Birthers - Two Ballot Challenges Filed Against Obama In Georgia

Since no one has brought this up here I will.

What does everyone think about the two complaints that been filed against Obama regarding his eligibility to be President in Georgia?

Here are the two complaints.

Complaint One

Complaint Two

Notice these complaints don't say that Obama wasn't born in the US, but challenge the fact that he is not a "Natural Born Citizen".

His birth certificate clearly states that his father was born in Kenya, not the US.



The Constitution says that the president must be a natural born Citizen, Articel 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution:

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.

The SCOTUS has stated in a couple cases what a Natural Born Citizen is,

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

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

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.

This was then cited in another SCOTUS ruling:

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

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

A couple of other cases also state similar rulings:

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

This case was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

And in

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

The Supreme Court heard this case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

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

If upheld, then Obama, Romney, and Santorum would all be ineligible. Obama would be ineligible due to his dad who was born in Kenya, Romeny would be ineligible due to his dad who was born in Mexico, and Santorum would be ineligible due to his dad being born in Italy. Marco Rubio would also be in ineligible in the future.

So if the Supreme Court has the final say, is Obama, Romney and Santorum screwed or will we have a Constitutional crisis?

Most of this is not my analysis, just reposted for discussion.

Do you accept that the birth certificate released by Barak Obama is authentic? If not why not?

Nicely researched!!! The problem is--as usual--what definition is used. I found this " Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: 'We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”'

So, "When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

Amazingly, the term has never been defined or argued by the Supreme Court, so I see the logic in their case since Obama's dad was not a citizen; however, the counterpoint could argue that the mother is a citizen. Definitely a case for the history books.

The full article can be found here http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11...tizen_defined/

So McCain who was born in Panama and even Al Gore as he was born in Washington DC which is not a state?

Originally Posted by bigdtx

Do you accept that the birth certificate released by Barak Obama is authentic? If not why not?

The authenticity of the birth certificate is not the issue, Obama's father's birthplace is. The Constitution says that the president must be a "natural born Citizen". The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled no less than four times that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is someone who was born of parents who were both citizens.

If this I can further explain anything for you please let me know, I really enjoy it.

Originally Posted by norcalrider

So McCain who was born in Panama and even Al Gore as he was born in Washington DC which is not a state?

Yes, I fully agree. However, in the case of John McCain I believe that it was decided that the base he was born in was technically US soil and both of his parents were citizens. I'm not going to argue either way, I wish John McCain was never eligible.

Mik,
It has been your position that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, considering that position, what do you think about the four decision and how they apply in this case?

The Federalist Papers do not mention the issue of presidential qualifications. However, a well-known treatise on the Constitution published in 1803, like Charles Pinckney's statement in the U.S. Senate in 1800, explicitly discusses the linkage between the "natural born citizen" clause and the need to avoid foreign influence. In particular, this treatise says:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

Why the hell can't you guys decide on your president based on his policies and his character instead of focusing on this BS?

Because few presidential candidates have actual policies or character, and they all have lots of BS though.

Ireland doesn't exactly have the greatest record in the world when it comes to politics... in fact, politics, religion, and food is why my great, great, great, grandpa moved here from Belfast, we are Orangeman!

Brian Deegan,
BTW, we are suppose to be a Nation of Laws, Not Men, which is why all this BS matters.

How long does Mr. Kemp have before he has to respond? The original letter was written in the latter part of Nov.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

How long does Mr. Kemp have before he has to respond? The original letter was written in the latter part of Nov.

He already responded, here it is...

The hearing was this morning.

No ruling in ‘birther' challenge

This is a bad source, but the content tells what happened pretty well...

Originally Posted by wake77

And Teabaggers still wonder why most of the country doesn't take them seriously.

Are you referring to the last website that I posted or the to complaints in Georgia? I think some politicians took them pretty seriously in 2010, namely those that lost...

^How come none of them survived even late into the presidential primary??? Bachmann finished dead last in the state she was born, Perry lagging close behind. No teabagger conservatives left in the race.

Originally Posted by wake77

^How come none of them survived even late into the presidential primary??? Bachmann finished dead last in the state she was born, Perry lagging close behind. No teabagger conservatives left in the race.

Well, I think Ron Paul basically started the movement and he will be there until the end... Of course all of the remaining candidates are chasing the tea party vote. The tea party has had a huge affect on every race from dog catcher to the president.

But, like usual, you can't answer my question.. is your problem with the last website I linked or the birther issue?

Originally Posted by SamIngram

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled no less than four times that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is someone who was born of parents who were both citizens.

When you cite "no less than four times" are you including the first two sources in your original post? Because I don't see how either of those apply.

In the first, Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the Chief Justice wrote:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. ....... Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

So he obviously agrees that, having sought "resort elsewhere", it's about where you are born, as much as is it where your your parents are born. He obviously included both definitions for a reason.

Point = Obama.

Then, in the other SCOTUS ruling:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

So he agreed with the above.

Point = Obama.

I am sorry Rich, you need to read the entire citation. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, defines what a natural born citizen is, it doesn't give two definitions, only one.

That ruling was later used in United States v. Wong Kim case making it a standing legal precedent.

The other two cases that I mentioned are also Supreme Court rulings, but much, much earlier, possibly making them more applicable. Again I am not an attorney; furthermore, what I think doesn't matter, it will be decided in Georgia.

I think the fourteenth amendment is precedent and qualifies him as a natural-born citizen.

Originally Posted by norcalrider

I think the fourteenth amendment is precedent and qualifies him as a natural-born citizen.

Did you see the argument regarding the 14th Amendment in the pleading? I will see if I can get the court transcript, but it was mentioned. I read it a couple hours ago.

This was in that last linked post...

During Welden’s presentation, the attorney also explained that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural born citizen.”

He argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

You can argue anything, doesn't mean you're right. The opinion from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) would support the natural-born citizen argument.

The paragraph before the one cited in Minor says:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7 and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

Naturalized citizens cannot be President. Natural born citizens may.

14th Amendment says: 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 are a person, and you were born, and the place where you were born is the United States, you are a citizen. You are not a naturalized citizen. Because there are are only two ways to become a citizen, according to the case cited, you must be natural born. In other words, if there ever was an ambiguity, it was resolved by the 14th amendment.

Originally Posted by norcalrider

You can argue anything, doesn't mean you're right. The opinion from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) would support the natural-born citizen argument.

For or against the claimant? In who's favor?

I've only read the portion you posted, Sam... and I'm not a lawyer either.

From what is written in your post:

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.

How is his inclusion of this last line not an assertion that it should be considered when defining a natural-born citizen?

Originally Posted by SamIngram

For or against the claimant? In who's favor?

6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark, confirming his citizenship that was granted at birth despite having foreign parents and is a natural-born citizen.

Did they call Donald Trump as an expert witness? What a joke.

7-2

It would not matter if we was born on the moon, he will remain president until the end of his term and then he will run again.

And after 32 posts. Jon Hunter states the smartest thing on this entire thread..

I agree with Mr Hunter at this point it doesn't matter who he is . His record speaks for itself. He is the head of the most corrupt, incompetent and wasteful administration in the history of this country. As he stated when he was running for the first term if I cant turn this economy around in three years I should be a 1 term president . Well do you think the economy is turned around? Mr Obama is a master of speech but talk doesn't get it done he just doesn't know what to do.

I never thought he would be forced out of office. I am more interested in the legal battle.

Originally Posted by joeshmoe

7-2

6-2 Justice McKenna took no part in the case.