Another Challenge Filed Against Obama

[rtrusty]

Another Challenge Filed Against Obama Being Placed on Georgia Primary Ballot

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:59 PM

Subject: Formal Complaint

Dear Mr. Kemp,

As the Secretary of State for the Great State of Georgia in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Georgia; you had to qualify for the position you now hold. For the record I will respectfully remind you it can be found in the State Constitution:

Article V, Section III, Paragraph II

Qualifications. (a) No person shall be eligible to the office of the Secretary of State, Attorney General, State School Superintendent, Commissioner of Insurance, Commissioner of Agriculture, or Commissioner of Labor unless such person shall have been a citizen of the United States for ten years and a legal resident of the state for four years immediately preceding election or appointment and shall have attained the age of 25 years by the date of assuming office.

And just as you had to qualify for office before you could be elected, so too does the President of the United States. The qualifications for the Office of the President of the United States is in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:

Article II, Section I, Clause V

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 Chief Elections Official for the State of Georgia it is your responsibility to

Supervise the elections process and guarantee the sanctity of the ballot.

In order to assure that you comply with this responsibility, the Georgia State Constitution stipulates that you had to take an oath to faithfully discharge your duties.

And might I also respectfully remind you that the United States Constitution, which is the law of the land; affirms that you are bound by that oath to support the U.S. Constitution:

U.S. Const. Article 6 Clause 3

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant you the discretion to pick and choose which parts to uphold and which parts to ignore.

I would like to refer to a statement by The Honorable Sean Jerguson, Georgia Representative Dist. 22:

“I think we can all agree that we are a nation of laws, and we are governed by a nation of laws, and those laws are based on a framework and a foundation called the Constitution.”

Mr. Kemp, you are duty bound to guarantee that only a natural born Citizen as enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution be allowed on the ballot in the Presidential election in 2012.

John Jay, our nation’s first Chief Justice in a letter on July 25, 1787 to George Washington; who at the time was presiding over the Constitutional Convention; said:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

And The U.S. Supreme Court in 1874 defined “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett as children born of two parents who are United States citizens:

"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."

The findings of the Supreme Court in 1874 was unanimous; with no dissention or opposition among the Justices as to the findings, and the definition has not changed.

Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born Citizen of the United States by virtue of his recognized allegiance to a sovereign foreign nation inherited from his father precluding him from eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States. Therefore, according to Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution as defined in the United States Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happerset 88 U.S. 162 (1874) which set binding precedent, the Office of the President of the United States was usurped by an ineligible candidate.

Therefore I am officially filing a formal complaint as to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility and request you remove him from the ballot.

Respectfully,

Kevin R. Powell

Previous challenge: Official Challenge Filed Against Barack Obama Being Placed on the Georgia Primary Ballot - DETAILS HERE

Another Challenge Filed Against Barack Obama Being Placed on the Georgia Primary Ballot

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/another-challenge-filed-against-barack.html

[Anti This Anti That]

The criminal powers that be, know Obama don't stand a chance to get back into the whitehouse come 2012, so there plan is for Obama to declare martial law, or get us involved in a war so Obama can become America's first dictator. I believe 100% that this is what they have planned. I do not plan to go along with it myself, and I do not plan to live under a dictator communist police state. All patriots both male and female should not allow it, if it means fighting a second civil war. It's our right to abolish the government once it get's out of hand, and set up a new one.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Anti This Anti That

[Weapon X]

I love it when the birthers pick and choose and misrepresent a course case just to make a case and yet leave out others that kills their initial complaint

Funny thing they do not dare bring up:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Edited November 29, 2011 by Weapon X

[DinarMillionaire]

I love it when the birthers pick and choose and misrepresent a course case just to make a case and yet leave out others that kills their initial complaint

I love it when Globalist pick and choose and misrepresent, just to make a case and yet leave out common sense genius of the Founding Fathers intentions in the Constitution.

Common sense also tells us, even Democrats in Congress know that Obama/Soetoro does not qualify as "Natural Born".

1) Why the elimination of language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution" by Democrat Nancy Pelosi?

2) Why the four (4) attempts to eliminate the "Natural Born" requirement from the U.S. Constitution by Socialist Democrats just prior to the 2008 elections? It takes 3/4 of the states (36) to ratify amendments to the Constitution anyway.

Why would the Socialist Democrats be trying to change the Constitution to fit Obama?

They know he's not eligible and that is why all of the corrupt shinanigans. We can argue case law all day long, these cases defining "Natural Born Citizen", - George Luria v. United States and Minor v. Happersett counter the cases you always bring.

According to what you try to define, a Russian, Iranian, Mexican or Kenyan, etc., can come to America never attain citizenship, marry and knock up a 'U.S. Citizen' that eventually has the baby on American soil, (owing allegiance to the fathers country as well) and that makes them "Natural Born"? And they are eligible to ascend to the office of President? I very seriously doubt the Founders were that careless in their intent. That's exactly what they were preventing with the "Natural Born" clause.

In the aforementioned example, the baby becomes a "U.S. Citizen" (anchor baby) able to enjoy the rights of being an American Citizen, not a "Natural Born" Citizen, eligible to ascend to the office of President. Common sense tells us the founders did not want it to be as simple as you claim. The founding fathers were much more intelligent than that.

[Weapon X]

According to what you try to define, a Russian, Iranian, Mexican or Kenyan, etc., can come to America never attain citizenship, marry and knock up a 'U.S. Citizen' that eventually has the baby on American soil, (owing allegiance to the fathers country as well) and that makes them "Natural Born"? And they are eligible to ascend to the office of President? I very seriously doubt the Founders were that careless in their intent. That's exactly what they were preventing with the "Natural Born" clause.

In the aforementioned example, the baby becomes a "U.S. Citizen" (anchor baby) able to enjoy the rights of being an American Citizen, not a "Natural Born" Citizen, eligible to ascend to the office of President. Common sense tells us the founders did not want it to be as simple as you claim. The founding fathers were much more intelligent than that.

According to what I want to define??? I have only stated and posted what the SCOTUS has defined as natural/native born citizen. Why is it that you want to accept only Minor v. Happersett, when that case was about the right to vote in elections?? But you try to discard United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), that was about citizenship, so quickly???

Wong Kim Ark had to do with being a citizen of the US and it was decided in a majority vote of 7-2 that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen even thou his parents were not US citizens, you don't like it because it totally debunks and demolishes the birther theories.

Like I said I did not define anything, the SCOTUS as far back as 1898 did it. And yes according to SCOTUS and US laws yes any child born to foreign parents are citizens by virtue of their birth in the US. You may not like it but it has been there before you and me and uless changed in the next couple of decades it will be there after we are gone.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Weapon X

[trooper]

The parameters of birthright citizenship stated in the Wong Kim Ark decision have never subsequently been "seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts".[2] Since Wong's parents were legal residents of the United States at the time of his birth, some legal scholars have argued in recent years that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally, and that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional entitlement to automatic citizenship at birth. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship by statute, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution,

[DinarMillionaire]

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillarious Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen"

This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining). The resolution declared: “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.”

It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court concluded in Minor 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 is why the democrats have been trying to amend Article 2 Section 1 at least 8 times, the latest in 2008.

[mojack]

You guys may give Anti a +1 but do you agree with his statements above? I'm really just curious of TRUE beliefs.

Obama to declare martial law, or get us involved in a war so Obama can become America's first dictator. I believe 100% that this is what they have planned.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=7&t=93153#ixzz1f8WYl6H1

[Weapon X]

Lets keep up the quotes:

Attorney general opinions are precedents and can be relied upon, although not binding on the courts.

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (1862).

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents (1862)

I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States

Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents, 10 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 328, 1862 WL 1393 (U.S.A.G.), available on Westlaw (paid subscription).

Walter Dellinger (Assistant Attorney General) before House subcommittee December 13, 1995

Throughout this country’s history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship. The Constitution itself rests on this principle of the common law. As Justice Noah Swayne wrote in one of the first judicial decisions interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the word “Citizens ‘under our constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.’ We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.”

and

While the Constitution recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications for President, Senators, and Representatives, it contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Prior to that time, citizenship by birth was regulated by common law. And the common law conferred citizenship upon all persons born within the territory of the United States, whether children of citizens or aliens. The only common law exceptions to this generally applicable rule of jus soli were children born under three circumstances — to foreign diplomats, on foreign ships, and to hostile occupying forces — which, under principles of international law, were deemed not to be within the sovereignty of the territory.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents (1862)

I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States

Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents, 10 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 328, 1862 WL 1393 (U.S.A.G.), available on Westlaw (paid subscription).

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (1862).

Lower Courts

Lynch v. Clarke New York in 1844

This case is important because it was among those cited by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as well as other lower court decisions such as Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

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 New York Legal Observer

Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).

Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, defines a native born citizen to be a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States. (2 Kent’s Com. 37-50.)

Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858), as reported in Oliver Lorenzo Barbour, REPORTS OF CASES IN LAW AND EQUITY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Vol. 26 (1858), at 383

Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan (CT 1886)

Moreover, if as is suggested, he [LaFayette ] was born to the advantages of a double allegiance, upon attaining his majority he exercised the right which was his of electing the government to which he would give allegiance, and that election related back to the time of his birth. Upon these authorities LaFayette had by birth what his father did not then have, citizenship of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts. This privilege neither needed nor had any strengthening by reflection from the subsequent naturalization of his father; he held it to the fullest extent in his own, and that the highest right.

Albany law journal

Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

The courts in this case assumed that two children of aliens are “natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

In this case, the children of an illegal immigrant father and a US citizen mother are described as natural born citizens.

The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico.

Tanaka v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1965)

Jalbuena was a natural-born citizen of the United States who moved to the Philippines and, by operation of law, became a Philippine citizen. His action in applying for and receiving a Philippine passport after subscribing to an oath to support the Philippine Constitution, it was held, did not constitute renunciation of his American citizenship;

United States v. Low Hong, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.Circuit Court of Appeals (1919).

Low Hong was born in the United States in 1894 presumably to non-citizen parents (Chinese immigrants could not become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and because of the court’s citation of US v. Wong Kim Ark).

The averments of the amended petition show that the appellee is a natural-born citizen of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 Sup.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

Reference: here.

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cas. 785, C.C. Ky. 1866 (Swayne)

All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural-Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals (2009)

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.

US Senators and Representatives

Senator Lyman Trumbull

By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.

December 11, 2008 letter to constituent

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

Rep. Data Rohrbacher (CA)

…let me just note that the reasons our Founding Fathers added a natural born citizen requirement to the Constitution’s qualification for being President, those reasons may have seemed like they were real back then, but they are archaic, and technologically they have been dealt with in the meantime. The main rationale seems to be that our Founding Fathers had was to protect future generations from undue foreign influence which would happen through the election of a foreign-born leader to the Executive office.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

Edited November 29, 2011 by Weapon X

[DinarMillionaire]

According to what I want to define??? I have only stated and posted what the SCOTUS has defined as natural/native born citizen. Not really. Why is it that you want to accept only Minor v. Happersett, when that case was about the right to vote in elections?? But you try to discard United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), that was about citizenship, so quickly??? Yes, citizenship, but not 'natural born'.

Wong Kim Ark had to do with being a citizen of the US and it was decided in a majority vote of 7-2 that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen even thou his parents were not US citizens, you don't like it because it totally debunks and demolishes the birther theories. No, it does not.

Like I said I did not define anything, the SCOTUS as far back as 1898 did it. And yes according to SCOTUS and US laws yes any child born to foreign parents are citizens by virtue of their birth in the US. You may not like it but it has been there before you and me and uless changed in the next couple of decades it will be there after we are gone.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person born in the United States to non-citizen parents living in the United States is a United States "citizen". This case ruled that birthplace alone was sufficient to make a person a U.S. "citizen", but it did not extend "natural born citizen" status.

In fact, Justice Horace Gray wrote in the Supreme Court ruling that Wong Kim Ark was not intended to extend natural born citizen status. Justice Gray quoted Minor v. Happersett (1874): “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.”

Thus, Justice Gray was saying there is clear agreement and there never has been any doubt that an individual born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents is a natural born citizen—and that was “the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar.” That was what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

[Weapon X]

Wong Kim Ark recognizes only 2 types of citizenship natural.native and naturalized and Judge Grey said so himself.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

[Weapon X]

Justice Gray cited Lynch v. Clarke (1844), in which Vice Chancellor Sandford had ruled that Julia Lynch was a U.S. citizen at birth. Miss Lynch was born in New York, but at the time of her birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens. In his dicta (side commentary), the Vice Chancellor expressed his opinion that Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen.

Justice Gray also cited Circuit Court Justice Swayne's opinion in United States v. Rhodes (1866). According to Justice Swayne, the term "natural-born citizen" should be interpreted and understood according to English common law:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. ... We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. (Justice Swayne, as quoted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

In United States v. Low Hong (1919), the defendant was born in the United States, but was subject to deportation, presumably because his parents were, at the time of his birth, aliens not permanently or legally residing in the U.S. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued dicta that the defendant was a "natural born citizen" according to the reasoning of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (The Federal Reporter Vol 261, 1920, p.74) [38]

According to Judge Dreyer (Ankeny v. Indiana, 2009), the Supreme Court did not rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen but the Court's reasoning seems to imply that he was:

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. (David J. Dreyer, Ankeny v. Indiana, 2009, boldface emphasis added) [39]

[DinarMillionaire]

Why is it that you want to accept only Minor v. Happersett, when that case was about the right to vote in elections?? But you try to discard United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), that was about citizenship, so quickly???

You can quote all the Lower court cases and Attorney General opinions (non binding) you can find to try to make your case. But at the end of the day, you have to go by the Supreme Court decisions. Presidence was set by the Supreme Court MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, that's why I use that case.

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts, it's indissoluble.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana -(that you bring up)– which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong.

A lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

I rest my case, unless you want to try to tackle some of the 'common sense' questions I have brought up above. I noticed you avoided them.

[seabee64]

Man this is good reading! I love this stuff!!!!!!

[Weapon X]

You can quote all the Lower court cases and Attorney General opinions (non binding) you can find to try to make your case. But at the end of the day, you have to go by the Supreme Court decisions. Presidence was set by the Supreme Court MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, that's why I use that case.

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts, it's indissoluble.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana -(that you bring up)– which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong.

A lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

I rest my case, unless you want to try to tackle some of the 'common sense' questions I have brought up above. I noticed you avoided them.

Thats why I quoted Wong Kim Ark even the lower courts have used it to debunk birther cases, or have you forgetten Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals (2009)

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.

The day they overturn that decision you let me know, until then you can misquote anything you want, but case after case lower and SCOTUS, the birthers have been proven wrong about what is a NBC. I added the quotes from attorney generals because they are precedents and can be relied upon, although not binding on the courts. I said that in my prior post.

By the way what the scorecard on all the birther court cases??? As of October 31, 2011 is stands at 86-0, no matter what courts you take it too you are stil striking out, why would that be?? The answer is simple, there is no basis in your claims.

[DinarMillionaire]

Thats why I quoted Wong Kim Ark even the lower courts have used it to debunk birther cases, or have you forgetten Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals (2009)

The day they overturn that decision you let me know, until then you can misquote anything you want, but case after case lower and SCOTUS, the birthers have been proven wrong about what is a NBC. I added the quotes from attorney generals because they are precedents and can be relied upon, although not binding on the courts. I said that in my prior post.

By the way what the scorecard on all the birther court cases??? As of October 31, 2011 is stands at 86-0, no matter what courts you take it too you are stil striking out, why would that be?? The answer is simple, there is no basis in your claims.

ANKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Ankeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards.

Again, Minor Courts must uphold Supreme Court decisions. Why can't you grasp that?