US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.
Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.
Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.
Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, 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 can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. 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.
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
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 While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law.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.
Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.
THE SUPREME COURT IN... ...Continued here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president
Confirmed: Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President -Details here.
Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. -Details here.
Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.
Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.
Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Forged Long Form Birth Certificate -Why Isn't Speaker Boehner Investigating? WTNW 20110620 pg 5
26 comments:
Wow. Amazing article by Donofrio. A must-read.
its time to visit dc with some rope
Good, now let's get this imposter out of office.
Until Leo just caught it, we all were reading the opinion clause regarding 'doubt' to refer to NBC, but it does not, if refers to citizenship, the subject of the case. Brilliant catch by Leo. His description is clearly what the author was intending. We will have to withstand the traitorous clamor that the case was about voting, not POTUS eligibility, but the clear statement of the Court as to what NBC means must stand, even if the case was not about POTUS qualifications.
uh this is not anything new...SC precedent has always told us what a nbc is. The problem we have is that we have leadership that does not care about our Constitution. If you have any doubt, just ask why Obama has not been arrested for forgery.
It will take a violent revolution to get things changed back to how our founding fathers envisioned this country.
Until we are ready to do it, this is all just talk as we know Obama is ineligible and a criminal and in the meantime laws will be passed to take our guns.
You are wrong, there is no precident here.
This is what that case says: "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. "
As it says "the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts", it clearly shows that it doesnt make any determination on the subject of what a natural born citizen is, other then that it MUST BE between two parents that are citizens (doesnt say anything about if one of them is).
@Anonymous Yeah, we're all wrong. And Obama isn't worried about this issue either. He's all for an open debate on the subject, right? Brilliant observation.
@Anonymous
You are wrong, there is no precident here.
------------------------------
Then why is Harrison J. Bounel a coward to have it decided in the courts?
I never said that "Obama isn't worried about this issue", or even that Obama is a natural-born citizen. And I have no problem asking the courts for a final determination of the matter. I just read the cited supreme court ruling and it does not show any precedent as to if Obama would be a natural-born citizen.
U.S. V. Wong Kim Ark should be further precedent.
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
@Anonymous
Further evidence of how wrong you are (as if we needed any)..."precident". You're a dumbass.
BTW, you also completely miss the point of the paragraph you quote. Dumbass.
Get Rid Of OBAMA NOW
obama sucks get rid of him
Thanks Helen, this needs to get as much exposure as possible! I see it is getting under some skin and that's a good sign! And many thanks to Leo for his good work! ! rog
I think they should do Obummer like they did with that President Chester Arthur, where they tarred and feathered him and ran him out of town on a rail.
You are wrong sir...The Constituion expressly states that the founders followed Vattels Law of Nations and it is clear from Vattel that to be a natural born citizens a child must be born in the USA (which obama is not) to citizens parents (which obamas father was a british citizen and never became a citizen of the USA) Therefore, obama is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be POTUS...Plain and simple!!
@Pro Graphics
I'm a bit perplexed as to why a post such as this has appeared as it is actually old news by at least two years or more. This was part of the Kerchner et al litigation well over two years ago and Mario Apuzzo has written extensively on the topic from about that time onward.
It seems odd that the writer seems to believe that he's "discovered" this information. It had certainly been submitted to SCOTUS as part of Kerchner et al but possible he never read that extensive submission. I suppose having another lawyer repeating the same information isn't a bad idea since some folks (primarily in Congress, it seems) don't know this. It has actually been known since efore the Kerchner case, even, but not widely disseminated. The writer seems to pretend that "everyone" on all sides of the issue thought there was no precedent ... and THAT is simply nonsense!
@jayjay
Well then, if what you say is true, speak to the author. I was unaware of it and thought it was great. If you have a problem, speak to the author.
Obama and his WHOLE Family should be arrested and tried and found GUILTY of TREASON , FORGERY , and GRAND THEFT LARCENY of AMERICAN TAX Money.... Then taken out and HANGED from a TALL Oak tree.
My dad an immigrant from India married my mom who was daughter of German immigrant and USA born mom, was born in the USA. It was determined later, after my sister was born, that she and my sis were no longer USA citizens. My dad became a naturalized citizen and then they both got their citizenship rights back. This was in the 30's, so even then one had to be the offspring of two citizens to be considered a citizen.
@Anonymous
"The Constituion expressly states that the founders followed Vattels Law of Nations"
Really? Can you cite that?
The Constitution says "law of nations" not "Vattels Law of Nations". What about Hugo Grotius? Quite a stretch to say they 'expressly' followed Vattel...
The document at http://dlaster.com/DOCUMENTS/Why_Barrack_H_Obama_Jr_is_not_President.pdf is part of the Federal case "Purpura v Sebelius" 11-2303 in the Third Circuit. The files are at http://www.jerseyshoreteaparty.org/healthcare and can be downloaded. The case identified 19 specific violations of the U.S. Constitution. Count 6 deals with whether "H.R. 3590" was actually signed into law due to Mr Obama not being a natural born citizen.
The case addresses the origination of the bill/law, various Article 1, Section 8 and 9 issues, Amendments 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 issues.
The Government defaulted by not answering - even after saying they would answer. In fact the Government defaulted at least 4 times and the District Court covered for them. The District Court then fabricated, along with the DOJ (look at what was written and how), the standing claims to try and get rid of the case.
DOJ and the Courts have been doing their best to bury the case. Think of the cases over "H.R. 3590" that have had oral arguments. The DOJ and Courts in this case have been avoiding it. They don't want to create a record.
And Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 states
"... , and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
And historical documents and Supreme Court rulings specifically support that this is Vattel's "Law of Nations". And in Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 a natural born citizen is specifically defined as being born in the country and both parents being citizens of the Country. Mr Obama's father prevents Mr Obama from being a natural born citizen.
Mr Obama at best has 2 legs of the natural born citizenship tripod, and may in fact only have 1 leg - his mother's citizenship. Remember, prior to 2004 Mr Obama claimed to be born in Kenya and his father's side of his family has always said he was born in Kenya. This has been documented all over the place.
@AnonymousCitizenship can be acquired in different manners. Don't confuse natural born citizenship with naturalized or statutory citizenship. They are not the same.
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 creates citizenship (naturalized) as does Amendment 14 (soil). Depending upon parentage one can also get citizenship. For example To my knowledge Germany does not have soil based citizenship. You must have at least 1 German citizen parent to get German citizenship.
A better and much longer description is in this document at http://dlaster.com/DOCUMENTS/Why_Barrack_H_Obama_Jr_is_not_President.pdf (I am the author and did the research myself).
@AnonymousThe 1790 law extended natural born citizenship status to people like Senator McCain. It was repealed in 1795.
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments.