According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That’s right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.
It’s not that you haven’t been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.
This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama’s birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.
There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.
At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
Here’s the crux of it.
Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”
Source
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
12 comments:
Do you really believe liberal America is going to believe this. The fact that he is already serving the Kool Aid drinkers as their president has already set a precedent.
9:32 - He's your president, too, whether you voted for him or not. Just like G.W.Bush was mine, no matter how I voted.
He's not the President if he is ineligible .
He won. He is a part of history...forever! Get over it!!
No matter weather he is eligible or not he is already President and for that we will be paying for his retirement for as long as he lives. He never has to worry about getting paid cause the stupid American people have given him a retirement and protection for the rest of his life.
He will loose in 2012 so get over it 12:49....
12:49; you are the one who needs to get over it. according to 90% of the info we have on BO; he truly is not a "legitimate president". a president; yes, but not legitimate according to the U.S. Constitution. i think most in the legal field has known this all along, but knew they couldn't do anything because "all hell" would have broken loose in the "uneducated, uninformed, unteachable classes. the ones who blindly follow this man because of what they "think" he is giving them in the form of entitlements. so deceived; so very deceived.
you're right; BO is a part of our history, but it's an ugly part; not to be proud of.
hopefully we will be relieved of this horrible stain on our nation soon.
Agreed, and if we were to kick him out, Joe Biden would be our president. AACCCCKKKK!
dont worry i did what every good law student would do and make sure it is still good law and so far so good it is
Hey DA: It is spelled "lose."
Some commenters don't seem to understand the meaning of the work ineligible.
If ineligible, the prior election must be reversed. Mr. McCain would then be declared the U. S. President.
The Delegates who cast their votes for the inelgible person would have done so in vain.
This article is misleading. First off, the Supreme Court case was about women's suffrage. There was no question of determining what a natural born citizen was.
Because this matter was not before the court, there are self-described uncertainties about what makes a "natural born citizen."
The relevant sections are quoted, ver batim, below:
"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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9"
Read for yourself and make your own decision. Don't rely on the misinformation of others.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
Post a Comment