Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligiblity

[Seth]

This is interesting......

Since Obama's lawyer included a copy of the birth certificate Obama has already released and it was entered into evidence, they claim that gives them the right to inspect the original


http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light- ... aii-files/

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,”

Well, they would, of course, be so entitled. They can subpoena the records from the State of Hawaii, I suppose.

They probably don't want to do that, though, because Hawaii will produce a certified copy, because they don't retain the original, and they'll certify that Obama is a citizen. And, if Obama lost the original, oh well. Losing the original birth certificate doesn't make one ineligible to run for President.

But they DO have the original copy, or at least a microfiche of it, or so the Hawaii authorities who claim to have personally inspected it say. The point being that they now have to produce ALL the information they have, not just a computer-generated certificate.

[Tyrannical]

But they DO have the original copy, or at least a microfiche of it

[Coito ergo sum]

This is interesting......

Since Obama's lawyer included a copy of the birth certificate Obama has already released and it was entered into evidence, they claim that gives them the right to inspect the original


http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light- ... aii-files/

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,”

Well, they would, of course, be so entitled. They can subpoena the records from the State of Hawaii, I suppose.

They probably don't want to do that, though, because Hawaii will produce a certified copy, because they don't retain the original, and they'll certify that Obama is a citizen. And, if Obama lost the original, oh well. Losing the original birth certificate doesn't make one ineligible to run for President.

But they DO have the original copy, or at least a microfiche of it, or so the Hawaii authorities who claim to have personally inspected it say. The point being that they now have to produce ALL the information they have, not just a computer-generated certificate.

If it's a copy, then it's not "the original." If they have a microfiche copy, they're not going to deliver the actual microfiche to the court. They'd produce a copy of the microfiche.

They don't have to produce "all the information they have." They have to produce what the court orders produced.

Parties can subpoena whatever they want - documents and things - and if the subpoenaed party objects to the production, then a motion is filed with the court to get a court order. Let's worry about this after a subpoena is served and an objection filed. Then we'll see who wants what and who objects to what.

And, just because a party produces a copy of a document doesn't mean they have to automatically produce all the originals just because one side says they want it. Again, if there is a request for a document, and the party who supposedly has the document objects, then the court will hear the objection.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, please.

I am a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for President.

I was born in the US to two parents who were not citizens. I have been a citizen since birth. You're wrong. Natural born citizen does not mean "born in the US TO TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS."

Nope, you're not eligible to be President. You're a "citizen," not a "natural born citizen," or so the existing case law suggests.

Bullshit. Chester A. Arthur proves otherwise.

And, there is no such caselaw which rules on this issue. If you have a citation, let's see it.

More of your own confusion between "Seth wishes X to be the case" and "X is the case." Those aren't the same thing.

I am a natural born citizen. I was born in the US to two permanent residents. You're wrong.

Natural born citizen means:

1. Born in the US, other than to diplomats serving a foreign country.
2. Children of US citizens born abroad.
3. Children born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Citation?

United States Constitution, and the United States Code.

In short, the citizenship of Obama's father doesn't mean anything, if Obama was born in the United States.

Well, that's the bone of contention.

Not much of a bone.

Chester A. Arthur - father was Irish and not a citizen when Arthur was born. President. No problem.

You're also wrong about the Supreme Court having "defined" the term. It hasn't. It has mentioned the idea of natural born citizen in passing, in obiter dicta, but it has never, ever ruled on the issue.

Yup, you're right, the Court has never ruled squarely on the subject, and if you read the amicus brief I cited, you will see why there is a legal controversy here.

So, you know you're wrong in your allegation that the Supreme Court ruled that natural born citizen means born in the US to two US citizens. It doesn't. The Court didn't rule that. But, you said it did. You were wrong. Again.

Section 1, Article 2 - 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.

Fourteenth Amendment: 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.

If you're born here, naturally, you're a natural born citizen.

Nope. You're conflating two classes of citizenship. Section 1 Article 2 says "natural born citizen" and the Fourteenth Amendment says only "citizen." You are improperly adding "natural born" to the Fourteenth Amendment language when it does not exist there.

Because "natural born citizen" is only mentioned in ONE PLACE in the Constitution, and because in every other qualification for office, such as Senators and Representatives, only the word "citizen" is used, the well-known rules of statutory interpretation come into play, and as you well know, one of those rules is that every word of the Constitution has meaning. Therefore, "natural born citizen" means something DIFFERENT from "citizen."

Yes, the "citzenship" necessary for congressmen and governors is "naturalized" OR natural born citizens. Like Jennifer Granholm who was governor Michigan and Arnold as Governor of Callyfawneeya could be governors because they are citizens, but they were naturalized. If they were born here, they'd be "natural born" citizens. One who becomes a citizen through other than birth is "naturalized." This isn't complicated, Seth.

The unresolved question for the courts to answer is what, exactly, "natural born" means, and the current cases that mention the term point towards a child of two citizen parents.

Citation to those cases please. They're all published for free on the internet. So, give us the citation of the cases that mention this and point toward the child to two citizen parents.

As the amicus brief explains, there is good reason to believe that this is the construction understood by the Framers when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution, and was the construction understood by the Ratifiers.

Case cite?

A Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, as can governors and other such positions in government. The President has to be a natural, not naturalized, born citizen. That just means he has to be born here.

Yes, a Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, or a citizen, but the President must be a natural born citizen, which is a higher level of citizenship intended to protect the office from foreign influence.

Naturalized: a citizen who became such by reason other than birth.
Natural born: a citizen who became such by birth.

Chester Allen Arthur's situation is very similar to Obama's. Arthur was born in Vermont, to a Vermontian mother, and an IRISH FATHER. Arthur's father was not naturalized until Arthur was 14 years old, yet Arthur was a citizen since birth.


Some people claimed Arthur was born in Canada, not Vermont, but that was never proved.

The C.A. Arthur situation is very similar to the nonsense spouted about Obama now. It's deja vu all over again. Same shit, different day.

At least Arthur's situation belies the MSNBC-fomented allegation that the question of Obama's birth must be some sort of racial thing. Birth "questions" raised about Presidential candidates have been pretty common.

Doesn't matter. If no one challenged his status as a mere citizen and not a natural born citizen, that doesn't change the law. His violation of the Constitution does not remove the requirement.

It goes to show that nobody took the argument seriously then. I wonder why? Perhaps "nonserious issue isn't serious."

The issue of a person's parents' citizenship has been raised many times in the past, but never came to anything. Like Hughes' run against Wilson back in 1916. Shit was raised against Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it was a State. Lawsuits were filed all over the place to stop McCain from serving, because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.

Again, the fact that the issue has never come before the Supreme Court is irrelevant. McCain's birth in the Canal Zone was not relevant because both his parents were born in the US.

But, wasn't he arguably not naturally "born" here? The same cock-a-mamie nonsense can be manufactured.

It's embarrassing. The more people take this stuff seriously, it embarrasses the whole opposition to Obama.

Bottom line, though. The idea that you're presenting that a person, to be eligible to run for president, must not only be born here in the US, but also have 2 US citizens for parents, is just not supported by the law or the constitution.

So you say. There are a good many legal experts who disagree with you who have some very strong legal arguments contrary to your bald assertion, which is why it's an issue today. You have no caselaw stating that a "natural born citizen" MAY have one foreigner as a parent, so the question remains judicially unresolved. And it needs to be judicially resolved, by the Supreme Court, one way or another, in the immediate future, so as to forestall any future controversy like this.

Not so say I. So it is not supported.

I'm waiting for your citations.

The Scotus may not even bother getting involved, because it may see it as a political question, and tell the Congress and the President to work it out. Abstention doctrine.

[Svartalf]

What? CES is eligible to be PotUS?
Flees this dangerous world

[Coito ergo sum]

What? CES is eligible to be PotUS?
Flees this dangerous world :going:

POTUS eligibility requirements have never been that strenuous.

[Svartalf]

They are the same as they were what, a century and a half ago?

[Coito ergo sum]

They are the same as they were what, a century and a half ago?

36 years old and a natural born, as opposed to naturalized, citizen, and can't have been elected twice already (or elected once and served more than 2 years of his predecessors term). The latter bit was added in 1947. Other than that, the eligibility requirements have been the same for 225 ish years.

[Ian]

When did women become eligible? Have they always been?

I should probably know this, but I don't. IMO, I don't think we'll go but a few more terms before we elect a woman President. Nearly happened in '08.

[Svartalf]

Funny how FDR frightened everybody into passing that term limit amendment...

[Svartalf]

When did women become eligible? Have they always been?

I should probably know this, but I don't. IMO, I don't think we'll go but a few more terms before we elect a woman President. Nearly happened in '08.

When were they recognized as full fledged citizens, allowed to vote, hold and manage property in their own name etc?

[Ian]

Nationally, women didn't get the right to vote until 1920. A number of states had it earlier though; Montana elected the first Congresswoman in 1916.

I still predict President Kirsten Gillibrand in 2024, give or take four years.

[Coito ergo sum]

When did women become eligible? Have they always been?

I should probably know this, but I don't. IMO, I don't think we'll go but a few more terms before we elect a woman President. Nearly happened in '08.

I think they were always eligible for office constitutionally, just not to cast a ballot.... I'm pretty sure it was one of those things that wasn't addressed because the idea of a woman holding office in the 1780s was probably about as thinkable as the family dog becoming mayor.

However, that being said, I think the States uniformly disable women from voting and being on ballots for office -- as we know, in the US, the ability to get on the ballot is determined by State law, not federal law. I am pretty sure that in the early days of the nation, women were disabled by all state laws from voting, holding office, suing or being sued in their own name, owning property, making contracts, and the like. Married women were especially disabled, as they became one with their husband, and so he made all the decisions.

We've been asleep at the switch, boys....somehow, we had it all, and now we're up against it!

[Coito ergo sum]

When did women become eligible? Have they always been?

I should probably know this, but I don't. IMO, I don't think we'll go but a few more terms before we elect a woman President. Nearly happened in '08.

When were they recognized as full fledged citizens, allowed to vote, hold and manage property in their own name etc?

It was a gradual process. By the early 1900s they were allowed to vote nationally.

States in the US followed the common law of England, for the most part, which slowly got overturned by statutes here to bring women closer to equality.

[Seth]

Seth, please.

I am a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for President.

I was born in the US to two parents who were not citizens. I have been a citizen since birth. You're wrong. Natural born citizen does not mean "born in the US TO TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS."

Nope, you're not eligible to be President. You're a "citizen," not a "natural born citizen," or so the existing case law suggests.

Bullshit. Chester A. Arthur proves otherwise.

No he doesn't. You know perfectly well that if nobody challenged his eligibility, the fact that he was elected does not change the meaning of the Constitution.

And, there is no such caselaw which rules on this issue. If you have a citation, let's see it.

The only case that even addresses "natural born citizen" is Minor v. Hauppert, which has been cited already.

More of your own confusion between "Seth wishes X to be the case" and "X is the case." Those aren't the same thing.

More of your own obfuscation and pettifoggery in denial of a valid question of constitutional law. You have no caselaw stating that the meaning of the phrase is as you have suggested it is.

I am a natural born citizen. I was born in the US to two permanent residents. You're wrong.

Nope. You're a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizen means:

1. Born in the US, other than to diplomats serving a foreign country.
2. Children of US citizens born abroad.
3. Children born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Citation?

United States Constitution, and the United States Code.

Citation? The Constitution does not define "natural born citizen," which is what the judge pointed out in Minor. Nor does the US Code define "natural born citizen" either. If you think it does, cite it.

In short, the citizenship of Obama's father doesn't mean anything, if Obama was born in the United States.

Well, that's the bone of contention.

Not much of a bone.

Chester A. Arthur - father was Irish and not a citizen when Arthur was born. President. No problem.

Not challenged, not brought to court, not adjudicated, does not change the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution and you know it.

You're also wrong about the Supreme Court having "defined" the term. It hasn't. It has mentioned the idea of natural born citizen in passing, in obiter dicta, but it has never, ever ruled on the issue.

Yup, you're right, the Court has never ruled squarely on the subject, and if you read the amicus brief I cited, you will see why there is a legal controversy here.

So, you know you're wrong in your allegation that the Supreme Court ruled that natural born citizen means born in the US to two US citizens. It doesn't. The Court didn't rule that. But, you said it did. You were wrong. Again.

No, I said the Court has mentioned the phrase, in dicta, and that's the closest it's ever come, so to quote the Minor ruling, resort must be had elsewhere to determine what the original intent of the Founders and Ratifiers was.

Section 1, Article 2 - 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.

Fourteenth Amendment: 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.

If you're born here, naturally, you're a natural born citizen.

Nope. You're conflating two classes of citizenship. Section 1 Article 2 says "natural born citizen" and the Fourteenth Amendment says only "citizen." You are improperly adding "natural born" to the Fourteenth Amendment language when it does not exist there.

Because "natural born citizen" is only mentioned in ONE PLACE in the Constitution, and because in every other qualification for office, such as Senators and Representatives, only the word "citizen" is used, the well-known rules of statutory interpretation come into play, and as you well know, one of those rules is that every word of the Constitution has meaning. Therefore, "natural born citizen" means something DIFFERENT from "citizen."

Yes, the "citzenship" necessary for congressmen and governors is "naturalized" OR natural born citizens. Like Jennifer Granholm who was governor Michigan and Arnold as Governor of Callyfawneeya could be governors because they are citizens, but they were naturalized. If they were born here, they'd be "natural born" citizens. One who becomes a citizen through other than birth is "naturalized." This isn't complicated, Seth.

Look again. The language used in the qualifications for Congresspersons is NOT "natural born citizen," it's merely "citizen" and "naturalized citizen" is implied by the "seven years a citizen of the United States." It's not expressly stated that a naturalized citizen is eligible, it's implied. As i said, "natural born citizen" is only found in ONE place in the Constitution, in the qualification for President, and that explicit phrase has meaning beyond mere surplusage. If the Founders and Ratifiers meant that any "citizen" could be President, they would not have used the words "natural born" in the provision. Therefore, "natural born" means something more, or else, than "citizen." What it means finds its derivation in English common law, as the amicus brief lays out in detail.

Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen. (emphasis added)

The unresolved question for the courts to answer is what, exactly, "natural born" means, and the current cases that mention the term point towards a child of two citizen parents.

Citation to those cases please. They're all published for free on the internet. So, give us the citation of the cases that mention this and point toward the child to two citizen parents.

Been there, done that. Go read the thread and the amicus brief, then get back to me.

As the amicus brief explains, there is good reason to believe that this is the construction understood by the Framers when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution, and was the construction understood by the Ratifiers.

Case cite?

Go read the thread.

A Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, as can governors and other such positions in government. The President has to be a natural, not naturalized, born citizen. That just means he has to be born here.

Yes, a Congressperson can be a naturalized citizen, or a citizen, but the President must be a natural born citizen, which is a higher level of citizenship intended to protect the office from foreign influence.

Naturalized: a citizen who became such by reason other than birth.
Natural born: a citizen who became such by birth.

Nope.

Chester Allen Arthur's situation is very similar to Obama's. Arthur was born in Vermont, to a Vermontian mother, and an IRISH FATHER. Arthur's father was not naturalized until Arthur was 14 years old, yet Arthur was a citizen since birth.


Some people claimed Arthur was born in Canada, not Vermont, but that was never proved.

The C.A. Arthur situation is very similar to the nonsense spouted about Obama now. It's deja vu all over again. Same shit, different day.

At least Arthur's situation belies the MSNBC-fomented allegation that the question of Obama's birth must be some sort of racial thing. Birth "questions" raised about Presidential candidates have been pretty common.

Doesn't matter. If no one challenged his status as a mere citizen and not a natural born citizen, that doesn't change the law. His violation of the Constitution does not remove the requirement.

It goes to show that nobody took the argument seriously then. I wonder why? Perhaps "nonserious issue isn't serious."

Perhaps they didn't care back then. We care now. The law is the law. You know as well as I do that violating the law does not nullify or change the law, it just means somebody got away with a crime.

The issue of a person's parents' citizenship has been raised many times in the past, but never came to anything. Like Hughes' run against Wilson back in 1916. Shit was raised against Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it was a State. Lawsuits were filed all over the place to stop McCain from serving, because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone.

Again, the fact that the issue has never come before the Supreme Court is irrelevant. McCain's birth in the Canal Zone was not relevant because both his parents were born in the US.

But, wasn't he arguably not naturally "born" here? The same cock-a-mamie nonsense can be manufactured.

Not relevant. He's not President. Perhaps had he been elected, the matter would have come before the Court. It didn't, so speculation is moot.

It's embarrassing. The more people take this stuff seriously, it embarrasses the whole opposition to Obama.

Bottom line, though. The idea that you're presenting that a person, to be eligible to run for president, must not only be born here in the US, but also have 2 US citizens for parents, is just not supported by the law or the constitution.

So you say. There are a good many legal experts who disagree with you who have some very strong legal arguments contrary to your bald assertion, which is why it's an issue today. You have no caselaw stating that a "natural born citizen" MAY have one foreigner as a parent, so the question remains judicially unresolved. And it needs to be judicially resolved, by the Supreme Court, one way or another, in the immediate future, so as to forestall any future controversy like this.

Not so say I. So it is not supported.

So say you.

I'm waiting for your citations.

Do your own homework. It's all there for you to find.

The Scotus may not even bother getting involved, because it may see it as a political question, and tell the Congress and the President to work it out. Abstention doctrine.

It's a matter of Constitutional law and interpretation, so the SCOTUS damned well better get involved, because neither Congress nor the President can change the Constitution on their own. Only the People can do that.