Wednesday, November 13, 2013

OBAMA ADMITS 'BORN IN KENYA'



OBAMA ADMITS 'BORN IN KENYA' - IF TRUE THEN OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBELE FOR POTUS AS PER:  ARTICLE II OF CONSTITUTION AND U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE OF MINOR v HAPPERSETT (1875)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

And just who is going to do anything about it? No one!

Anonymous said...

Can he be the President of a corporation? When was the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, incorporated? Is this the same as your constitutional United States of America, which I understand requires a born citizen?

Anonymous said...

There is nothing anyone can do about it. Obama is not the president of America (the country). He is president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the corporation). The corporation is not bound by the constitution so it does not apply in regard to the citizenship of the country. The UNITED STATES, INC. is a de facto government (fake, acting as). The true government would be a de jure republic responsible to We The People.

Anonymous said...

In Minor, the court found the 14th Amendment didn’t grant a right to vote to anyone (man or woman). Prior cases held there was no Federal right to vote. The second finding in Minor is why the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments were later adopted, which prohibited the denial of voting rights based on race, prior servitude, sex or age (for those 18-years or older). The 19th Amendment required that if a man is granted the right to vote, a women must be granted the same right.

The Court decided before it could determine if Mrs. Minor had a Federal right to vote, it must determine if she was a citizen? (1) If women are not citizens, then that section of the 14th Amendment that forbids States denying rights to citizens wouldn’t apply. (2) The Court then had to determine if the citizenship of women depended on the 14th Amendment. Basically, in the absence of the Amendment, was a women a citizen?

If women weren’t citizens before the 14th Amendment, then did the first section of the Amendment make women “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” citizens based on another clause in the Constitution. But if Mrs. Minor was a citizen without the Amendment, the Court could sidestep deciding if the 14th Amendment granted women citizenship. Since, in this case, the 14th Amendment did not deny citizenship, there was no need to rely on its determination of citizenship, if Mrs. Minor was a citizen based on the another clause of the Constitution.

If women are citizens without the 14th Amendment, then the Amendment can’t grant them citizenship they already have.

“It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed“. [pp. 171, 172]

The Court found Mrs. Minor was a citizen from birth, prior to the 14th Amendment. The reasoning is central to the Court’s definition of “natural born citizen”. The finding in Minor was that she was a citizen based on the original text of the Constitution.

Women, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, had always been considered citizens of the United States.

That petitioner was a citizen without the 14th Amendment was one of the reasons for the other finding, the right to vote, makes the decision precedent-setting.

The citizenship finding in Minor is binding Supreme Court precedent. The finding regarding voting rights was later mooted by the 19th Amendment, the finding regarding citizenship, without the 14th Amendment, stands as binding Supreme Court precedent and has not been overturned or obviated by succeeding Amendments to the Constitution.

In Minor, the Supreme Court didn’t simply determine women were citizens, it provided legal analysis of a “natural born citizen,” referencing the qualifications to be President from Article II section 1, and applying that definition to the petitioner and concluding she met the conditions to be a “natural born citizen.”




smrstrauss said...

Even in Minor v. Happersett, the US Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. If I said: "It has never been doubted that when you wear both suspenders and a belt that will hold your pants up," THAT is not the same thing as saying: "You have to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up."

In short, as the Heritage Foundation book puts it, EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders:



“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]