Obama to Ignore Order to Appear in Atlanta Court

I dunno, maybe to show that he is subject to the same laws, as the rest of us?

No fan of Mr. Obama am I,

Fan of Dr. Seuss?

You are right though, what a joke. At the least wouldn't a lawyer be enough to stand there in his place.

What Court Order? You mean that online form that Orly Taitz downloaded from the Georgia .gov website and mailed off to everyone and their brother?

Not valid, not legal, not going to be followed.

The case centers on whether Obama, whose father was Kenyan, qualifies as a "natural born citizen," as required of a president under the Constitution. Some contend that "natural born citizen" means both of a presidential candidate's parents must be U.S. citizens.

"Some" like birthers/racists may contend "that 'natural born citizen' means both of a presidential candidate's parents must be U.S. citizens; HOWEVER, the US Supreme Court is NOT among that "some".

The US Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), opined that, under the US Constitution, ANY person born in the US, except for a child born in the US who is not subject to jurisdiction of the US (like a child of a foreign diplomat), is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the US regardless of the citizenship of either of the parents. That is, per the Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark (which cited and discussed a number of other cases), under the US Constitution, a child born on US soil is a "natural born citizen" under the US Constitution, even if the child's mother and father are both illegal aliens.

Further, birthers often cite the US Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett for their claim that for a person to be a "natural born citizen" both of person's parents must be U.S. citizens. HOWEVER, Minor v. Happersett does NOT hold that a natural born citizen only includes persons born in the US to parents who are citizens of the US.

Rabbit:

I dunno, maybe to show that he is subject to the same laws, as the rest of us?

But he isn't.

What Court Order?

A subpoena, from the judge, Michael Malihi.

Nope ya got it wrong. The Judge did not issue a subpena, Orly Taitz *downloaded* a pre-signed subpena template from the Georgia State website and filled it out with Obama's name.

Look here is one for Orly Taitz herself!

http://www.scribd.com/raicha98/d/75527814-Georgia-Subpoena

The only one in danger of going to jail in this case is Orly Taitz.

@crispy2000 -

In Minor v. Happersett, the US Supreme Court EXPRESSLY stated that it was NOT deciding the issue of natural born citizenship of a child born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the child's parents.

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.

Since the person in question was born of parents who were both citizens, the Court decided it was not necessary to resolve the issue of whether a child born in the US with only one citizen parent or no citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

Meanwhile, in Wong Kim Ark, while the Supreme Court was looking at citizenship under the 14th Amdt., the Supreme Court did opine on the meaning of "natural born citizen". The Court opined:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "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 Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring 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,

also declares that

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

Looking at common law, the Court found:

"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

Looking at common law, the Court concluded:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

Thereafter, the Court FURTHER stated:

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Interestingly, US Citizenship and Immigration Services uses three separate terms: naturalized, native-born, and natural-born citizen. If there's no difference between the latter two, then why should the USCIS distinguish between them?

"Interestingly"? Not really. A person can be a natural-born citizen of the US even if the person is not a native-born citizen of the US. "Native" refers to where the person was born. A person born in the US is a native-born citizen of the US (AND a natural-born citizen of the US (except in the limited instances relating to, for example, the child of a foreign diplomat not subject to the jurisdiction of the US)).

However, even if a person is born outside the US, the person may still be a natural-born citizen of the US. An example of a person being a natural-born citizen, but not a native-born citizen, is John McCain. John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to parents who were both US citizens. However, given that McCain was born to parents who were US citizens, who were only not in the US at the time of McCain's birth because McCain's father was serving the US on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, John McCain is still a natural-born citizen of the US even though he is not a native-born citizen of the US.

@crispy2000 -

Not exactly:

Rather, YES exactly!!! The Minor Court EXPRESSLY said it was NOT deciding that issue:

"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."

The Court is saying we are NOT providing an answer to that question because it didn't need to in that case.

MEANWHILE, the Wong Kim Ark Court DID PROVIDE the answer to that unresolved question when that Court stated:

...therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Article 2 Section 1, there would not have been any need for the writers to put in the grandfather clause: "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

YES, there WAS a need. Without that clause, at that time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, NO ONE would have been eligible to serve as President of the US, because at the time of ratification of the US Constitution, NO ONE 35 years of age was a "natural born citizen" in the US - there was NO WAY they could be, because the US Constitution had just been adopted.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ... ." Given this clause, it is clear that the term "Citizen" is referring to a citizen of the United States, and thus, "natural born Citizen" was referring to someone who would be a natural born citizen of the United States. Since the United States did not exist until the US Constitution was adopted (and ratified), a person could not be a "natural born citizen" of the United States unless that person was born in the US after the US was formed in 1787 upon adoption (and subsequent ratification) of the US Constitution.

However, even if we were to go back to the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781 (or its approval in 1777), as establishing us as a nation of states, at the time of adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, the oldest "natural born citizen" would only be 6 years old (or 10 years old based on the approval date of the Articles of Confederation).

I'm going to make this brief because I've posted more detail in other birther seeds.

• The judge did not send a subpoena to PBO. Orly Taitz did by using Malihi's template. She was not authorized to do that.
• Those subpoenas do not extend across GA's border unless they get the other state to compel.
• To subpoena PBO, one needs an order from a federal court. This was not the case.
• Administrative Law Judge Malihi is not a judicial judge. He is an administrative judge, like a hearing officer. He is in the State's Executive Branch, not the Judicial.
• There is nothing to depose him on. The only pertinent issues are citizenship, age and residency. His birth certificate takes care of the first two and judicial note that PBO has been in public office since 1997 does the latter.

Nothing about these hearings were valid. The ALJ doesn't have the authority to decide constitutional matters and the Secr of State cannot remove a party's presidential candidate from the ballot.

It is partisan bs and a loser from the beginning.

Minor v. Happersett is in dicta and only states at the time what they knew for sure. What they didn't know was not addressed since it didn't apply to there case.

What they didn't know was resolved in Wong Kim Ark.

In Ankeny, that ruling cited WKA -

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Ankeny pg 10. B. Natural Born Citizens

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.”

crispy2000 -

Your reasoning on M v. H is gibberish. There were doubts at the time and as you noted it was not relevant. So, now enter WKA which resolves any doubts.

For real legal information, read this -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

Remember that what Orly is trying to prevent is Obama's name on the *Primary* ballot. No one says the DNC has to even *hold* a Primary election in Georgia f they don't want to.

Basically just another massive birther-fail

Besides the lawyer for the Georgia Democratic Party blew off the Judge with apparently no consequences.

from the same source

Obama Hearing Ends: No Rulings by the Judge

by Keith Koffler on January 26, 2012, 12:44 pm

A hearing in Atlanta on whether President Obama meets the Constitutional requirements for the presidency ended at midday without a ruling by the judge.

Georgia Administrative Hearings Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi gave no indication when he will rule or whether he will sanction President Obama and his attorneys, all of whom refused to attend the hearing.

@crispy2000: I was really going for the "Bailiffs try to serve Obama with contempt of court charges - hijinks ensue" thing. But your scenario is intriguing as well.

Love it! One of Peter Sellers' best roles.

crispy2000 -

The SoS does not have the authority to remove the President's name from the ballot.

Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State

214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.

Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:

This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.

It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.

Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.

In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….

As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.

All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).

The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.

We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.

Very truly yours,

MICHAEL JABLONSKI
Attorney for President Barack Obama

They would most certainly lose in federal or appelate court if the Secr of State tried to remove PBO's name from the ballot.

Sadly, everything you state in your posts are simply birther nonsense with no basis is fact or reality.

Ordered to appear as what?

Defendant? What is the charge against him?

Witness? witness to what, his birth?

Lmao this just keeps getting more bizarre by the moment.

He may not be able to issue a bench warrant for the President's arrest,

He is not a real judge. He can do no such thing.

http://www.osah.ga.gov/

To resolve disputes between the public and state agencies in a timely, impartial, courteous and professional manner.

He renders no judgements or rulings. He makes recommendations to the SoS of GA.

He was way out of his league. He is usually given the ballot dispute cases in GA, but the Presidency is a federal matter and he doesn't have jack @!$%# say in it at all. His recommendation will mean nothing.

He simply is not a 'natural-born' citizen (required for P&VP) because he was born to a non-US citizen father.

COMPLETELY FALSE!!!

A person born in the US IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REGARDLESS of whether EITHER of his parents are US citizens (except in limited instances, such as, for example, when the person's parent is a foreign diplomat not subject to US jurisdiction, and thus, the person also would not be subject to US jurisdiction). For example, if a Canadian woman who is pregnant by her Canadian husband comes to the US illegally and has a baby in the US, that baby is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States.

With regard to President Obama, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER whether his father was a US citizen or not, whether his father was in the US legally or not, whether Obama's mother became pregnant while in the US or not, etc. The ONLY thing that matters is that President Obama was born in the US. Since President Obama was born in the US, he is IN FACT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as that phrase has been interpreted for constitutional purposes by the US Supreme Court.

My understanding is that there is a difference between the Art. II 'natural-born' and the 14th's 'born' (born in America).

there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen, we hardly saw the clause “natural born” Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a “Citizen” of the United States or a “native-born citizen,” whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all “natural born” Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth.

He simply is not a 'natural-born' citizen (required for P&VP) because he was born to a non-US citizen father.

Such a thing has never been decided, anywhere. If you follow SCOTUS on the matter, Natural-Born Citizenship has been established as granted by jus soli, not jus sanguinis.

Also Chester A. Arthur - our 21st President - was born to an non-citizen Irish father. The father was naturalized 20 years after Chester's birth.

My understanding is that there is a difference between the Art. II 'natural-born' and the 14th's 'born' (born in America).

there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen

I don't know what source you're quoting - but it doesn't identify the difference. It doesn't say why there's a difference. It blankly asserts a difference and moves on.

The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth.

That'd be because there are only two types of citizenship in the U.S. Citizen at birth, and naturalized citizen.

See my comments at #2.10 and #2.12 for more regarding the US Supreme Court and the interpretation of "natural born citizen".

However, in Wong Kim Ark, the US Supreme Court did IN FACT opine as to the meaning of "natural born citizen". While that Court only needed to determine whether Wong Kim Ark was a citizen for purposes of the 14th Amdt., the Court went FURTHER and actually opined that a child born in the US of alien parents is a natural born citizen of the US under the US Constitution.

The Wong Kim Ark Court stated:

...therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Even though it was not absolutely necessary for the Wong Kim Ark Court to determine who would be considered a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution, the Wong Kim Ark Court did IN FACT do so.

Could the Wong Kim Ark Court have limited its opinion and said: "While for reasons stated we find that a person born in the US to alien parents is a citizen of the US, we do not today decide whether a person born in the US to alien parents is a natural born citizen under the US Constitution."? Yes, the Court could have, but the Court did NOT do that.

Instead, the Court looked at the common law in Britain, and determined that, under British common law, a child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The Wong Kim Ark Court further went on to opine that this SAME RULE applied in the US and under the US Constitution.

CL1 -

Did you see my earlier post?

In Ankeny, that ruling cited WKA -

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Ankeny pg 10. B. Natural Born Citizens

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.”

As IFSCAD stated, if you are born in the US (jus soli) you are a US citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizens, US citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. However, there has been no ruling regarding the nbc status for someone born outside the US (jus sanguinis) yet still a US citizen at birth.

If what you claim were really true, the Republicans in Congress would have moved to remove the President a long time ago. And even if they couldn't remove him, they would be making an issue of it every day of his Presidency. Why aren't the Republican members of Congress pushing this issue that we have an ineligible President? Because they know it isn't true.

If you are really interested, read the report by the Congressional Research Service -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank",[3] is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

(snip)

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made directly available to members of the public.

Below is what the CRS reported to Congress as the facts regarding natural born citizens -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

Summary

The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of thesoil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law”since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even toalien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to“naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century,there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S.citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory ( jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers ( jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born“in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Details follows the Summary.

Why aren't the Republican members of Congress pushing this issue that we have an ineligible President? Because they know it isn't true.

I don't want to argue that point, Jack OL, because I'm pretty sure you will degrade and belittle my reasoning, as you have in the past (last time was on one of Soc's religion in school articles). We can disagree on issues, but I don't appreciate degradation and condescension in attitude from others, in the process of debate.

No, I don't believe that ("Because they know it isn't true") is the 'reason' at all.

CL1 -

I don't want to argue that point, Jack OL

Indeed.

because I'm pretty sure you will degrade and belittle my reasoning

Oh, really? What was degrading about my previous post (#6.5)? Did you read what the actual experts state about natural born citizens or did you ignore it?

Perhaps if you read things written and cited with legal rulings instead of ignoring them and then stating outlandish theories with no authoritative backing for such claims, your reasoning could be better appreciated.

(last time was on one of Soc's religion in school articles).

If you had a problem then, tell me then. BTW - If it is one of Soc1's articles, it would be dripping with degradation and condescension with regard to atheists. I do get very snarky when one ridicules atheism.

We can disagree on issues, but I don't appreciate degradation and condescension in attitude from others, in the process of debate.

Fine. Ensure you follow the same criteria.

No, I don't believe that ("Because they know it isn't true") is the 'reason' at all.

OK, a reasonable calm discussion. What do you believe could be the reason(s)?

[Removed double posting]

RE: #7

Comment #7 changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with regard to what I have posted regarding the Wong Kim Ark case. As the Supreme Court opined in Wong Kim Ark, under the US Constitution, a person born in the US, even if born to alien parents, is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the US (unless the child is that of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born) - and this rule of law in the US is the same as England's rule.

Well, I won't argue about it. :)

The way I read my info, is that English "common law" would be unconstitutional in that the Founders stressed a specific definition for a "natural born citizen" that is defined by *American common law* -- and IS NOT defined by English common law --as they only define "citizen" rather than "natural born citizen."

This class included the Founders and Framers themselves who were born British “natural born subjects” and who were naturalized to be “Citizens” of the United States by the power of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. But for births after the adoption of the Constitution, it allowed only a “natural born” Citizen to be eligible to be President.

CL1 -

Read the information I cited in #6.5 for a scholarly and legal explanation of the term natural born citizenship. As I noted earlier, the report I linked above was given to Congress as the most reliable and accurate information regarding nbc. That report is what every Congressperson is to use as the foundation of their understanding of the term "natural born citizen."

The way I read my info, is that English "common law" would be unconstitutional in that the Founders stressed a specific definition for a "natural born citizen" that is defined by *American common law* -- and IS NOT defined by English common law --as they only define "citizen" rather than "natural born citizen."

I don't think you understand. English Common Law used in the US was based on the way English Common Law was used in Britain. What they referred to as a natural born subject, we would call a natural born citizen. There is no division of US citizens at birth. The nbc phrase was to ensure a naturalized citizen would not become President.

Again, I cite from the CRS report -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law”since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

BTW - you are citing words which are not your own. You are blockquoting them, however you are not providing the link to the source.

Again, use the CRS report - an authoritiative analysis.

Yes, for basic citizenship.

What I'm arguing above is a Constitutional mandate. Article II "natural born citizen" is NOT the same thing as English Common Law "natural born Subject." (..the Founders 'specifically' addressed 'that' as a difference, and provided a specified requirement for P&VP in the USA)

Article II "natural born citizen" is NOT the same thing as English Common Law "natural born Subject."

The parallel is the same. See my above posts.

.the Founders 'specifically' addressed 'that' as a difference,

Where?

AKJA -

Regardless of whether you moronically favor him or righteously recognize that he is the absolute worst, in history, ever to have stepped into our highest office... let's make this simple:

I love it when soemone starts out with rhetorical bs, it means the rest doesn't get much better.

If any one of us were summoned to answer for a traffic ticket and chose to Fail To Appear before the court without paying the fine, a bench warrant would be issued until the matter was resolved.

You are not aware of the facts. Since you didn't read other posts, such as #2.12, #3.6 and #5.3, you make a statement about something which has already been refuted.

An Administrative Law Judge (i.e. Hearing Officer) is not part of the judiciary. He is a hearing officer. He has no power to issue injunctions, find people in contempt, or do other things that real judges do. He has no power to subpoena the President. (In fact, he didn't - Orly sent out unauthorized subpoenas presigned by the judge). The ALJ should have quashed the subpoena when he found out what Orly did and apologized to the President in his quash.

The AL Judge was disrespectful to the President by not quashing that subpoena. But then again, it has been the hallmark of Republicans to disrespect the President when it isn't one of their guys.