Precedent Case For Restraint of Fund Raising for Obama: Writ of Mandate ~ Served on the California Secretary of State.

[trooper]

Breaking News: January 19, 2012 ~ Precedent Case For Restraint of Fund Raising for Obama: Writ of Mandate ~ Served on the California Secretary of State.

Sacramento – A legal complaint was served on Obama for America (California) and the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen late Tuesday to keep British-born Barack Obama off the ballot for the Office of the President, because he does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a U.S. Natural Born citizen according to the Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett. The legal action was filed Jan. 6 in Sacramento Superior Court by a group of 7 ad hoc registered voters including an American Independent Party candidate for President.

Several of the petitioners tried seeking resolution against Obama after the 2008 presidential election, but they were told by the California courts that it was too late to make challenges to Obama’s legitimacy, and that they did not have “standing”.

The Writ requests a temporary restraining order of Respondent Debra Bowen (SOS) to bar Obama on the Democratic Party ballot in the primary and/or General Election until the matter of eligibility and ballot access for Respondent Obama is heard. The Writ also requested a temporary restraining order against Respondent Obama and or his agents associated with the Obama for America California from further fundraising in California until further notice by the court. A final demand was for a permanent Injunction against Respondent Obama and Respondent SOS as to Respondent Obama’s ineligibility, barring him from ballot access.

Seven California voters have drawn up the Writ of Mandate over the absence of Constitutional authority and documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office. No dual nationality citizen has ever been declared a U.S. NATURAL BORN Citizen. The Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett that a person must be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents and it has been never been overturned. The U.S. Congress in 2009 usurped the U.S. Constitution when they confirmed Mr. Obama for the Office of the Presidency. They attempted to revise the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment by confirming Obama as POTUS.

One of the seven California Petitioners is Edward C. Noonan of Olivehurst, Yuba County, CA. He is currently a 2012 Presidential candidate for the American Independent Party.

The other six California petitioners are Pamela Barnett (Director of ObamaBallotChallenge.com), Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott. All seven petitioners are affirmed as Ad Hoc registered voters of California, each self represented without an attorney.

The cause of the petition is that Mr. Barack Obama does not qualify for the Office of President of the United States because both of his parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of Obama’s birth. Article II of the US Constitution states that only Natural Born Citizens qualify for the Office of President. Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national of Kenya. This disqualifies Mr. Obama to be Commander in Chief as well as POTUS.

Mr. Noonan said, “Mr. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen.” “It doesn’t matter whether or not he was born in Hawaii, it is a fact that his father was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time of Obama’s birth which disqualifies Mr. Obama from holding the Office,” he said.

“I have a right as a Petitioner to have standing and relief with the California Secretary of State’s Elections Division because I am candidate for 2012 Presidential Campaign,” he said. “The California Elections Code Section §13314 guarantees me the right to challenge the qualifications of Mr. Obama.”

He pointed out that Election Code §13314 states the any challenge needs to be before the ballots are printed.

(a)(1) An elector may seek a writ of mandate alleging that an error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official matter, or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.

He also said, “We are attempting to correct the errors, omissions, or other neglects of the SOS that are in violation of the Election Code and the US Constitution.”

Mr. Noonan said, “If Mr. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as the US Constitution demands of all candidates for US President to be, then this violates the US Constitution.”

Neil Turner, one of the seven petitioners stated, “They, the Congress, Supreme Court and the White House, in fact apparently conspired to revise the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment, by attempting to eliminate the requirement that a President be a NATURAL BORN Citizen.”

Pamela Barnett, Retired Captain, also one of the seven petitioners said, “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told me that I did not have standing to challenge Obama regarding his eligibility after the election in 2008, so I am now part of a legal action to require the California court to rule on Obama’s eligibility for the first time.”

“We have been trying to have Obama’s eligibility heard in court on the merits for 3 years, but citizens were denied standing after the election in 2008. California has a statute that gives us standing before the ballots are printed. We hope that our judge will honor the Constitution and California law and have a fair hearing on the merits and rule on existing Natural Born law,” said Barnett.

“This is about the rule of law. No man should be above it. We need to honor the Constitution,” Barnett said.

Barnett was one of the original litigants in the 2009 legal action Barnett, Alan Keyes v. Obama.

This new, current challenge is only one of the dozens that Mr. Obama is facing across the country regarding his failure to meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/breaking-ca-voters-including-presidential-candidate-challenge-obama-on-california-ballot

[georgiaboy]

More BS!!!!!

[detroitjazzman]

Where do you find this BS??? WOW

[investorman]

Georgi.....not BS, FACTS and there will be more challenges and all will be Constitutionally correct. O must go. Investorman

[fnbplanet]

It's about time someone called him on it. If it's really B.S., it shouldn't be a problem clearing it up then, should it? They questioned McCain's (born in Panama) citizenship - so what's the beef?

[Weapon X]

It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen’” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). It would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark that would definitively answer this question in 1898.

What the case was about

Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.

So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship.

Two Kinds of Citizen

The section from Minor that is alluded to by the opening quotation is one in which the court is describing the state of citizenship in the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (something that is overlooked by those who use the citation). Here is what the court said:

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ”

and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Let’s take a minute to digest that lengthy citation. The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.

The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).

Let me quote from an earlier portion of the decision:

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

What can be seen from this quotation is the distinction between the concept of who is in a class and whether members of that class are citizens. In relating Minor to the question of Obama natural born citizenship Minor informs us that those born citizens are natural born citizens, but Minor does not inform us who are born citizens. Focus on this language from the Court:

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).

All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.

I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.

So in summary:

Minor tells us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized

There was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens.

Minor does not resolve this question

However, it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.

[yota691]

More BS!!!!!

It your state

[mogirl463]

I can't wait to see how many states follow suit on this.....Georgia was first and now Cali.... .... I hope the majority of the states band together to make him prove something that he clearly cannot due to the fact that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WITH PLURAL PARENTS BEING AMERICAN CITIZENS......He needs to go and he needs to go NOW!!!!! The mistake was made and now it must be corrected to stay within our Constitution!!!!!!!

GOOOOOOOO RV!!!!!!

[Weapon X]

I can't wait to see how many states follow suit on this.....Georgia was first and now Cali.... .... I hope the majority of the states band together to make him prove something that he clearly cannot due to the fact that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WITH PLURAL PARENTS BEING AMERICAN CITIZENS......He needs to go and he needs to go NOW!!!!! The mistake was made and now it must be corrected to stay within our Constitution!!!!!!!

GOOOOOOOO RV!!!!!!

Just so you know Georgia is not the first, New Hampshire was the first and the birthers got their rear ends handed to them. Alabama just had the same results. And if you read my prior post you will see how this eligibility challenge will also fall because they are using a false legal precedent.

[CrappieShark]

Lets let the courts decide. And then the American people will decide. One has this argument another has some other argument. Obama is a man of deception and lies. He dissolves Christmas and approves Ramadan at the White House. He is a Muslim. As a Muslim his affections is and always will be for Islam. He lied when he took presidential oath and is not fit to be a president of the USA. We will never know all the lies this man has told and lived. However we are starting to see some of them and it is revolting. When and if we ever do discover where Obama is from and who his parents are he would immediately be rejected because this has been kept secret. By now I am sure there is so much planted "evidence" to divert ones attention we may never know. That he should not have ever been a president of the USA is absolute. His cousin in Africa that he tried to get elected was a Muslim and they wanted to pass Sharia law there. The black Panther connection, the *** connection and they were executed. This man is a life of deception and lies and has made America the laughing stock of the World. He is destroying our constitution and brags about being able to kill Americans. He is not worthy to be in America let alone be a President. Anybody who supports him is a traitor of America in the highest order.