U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!

[divemaster5734]

Site Administrator posted on November 13, 2011 20:51

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!

By Craig Andresen on November 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm

The National Patriot

According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That’s right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.

It’s not that you haven’t been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.

This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama’s birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.

At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

Here’s the crux of it.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:

“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”

Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

Bring this up to your liberal friends and they will laugh at you and call you a right wing nut job for

saying Obama is ineligible but

the quick and accurate response is clear. YOU are not saying this, and neither is the Liberty Legal Foundation. Obama is ineligible so sayeth the United States Supreme Court and if they care to attempt to label the United States Supreme Court of 1875 as right wing nut jobs…so be it and good luck with that.

If the Democratic Party should certify Obama, in the face of this ruling, they would be acting in a fraudulent manner and according to the actions being brought by the Liberty Legal Foundation, it is the political parties which are solely responsible for that certification and the Liberty Legal Foundation intends to hold BOTH parties accountable.

To be specific, the case of Minor v. Happersett was not intended as to solve the question of Presidential eligibility at all. That case was in regard to a woman’s right to vote and while the case itself didn’t draw this specific issue into question, the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, did, in fact address it in the issuing of the Supreme Court’s decision.

“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.”

No doubt, liberals will attempt to cling to this line:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.”

Note that the Chief Justice Waite follows that with:

“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

In this, the Chief Justice, and therefore, the Supreme Court makes clear that the one definition to which there is no doubt is:

“…that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Indeed, there are 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed “Natural Born Citizen.

1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”

3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“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.”

4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“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.”

Clearly, by any of the 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of “Natural Born Citizen” Obama, by the opinions rendered, is not one.

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As the Constitution offers no definition of “Natural Born Citizen” it falls to the United States Supreme Court and the 4 cases in which the Supreme Court provides such a definition appear above.

Forget the birth certificate or swirling questions as to his place of birth, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear.

Obama is not eligible to serve as President and should his name appear on ballots in 2012, it will appear there fraudulently.

[BrokeNoMore]

Like that's gonna happen.

I wish it would.

[leanonme]

sounds legal. will it work though?

[AKVET]

Only time will tell.

[Russell M]

Sorry guys but that is old news... and no - so far nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

[Anti This Anti That]

Since Obama and his regime are good at providing false documents, I sure it won't take long for them to find a document stating his father got citizenship or some kind of lie. This whole regime has been based on nothing but lie, after lie. Also as corrupt as all these judges have become, I am sure they are going to rule in Obama's favor. The justice system is broken, just like the US government leadership is broken.

[Cynthia AH]

Get over it! He's Black...

[Danan]

Get over it! He's Black...

Nothing to do with being BLACK, has everything to do with taking this country apart. You get over it. I listened to Herman Cain tonight on the Savage Nation and the one thing that really made me want to vote for this man is his saying, he would stand up to the UN and they would have an attitude adjustment. WE are the greatest Nation in the world and we will take back our pride in our country. He is the only candidate that has talked about making America proud again. Herman Cain is BLACK and he will have my vote.

So if BLACK is your problem, you get over it.

[jg1]

Nothing to do with being BLACK, has everything to do with taking this country apart. You get over it. I listened to Herman Cain tonight on the Savage Nation and the one thing that really made me want to vote for this man is his saying, he would stand up to the UN and they would have an attitude adjustment. WE are the greatest Nation in the world and we will take back our pride in our country. He is the only candidate that has talked about making America proud again. Herman Cain is BLACK and he will have my vote.

So if BLACK is your problem, you get over it.

He's got my vote too.

[p71rock]

yes O is a BIG LIB that is why!

[Weapon X]

Since Obama and his regime are good at providing false documents, I sure it won't take long for them to find a document stating his father got citizenship or some kind of lie. This whole regime has been based on nothing but lie, after lie. Also as corrupt as all these judges have become, I am sure they are going to rule in Obama's favor. The justice system is broken, just like the US government leadership is broken.

Here is an excerpt of Lynch-v-Clarke-1844, 1 of many court decisions that has stood the stand of time. If you only looked for legal precedences you would really know how wrong the birther claims are.

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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 only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Weapon X

[Capn Geech]

Are we honestly still talking about this? What are we going to do? Take him out of office and set our calanders back 2 years?

With all the problems in the World, this is the most useless waste of time

Tell him you hate him with your vote, not a crybaby way

[TPSprayduster]

Are we honestly still talking about this? What are we going to do? Take him out of office and set our calanders back 2 years?

With all the problems in the World, this is the most useless waste of time

Tell him you hate him with your vote, not a crybaby way

Geech, some of our fellow poster will not let this go. Post and bring up old post that have been debunked or cast off as rumor. I am so confused.

[Anti This Anti That]

Get over it! He's Black...

It has nothing to do with being black, but all to do with being qualified, legal, and being honest. This whole regime is based on nothing but lies and corruption. Stop playing the race card, and start being honest in life.

Here is an excerpt of Lynch-v-Clarke-1844, 1 of many court decisions that has stood the stand of time. If you only looked for legal precedences you would really know how wrong the birther claims are.

Let's put all this citizenship aside for once, and go with this here. Obama is a marxist communist criminal who is using false SS#'s and presenting false documents that have been proven by experts to be false, and to make the long story short, Obama is a danger to America, and is no good for the future of America. I don't know about you, but I do not intend on living in a communist nation ruled by a dictator thug like Obama.

[divemaster5734]

Get over it! He's Black...

huh?

That's about the most bigoted thing anyone has ever said.

You know nothing about me, yet you are willing to imply vile things about my character in order to justify your racism?

What ever happened to people being judged for their actions instead of their skin color?

If you do that, bo would fall short in every rating category.

[TPSprayduster]

Obama is not a full bloodied black man. He's half esau edomite, and half african. Also Obama is not the first black President, or mulatto President. Diwight Esenhower was the first mulatto President. Evidence is online, google it up.

is this necesary?

[k98nights]

"full bloodied?" The ignorance and illiteracy of the general US population absolutely astounds me. This thread has gotten out of hand. Keep your racism to yourself. If you hate Obama then get out and vote next November and quit your pathetic whining... Topic closed.