr. Leo Donofrio was one of the early attorneys attempting to prevent the nomination (through a suit in New Jersey) of Mr. Obama (also via an appeal to the US Supreme Court).

In looking back over materials that I have saved on this topic, I ran across an old blog posting of Leo's after he went to DC to file an emergency stay with the US Supreme Court to halt the Presidential Election until the issue of the eligibility of both candidates could be reviewed and resolved by the Supreme Court. I would simply post a link to the blog entry, but the blog site was hacked by someone and Leo had to start a new blog site (luckily, I saved many of his early blog entries before the site was hacked - the old site was: http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen.o.... if anyone knows of a way via TimeMachine or otherwise, to find it), so here is the blog story from Leo about his adventure in going to DC to file the emergency stay . . . . I have no way to independently verify if parts of this story are true (I do know that Leo was feeling tremendous pressure and I'm sure was paranoid as all get out), but it would make for a great chapter in a future Tom Clancy novel (here is Leo's account of that day - it's a little long, but crazy if it really went down like this):

P.S. In Leo's story, he reference a SCOTUS clerk attempting to summarily deny his emergency stay petition. According to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, the Clerk is demanded to "transmit it promptly" to the Justice it is addressed to. The Clerk -- Mr. Danny Bickell -- made assurance that the application would be given to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter that night, it was not transmitted promptly. In fact, it was not transmitted at all after Mr. Bickell, having made an illegal and improper substantive judgment of law, thereby denied the application on his own volition.

The emergency stay application was eventually submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter, Two days AFTER the general election, on November 6, after Clerk Bickell was forced to concede that his denial had been improper.

__________________________________________
TRUE STORY
On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. I took a Greyhound bus from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. because I was afraid to use Amtrak where I would have had to present ID for a ticket. I took that bus to the Greyhound station in Washington DC and walked from there to Union Station.

I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. As you all know, the SCOTUS rules were not followed when a clerk tried to overrule the SCOTUS precedent from McCarthy v. Briscoe.

I had previously felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS.

In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008… my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008.

On the Greyhound bus to DC, I had made a plan to pay for a tourist trolley ticket to take me one stop from Union Station to SCOTUS. I figured I would be safer blending in with tourists rather than being alone.

Before leaving for DC the night before, I died my hair blond, shaved, put on rock and roll clothes and stuffed the copies of my application in a hole through the pockets of my jacket which hid the documents in my back.

I looked nothing like the attorney who had been in the Hughes Justice complex all week in New Jersey.

But I made one mistake.

I had my electronic passport in my sneaker. I walked into Union Station to purchase a $35 trolley ticket and probably set off an RFID tracker.

I waited outside of Union Station for the trolley. At approximately 2:45 PM, just after I had purchased my ticket inside the station, I was sitting next to a white homeless man with a grey beard in his 50’s. He had two shopping carts full of clothes, food, radio etc., apparently his life possessions. We were the only two people sitting on this stone circle just outside the station. Suddenly, the homeless man starts gibbering some kind of weird code. He sounded like this,

“Echo one four two seven, target is in the building, repeat target is in the building…”

Then he paused and I looked up and a big SUV had pulled up right next to us, and two BIG mofos in yellow gold shirts got out of the SUV, opened the back door and started putting on body armor and packing mega heat… all the while they are scouring the area for the “target”.

The homeless man is talking to them through a device in his battered shirtsleeve,

“No point in wasting time, I want to get paid for this, target is in the building… Ok, but I thought you might want to just get the target, repeat — target is in the building, target is in the building. Stop wasting time out here.”

He was mixing in code talk with things I could understand.

Finally, these Blackwater types in yellow who had no badges or official insignia head into Union Station carrying full weapons.

I’m having a heart attack. They looked straight at me at least twice but I looked like such a clown. If they were looking for the brown haired bearded intellectual looking lawyer guy who was in court that week there’s no way they would recognize me with shocking platinum hair in my face, a dayglo blue jacket, flared jeans and trainers.

I am a chameleon.

I also had no visible paperwork with me. It was in the back of my jacket and my back was pressed against the stone circle.

When they entered Union Station, the homeless guy turns towards me and hits a button on his cell device and suddenly he’s on speakerphone. The conversation is between him and some woman wherein he’s trying to get confirmation that his payment has been credited to his account. He gives me a sly look, and with that my trolley comes.

I get on the trolley and open my tourist brochure to cover my face. Then I have to sit there for five excruciating minutes while various people discuss with the driver whether they should take the tour tonight or tomorrow. Honestly folks, I thought right then and there, “Your life ain’t worth ****, Leo. You are a walking dead man.”

When I finally got to the steps of SCOTUS, I was prepared to have my head blown off walking up those steps. I was a ***** mess. Seriously. The paranoia was so intense. I even asked for official protection.

I don’t know if they were just trying to scare me, really meant to take me down, or if it was all a coincidence. I’m sure there’s a video tape of it somehwhere. This is 100% true.

After the case was filed, I was followed for weeks. I had choppers over my home every night for hours. It was the typical black helicopter story in spades. But my whole family witnessed the choppers night after night.

The cult knew my case was strong. And it eventually got on every major news network and brought the one issue they had kept silent to the forefront of the nation — the fact that Obama was a dual citizen at birth.

OK, so now he’s POTUS. Many people voted for him. The messiah vibe is an archetype people are prone to fall for. But Obama is not the Messiah. (And if they try to make him one, the “Obama Has A Twin” song will be a number 1 hit througout the land. Just kidding.)

There’s not going to be a one world religion.

It will never be allowed by the one true God. He doesn’t mind the diversity of truly pious people. He loves us all.

I worship Jesus, but I don’t believe Jesus will condemn those who don’t worship him as long as they are pious good people who follow the number one teaching. Love one another. Love your enemies.

Good luck, Obama. If you’re going to change something, then change the cult. You aint “the One”, but try to be a good President. The standard for being a good President isn’t very high.
Word Up.

Beware of charlatans.

Much love to all. And I mean all.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. Currently admitted to practice law in New Jersey and in Federal District Court.

Poodlelover wrote..

I'll grant that the absolute, unequivocal answer, which only the supreme court can deliver, remains elusive.

How so? 'Natural born citizen' is defined in SCOTUS's Minor v. Happersett decision.

As I've repeatedly pointed out I cannot reasonably assure someone that I, personally could run for President, since I cannot trace the lineage of my birth parents.

I can prove WHERE I was born, but not to whom, and that's important.

So I'm a citizen (for sure) but I cannot give legally-sufficient assurance that I'm a natural born citizen.

I accept this. It is what it is. I don't whine about it, it's part of who I am and it's ok. If I ever wanted to run for President then I would seek to change the Constitution first, which is the right way to do things under the rule of law.

Quote:

a non-white

Ah, there it is. Couldn't resist could you? And on only your 10th post. Don't feel bad, you still outlasted most others arguing that side.

The race card ain't gonna work this time. Everyone has read Saul Alinsky by now.

Are bananas grown in Hawaii and/or Florida? I can think of little more lame than being a full-blown banana republic that cannot even grow bananas.

Maybe we could financialize the theoretical bananas we could grow, bundle and sell them to fruit minded investors.

Poodlelover wrote..

I also don't think it would serve the country in a positive manner.

A president born with conflicting allegiances would definitely have the potential to cause problems for the country, some severe. That's why the Framers prevented that possibility by requiring POTUS to be a natural born citizen.

Read this to understand just some of the problems resulting from being born with automatic dual or multiple nationality (as Obama admittedly was):
travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

The "two-citizen parent" requirement is Imaginary Law. The issue was decided in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case was cited extensively in a 2009 Indiana case, Ankeny v. Governor, to wit:

The Birthers argued:

“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

To which the Indiana court said:

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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

That is The REAL Law, as opposed to the Birther's IMAGINARY Law. As far as Minot v. Happersett being "precedent" as to defining natural born citizenship, the very idea is laughable to anyone who can read and comprehend simple sentences written in English. Court after court rejects the notion, and if you want one recent example, then simply refer to the recent Tisdale case from Virginia:

The Federal Judge slapped the suit down holding:

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

That is one of at least 4 or 5 cases this year alone which chunked the two citizen parent nonsense out the door.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Squeeky wrote..

The "two-citizen parent" requirement is Imaginary Law. The issue was decided in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case.

Really? Where does the Wong Kim Ark decision define "natural born citizen?" All I see is a definition of who the U.K. considers to be "natural-born subjects." U.S. citizens are not subjects. The DoI makes that distinction clear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....

The only SCOTUS decision that defines Constitutional "natural born citizen" is Minor v. Happersett.

Quote:

“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

Citizen. Citizen. ...NOT natural born citizen.

Why are you making the mistake of conflating the two? They are not the same as evidenced by the two different terminologies used in The Constitution.

Correct.

But Squeek is trying to get DQd in this thread.... and succeeded.

Squeek,
You may be DQ'ed - but since you can still read these comments, if you really are a *cough-cough* "reporter", then hopefully you will do a little "research" and not disregard those pesky little things called history and facts.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/....

To quote the article . . . "The lack of historical analysis evident in every judicial opinion which has discussed Obama’s eligibility is staggering. If you compare Judge Malihi’s recent opinion in Georgia, and the Ankeny case from Indiana, to important citizenship decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, it becomes clear what separates the men from the boys. In a word; research."

Quote:

"The lack of historical analysis evident in every judicial opinion which has discussed Obama’s eligibility is staggering. If you compare Judge Malihi’s recent opinion in Georgia, and the Ankeny case from Indiana, to important citizenship decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, it becomes clear what separates the men from the boys. In a word; research."

Exactly. Research the actual historical documents. Obama is not eligible, having been born a dual/multi-national to a non-U.S. citizen. Rubio is also ineligible for the same reason.

I hope to God that this does not increase Condi Rice's chances.

I'm still trying to get a handle around all this.

Where exactly in the Minor v. Happersett ruling is a "natural born citizen" defined? See http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.... for the text.

Are there any other case law examples?

And what makes anyone think that if this issue got to the Supreme Court now that it wouldn't end up like Plessy v. Ferguson in eventually being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education?


I'm just asking questions in trying to become more informed.

Poodle you seriously are dumber than a bag o dicks. The words natural born citizen were put in there for a reason.

For an example of why just go to a USA/Mexico game and look at all the US
citizens there cheering for Mexico and maybe then you can pull your head out of Obama's ass and understand the wise judgement of our founding fathers to put in the language they did.

If you don't want to do that I'd prefer you just pour yourself a big cup of STFU and just crawl back under your ****ing rock.

Karl, the problem is that the US is no longer a functioning constitutional republic. There is no longer any rule of law for the VIPs at the top. The big problem is the American people that will try and sometimes succeed in electing idiots, such as Obama (they tried with Dole and McCain). If he is elected it is a sure sign that the US people are on a death march. Not that the election of Romney will change the outcome, but re-electing Obama is a sure sign of a death wish.

Poodlelover:

The Supreme Court DID, in fact, rule on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" in the case of "Minor v. Happersett" (1874), which states that a NBC is one who is born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents. Others born here are citizens. See my post on page 2 of this thread for more detail, including a link to a story about how an Obama-friendly legal publisher tried to erase all evidence of the case in 2008 - gee, I wonder why? (NOT).

"Are we seriously going to ask for birth certs every time a non-white runs for office? Is his place of birth really in question?"

I am quite white. My wife, though born in Mexico and a Mexican national when we got married and had our kids, is of Eastern European heritage and also quite white. Despite the fact that our 2 quite white kids where born here in the U.S., and the fact that my wife later became a U.S. citizen, they are NOT NBCs, and are thus ineligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. Now, as it happens, I know my kids' family history, so I know that they're not eligible. However, if someday they decided to run for either of those offices (Heaven forbid!), I think that every other person (or at least every registered voter) in the country should have access to sufficient information to figure out if they were, in fact, eligible for the office. That would involve birth certificates, among other things - and so be it.

WRT Obama's place of birth, there are some very serious doubts that have been raised (including by KD on this website) about the authenticity of the ALLEGED birth certificate that appeared on the White House website. In short, it showed numerous signs of being created out of whole cloth. I'll leave it to others to speculate about the reason for that. However, the place of his birth is, for purposes of the NBC issue, utterly beside the point: you see, Obama's father was a British subject at the time of his birth, so Obama CANNOT be a NBC based on the "Minor v. Happersett" ruling.

Lily white or not, EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR ANY FEDERAL OFFICE SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD SAID OFFICE BEFORE THEIR NAME IS PLACED ON A SINGLE BALLOT!!! Race is, as you can see with the above example, completely irrelevant.

I actually do think there have been a few federal cases over the last few years in which the judge has ruled against those challenging O's eligibility. One in NJ and the Orly Taitz case, to name a few. Others were dismissed based on standing issues and other technicalities. And I think I even remember one Judge using Wong Kim Ark as a reason (incorrectly IMO). But nothing from the SCOTUS....and I doubt we ever will get one.

I just don't understand the vitriol on this issue. There's really no reason to get nasty about it. Just look at the objective facts and make a decision.

This could be a key moral issue Romney could take advantage.

"It is in doubt wether Rubio is eligible, therefore, I Romney, will not put the country through this. We have seen 4 years of this. If the SCOTUS would rule on this issue before I make my choice, and I ask they do, I would love to have Rubio on my team"

But Romney is a loser.

Surely the Framers would have known the story behind the first English Prince of Wales. Edward I of England promised the Welsh that he would give them a ruler who was born in Wales and spoke no English. He did. He arranged for his wife to give birth in Wales. The infant spoke no English at the time of his birth. That child became Edward II, King of England. This is the origin of the tradition for the male heir apparent to the throne to carry the title of Prince of Wales.

A racial issue? Please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/pol....